The Smiley Smile Message Board

Ok... I'm a little creeped out in the US right now...

• Benghazi has slipped beyond the happy magazine cover of "Terrorism Under Control - Vote for Obama!" and into the realm of:  It's ok to kill people to re-elect a politician.
• The IRS is officially what now?  The Nixonian wing of the SS?
• The Justice Dept has decided it's cool to tap the phones of the Press -- business AND private.

I've stayed away from the Politickin' here lately, because I think people need to come to their senses on their own.  I can't help anybody that don't want help.  But... sh-t... I'm really blown away lately.  This sh-t's got really dark. 


What'yall think  ???

Just dont mention Iraq and the many, many other attacks on Emabassies whilst W was in the seat!

impeach the bastard

But you just did...   ???  Strange.   :3d

We'll have to see if this stuff upsets people.  That's my point.  Are they going to hold him accountable.  Not whether they're going to have contest, see which President in history was worse, and if they find one... go "okay... this one was more bad.  Therefore, no charges will be made.  Nothing to see here."  That would be silly.  Silly Kangaroo justice.  (aka:  what also floats?  A duck!)

I believe this President has been involved in doing all the creepy things that many have fantasized and projected onto "their W."  The press has sat on this stuff... but now things are bursting.  Oozing.  And they're bad things:  Nixon on roids.

And so, let me guess, you’re getting this from Fox “News”, right?  LOL

 :hat

This is obscene. There are far more important criticisms being made about far worse crimes being committed by the Obama administration but none of them are coming from the extreme right, from whence these particular criticisms come from, and the reason is obvious: the extreme right support the far worse crimes. Obama has expanded and escalated the war in the Middle East, radically expanding in Afghanistan and committing acts of terrorism in Pakistan; he signed into a law a Bush doctrine that legitimized the indefinite detention of American citizens, a violation of basic human rights that has existed since human rights existed as a thing; he has brazenly worked to attack freedom of speech rights with the Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project; he increased global assassinations, which began under Bush; he vetoed a resolution to call an end to illegal settlement expansion in Israel/Palestine.

This is criminal activity on a scale far greater than any of the cases you mention. But there are two exceptions to these cases – one, as mentioned, the scale is far greater and far worse, and two, the extreme right support these far worse crimes. They supported them when their favourite leaders were carrying out similar actions and therefore have to avoid hypocrisy for critiquing crimes that they have previously supported but they also support them on principle – the principle being, I assume, that enormous crimes are acceptable as long as the United States is carrying them out. After all, Obama’s crimes are about as on par with any other US President since WWII. In that case, it is necessary to pick apart the comparatively minor and trivial “scandals” since they are particular, rather than general. No one could accuse a future President, for example, of being slow to call a the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack since it only happened under Obama’s watch. However, you do have to avoid condemning Obama for far worse crimes, like war crimes and serious breaches of human rights, since that is the domain of every US President. And this is why there's virtually no reporting on the above far more serious crimes but a field day on the trivial issues Bean Bag brings up.

I think you raise very important issues, but I wonder if these acts are "criminal" in the legal sense.  One could argue the morality of these acts but I don't think that the Presidents broke the law, as such.  In defense of Presidents Obama and Bush, I do wonder sometimes if we aren't being protected from far worse than we realize.  But, that's just speculation.

As to the IRS and Justice dept. issues revealed over the last few days, there may be some actual law-breaking going on.  And, if nothing else, it smacks of the same paranoia that the Nixon administration operated under.  I just watched "The US vs. John Lennon" a few weeks back and while it falls prey to hero-worship of a flawed guy, the cultural atmosphere brought out in it is very reminiscent of today.  The political sides are very polarized and both sides see conspiracies all over the place.  Like Nixon, did Obama run a "win at all costs" campaign?  Maybe every 40 years or so, we need to clean house and re-set the game.

Absolutely they are but they are rarely brought to any kind of legal setting because of the enormous power that the United States has. It happens rarely - so for example, Nicaragua brought a case to the International Court of Justice who found the US (under Reagan at the time) guilty of terrorism in the region. Such was the power of the US though that the ruling had zero effect:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States)

And this is fairly standard - the US breaks major laws constantly but there's not much anyone can do about it.

This thread should be deleted because this guy deliberately originally posted this on the main board and he knows damn well it doesn't belong there. Why move it, just get rid of it for that rule violation alone. And no, most of us aren't paranoid enough to be "worried" or call this "Nixon on 'roids." But I shouldn't even bother saying that, because the person who started this thread is clearly being a troll who want attention.

You seem very angry about this thread even existing.

It's settled- Let's delete it, Kitty doesn't like it.

None of what you said is true. 


Now... what's really bothering you?

... but, where do you go from there?  Are you going to criticize my penmanship?

And the answer is no.  You're wrong.   :smokin

That's a good point -- every 40 years, etc.  That's basically inline with the generational time-table.  I'm huge into that stuff... because, sh-t who's playing the game?  Exactly... new kids every 40 years.

I always thought we saw the the beginning of the end of this cycle with Clinton.  A bad man with a smile.  The emergence of a new, dastardly style of politickin'.  The Alinsky/Chicago model:  blame your opponent of whatever -- killing grandma, who cares -- just ruin their career, and win the election and raise cash, yo!

And now we've completed the cycle.  We're right back in the Nixon saddle.  The reset button is here.

It is what it is.  Be cool with it folks.  It ain't got sh-t to do with you anyway.  We're better than this.

In all honesty, you did originally post it in the wrong section (General Music Discussion, not the main board), but as that happens all the time here I'd hardly call that a crime.  :)   So I moved it to the Sandbox.
Anyway, no reason to end this topic. Resume please!

 Believe it or not, these stories are also being addressed by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. I think even MSNBC may have mentioned them once or twice.

 I'd like to know the justification for the seizure of the AP phone records.

And did some mid-level functionary at the IRS make these decisions independently?

As for Benghazi, bad things do happen in bad places, but the talking points were an attempt to spin the story. It's murky at best.

Withholding judgement, but none of this is good. 

Where do you get your news from?

Worse than Watergate.
Worse Than Iran-Contra.
Worse than Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski etc.
Worse than Whitewater

This President is just one 'Kent State' away
from being the worst U.S. President ever.

The government has just gotten far too big for its own good. The overreach into privacy is getting out of hand. Obama needs to take this opportunity to hold these agencies accountable. Don't make a fall-guy - just admit that these agencies are doing more harm than good - and then fix the problem.

I do have to give props to Obama for threatening to veto CISPA had it passed, but then there's the signing of the Patriot Act and other privacy intrusions he's been rather flip about. As Moon Dawg says, none of this is good.

Again - none of what you mention there was even close to the worst thing those Presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton) did in their administration - including commiting acts of terrorism, supporting acts of terrorism, illegally spying on American citizens, carrying out assassination campaigns against US citizens, etc. Those are far worse than what is being attributed to Obama though Obama himself has done far worse than these trivial scandals that are being applied to him and they all together make Watergate, Lewinski etc. look about as tame as an issue could possibly be. I repeat: There are far more important criticisms being made about far worse crimes being committed by the Obama administration but none of them are coming from the extreme right, because the extreme right support the far worse crimes. The reason why you think Obama is "one 'Kent State' away from being the worst President ever" is because the extreme right supports the massive terror campaigns, call for genocides, extreme support of genocides, bloodbaths, etc., extreme support for the ongoing destruction of civilizations, and the illegal ideological repression of political groups within the national borders. Those things don't count as bad things because we are doing them in they are done in the name of our value system. So since these horrific crimes are a-ok, then something as trivial as Benghazi must seem like the worst possible thing that could happen.

Too big? Comparatively speaking, the government is almost as small as it has ever been - with the exception of the horrifying days before the stock market crash of 1929.

What's your definition of "extreme right"? I am a libertarian myself and as much "right" (don't like that term) as one can possibly be. I know of no libertarian who supports any of the current traditional wars (Afghanistan) or covert wars (Libya, Syria and so on).

If you consider the Republican party "extreme right", please reconsider. Both parties are the same party - the party of financial oligarchs.

How about presenting some actual numbers, rockandroll?

(http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_total_spending_20c.png)

As you can see government spending of GDP was less than 7 per cent in 1900. Now it is close to 40 per cent. 40 is a bigger number than 7 in my book.

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

True, I should have said it has become too powerful for its own good.

Spending is up (*waiting for a correction from RockandRoll ;D), but the amount of gov't employees is down by quite a bit from 4 years ago.

I would probably be considered "right-wing" and I don't support the warmongering or calls for genocide or assassinations of U.S. citizens. I think if presidents in this country (especially in the last sixty, seventy years or so) were actually held accountable, they all would have been tried and imprisoned for crimes against humanity. But the American people in general are too ignorant - they don't want to hold "their guy" accountable. The GOP didn't want to do it with Bush, and the Democrats don't want to do it with Obama. And it runs on party lines.

I'd say abolishing the state would achieve better ends than letting it grow or shrink, but hey...

We're not deleting anything; he posted it on the wrong board. We're also not going to delete stuff because it hurts someone's feelings.

You are correct and I misspoke. What I meant was that government spending has been about as slow as it has been since before 1929. So while spending of GNP doubled after 1929, and in fact went from 10% in the 20s to 50% during the war, government spending since 2009 has increased only by 0.6%. So I when I said that I was considering the Administration and their relationship to size of government.

Libertarianism is a different sort of extreme right, and not really the kind I am referring to when I use the term.

Yes, both parties are very similar which is something that should come across when I equate the actions of Obama with past leaders. To say simply that they are "the same party" does miss some crucial nuances. They are essentially, two factions that represent, in different ways, the same interersts. Those "different ways" though are crucial and can have all sorts of various effects that are necessary to take account of.

This compass illustrates fairly well my understanding of the ideological positions at work in the US and, I think, confirms pretty much what we are both saying:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012)

I don't get how libertarianism is considered "extreme right". Fiscal conservatism and social tolerance is far from "extreme right". Unless we're talking about the "unchecked corporate power" straw man...

Well, the unchecked corporate power argument is not a straw man since there is empircal evidence for what happens when government does not intervene in the business world (see the United States pre-1929).

Keep in mind, libertarianism is really not considered extreme right. The term, however, has been hijacked by the extreme right in the United States. To quote directly from the political compass website:

Found this chart:

(http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg228_500_350.jpg)

It is true some government employes have been laid off during Obama's presidential stint. In 2009 the US had 666,579 policemen and in 2011 that number was 610,427. You can read about these layoffs all the time:

Layoffs to gut East St. Louis police force (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/layoffs-to-gut-east-st-louis-police-force/article_dfb230c2-9bf3-11df-9731-0017a4a78c22.html)
Linden may lay off dozens of police officers, firefighters to close $5 million budget gap - http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2013/03/linden_faces_5_million_budget.html
Suffer These Crimes in Oakland? Don't Call the Cops - http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Suffer-These-Crimes-in-Oakland-Dont-Call-the-Cops-98266509.html
N.J. City Lays Off 105 Police Officers - http://www.officer.com/news/10362580/nj-city-lays-off-105-police-officers
Cleveland Announces Plans to Lay Off 123 Officers - http://www.officer.com/news/10270501/cleveland-announces-plans-to-lay-off-123-officers
Laying off 500 Detroit Police Officers is Insane! - http://www.officer.com/news/10362580/nj-city-lays-off-105-police-officers

Are these the types of budget cuts we want? No, it is not.

Rules and regulations are killing business owners. They are more than before:

(http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/UploadedFiles/Chamber_Regulations_Chart.png)

I can go on and on. Also consider the growing police and surveillance state in the form of NDAA and Patriot Act.

I prefer "market anarchism" as a better term and definition for this system.

Do you listen to Stefan Molyneaux and his Freedomain Radio? He is an anarcho-capitalist.

I listen to Peter Schiff every day, he is the smartest guy in town. He is a libertarian. Love this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz7boAzeV7s

I watch/listen to Stefan Molyneux, Peter Schiff, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella (friends with him on Facebook, too), Jeffrey Tucker...most of the big ancaps.

Some other great (and funny) guys are Tom Woods and Bob Murphy of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. If you've heard of Walter Block and Jeffrey Tucker you've probably heard of TW and BM too.

One thing that strikes me is the Mises Instiute guys all have a great sense of humor. They are like part time economists and part time comedians.

I forgot to mention Tom Woods and Bob Murphy; I read them as well. The Mises Institute folks in general are great guys. Stephan Kinsella is a riot.

We should go to Porc Fest next year. :)

http://porcfest.com/ I really feel like going.

Stefan Molyneux cancelled his appearance this year, because he has cancer. Hope he gets better.

I'd consider it for David Friedman alone. The Machinery of Freedom helped make me the anarchist I am today.

It may very well be a better - certainly better than Libertarian. But I am also hesitant on it since it seems that market anarchism is more of a fantasy than it is an ideological principle.

Well, market anarchism would never turn into corporatism, since corporations need government to get where they are.

Either way, Obama in his first term at least slowed down government growth more than nearly any President has done in the last 60 years.

Slowing down government growth doesn't solve the problem of big government.

Well, first of all, I am unconvinced that market anarchism could function at all on any level.

Yes, it is true that corporations have been indeed historically dependent on the government to achieve a great deal of their power, but to a large extent that has meant being dependent on the government staying out of their way. They probably would not be able achieve the same things but they would be able to get away with a lot more and would also be forced to resort to the kind of extreme exploitation they were known for in the days when there was far more free enterprise in the U.S.

Never said that it did but it certainly doesn't contribute to it in the way that is being suggested in this thread.

I really appreciate this good discussion we are having, but you are missing one big thing. "Big government" does not equal "number of government employees". There is more to it than that. Having a big government implies the government has usurped a lot of power (and taken away the power its citizens once had). A big government can spy on you, detain you without pressing charges, they can drone you, they can take your money, they can tell your business what to and so on. Like I said before, NDAA, the Patriot Act, the Affordable Care act and other bills have made the US government big and very powerful. 400 sacked police officers make no difference in this equation.

I'm not talking about government employees; government growth refers to federal spending in total.

I already mentioned Obama's frightening use of the government in my first post. In fact, you didn't mention the scariest one of all - the Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project case, which the civil liberties groups have been quite slow to pick up on.

I am not familiar with Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project, but if Eric Holder is for something I am pretty sure libertarians are against it.

oweblammo has already acheived that feat..

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama pulls a Wilson Goode at that march that's supposed to take place on July 4th...

I really don't condone our violent "foreign policy" but it is most certainly not "extreme right"...unless you are using the liberal/Stalinist "right-to-left" scale with Nazis (socialists) as the extreme right and Communists (socialists) as the extreme left. The true extreme right are the "no government" libertarians, anarchists and isolationists who have no interest in violent imperialist empire-building and other foreign entanglements (or domestic power-grabs like The Patriot Acts and Obamacare).

Pretty sure it will be stopped before they cross the bridge into DC.

I wouldn't be shocked.

Fair enough, but herein lies what to me demonstrates one of several very troubling aspects about the contemporary American so-called libertarian movement. This issue should be of primary concern if you are truly in favour of the kind of beliefs you claim to be in favour of. The Holder vs. Humanitarian Law case represents the most brazen attack by the Obama Administration on basic civil rights – probably the first major attack on free speech since the Smith Acts in the early 40s. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by the Obama admin in an attempt to legitimize their position. It stems from the US government charging the Humanitarian Law Project for giving material aid to what the government considers to be a terrorist group. What, in effect, was the reality was that the Humanitarian Law Project counseled the the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to help them to find means to peacefully resolve conflicts. The law then could forbid and prosecute any group for simply talking to any organization that the government arbitrarily opposes even if it is for peacekeeping purposes. In other words, had this law existed in 1988, a peacekeeping group who worked with Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress to find peaceful means to help end violence in Africa could have been prosecuted, since the Pentagon at the time viewed the ANC as one of the “more notorious terrorist groups.”

This kind of attack on basic liberties hasn’t been seen in the US in decades. And I’m afraid the reason why the most ardent proponents of independent liberty and freedom haven’t picked up on it is because the leaders of the movement are not particularly interested in the subject. Because their focus tends to be on issues where the privileged members of society see their rights being curtailed, they don’t much care when an issue involving a non-profit human rights organization is at the forefront of the issue, just as Gary Johnson advocated for the kind of economic structure under which sweatshops typically flourish, thereby restricting the freedoms of the overwhelming majority in order to protect the freedoms of the minority business owners. This is problematic because real libertarianism, as it is related to traditional anarchism, is typically free from authorities who set the tone for what people talk about. I get the same feeling when I see you and TRBB trade back and forth all the important and great institutions and people in the field who you listen to every day. This is completely out of line with classic strains of libertarianism, which would understand this kind of valuing of institutional power as abhorrent and entirely counter-intuitive and the consequences are significant since it clearly has an effect on the things that you consider to be important. In other words, what you consider important is merely what these institutions and authorities consider important. And this, to me, has exactly the opposite to do with freedom, liberty, etc.

Well, you are operating on some basic false assumptions which have been discussed at length on this board but I suppose they do bear some repeating. I’ll go through them one by one:


First of all, the scale that I am using is not a right-to-left scale. It is a double axis scale – one of which is left-to-right, which is based on a firmly accepted understanding of economic positions from anarchist, communist, socialist on the left with social democratic as a position a little left of centre, to neo-liberal, capitalist, free market on the right. The basic point here is that a belief in an economic system in which the means of production are equally controlled is on the left of the spectrum, while belief in an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by an owernship class is on the right of the system. As far as I know, this basic understanding of the left-right axis is firmly entrenched and not seriously critiqued. But this right-left axis alone doesn’t explain or determine where one is positioned on the political scale. A second axis measures socio-political issues from authoritarian to libertarian. In other words, authoritarianism and liberteriarianism are not necessarily bound to a particular position on the left-right scale, though for reasons I will explain below, it is less likely for someone committed to socialist principles to be authoritarian.

Second, this scale couldn’t possibly be “liberal/Stalinist” since the a “liberal/Stalinist” is a contradiction of terms. The scale is essentially the creation of the One World Action charity organization. If you want to refer to them as Stalinist, then that’s up to you.


Nazis are on the extreme right and they are not socialists. In fact, historically, the Nazis under Hitler viciously opposed socialism and there is a long historical record supporting this. When the Nazis came to power, they had one central opposition – namely the Communist Party of Germany which was established by old school Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, although the party grew to take on a more authoritarian stance later. After Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he called for an election in 1933 and a week before the election, the Reichstag building burned down which Hitler claimed was a communist conspiracy so he called for Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree which curbed civil liberties and allowed Hitler to go on a spree of jailing communists. Doing that, along with surpressing the Communist vote – meaning a lack of votes for the central Communist Party - gave the Nazi Party the election. If de-legitimizing communists wasn’t enough, Hitler wanted to ensure the total elimination of socialist views from political authority in Germany. This was known as the Night of the Long Knives, wherein Hitler specifically targeted the the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party, left over from the pre-Hitler days. The central figure behind the element, Otto Strasser had already been expelled as far back as 1930, Hitler took this even further, ultimately executing the leader of the left wing movement Ernst Rohm, because of Rohm's desire to "redistribute wealth" and impose a socialist platform.


It depends on what you mean by Communists. If by Communism you mean the position articulated by Marx wherein you have a society with no political power (entirely Libertarian) with an economic system that is worker-based and majority-based rather than ownership-based then yes, this is precisely the extreme left.

Keep in mind that Communism as it occurred in Russia was not actually Communism but a perversion of Communism. To understand this it is crucial to acknowledge what is perfectly true that Marx articulates his particular economic system in chapter two of The Communist Manifesto as one that has no political power. And indeed, this position was represented in Russia in the years leading up to the revolution – most notably represented by figures such as Antonie Pannekoek, Emma Goldman and others who essentially pushed for the Marxist position, namely a relatively powerless society that was organized in terms of worker’s councils and trade unions.

By 1909, Lenin and Alexander had these members expelled from the Bolsheviks deeming it too left wing and from that point forward essentially ran the Bolshevik movement as a right wing version of communism, much to the dismay of the traditionalists. So about a year after the Russian Revolution takes place, the traditional Marxists immediately objected to Lenin’s control noting correctly that Lenin did not represent a Marxist position. After all, socialism if it was anything, was workers in control over the means of production without any interference and there was none of that occurring whatsoever in Russia nor were there any plans for it to occur and more over, Lenin’s purposeful destruction of the factory councils as soon as he entered power, reaffirmed his opposition to Marxist socialism in practice. Lenin responded to the criticisms by publishing a book of his own writings called Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder and in that book he essentially criticizes Marxism and socialism, targeting the central figures in particular such as Antonie Pannekoek and Sylvia Pankhurst for their Marxist beliefs.

Within a few years Lenin was outright calling the economic system what it was – state capitalism. He stated that state capitalism was "one of the principal aspects" of the New Economic Policy of the Soviet Union. By that time Lenin had enough power that he could afford to be honest. The ultimate failure of the Soviet project was not a failure of Marxism. It was never Marxism nor was it intended to be – the leaders of the movement hated Marxism, hated the Marxists, attacked them in print and outright opposed in practice the very tenets that Marx suggests. The fact that it was more of a capitalist system suggests that it was a loss for capitalism.


Apart from the fact that you align libertarians and anarchists with the right, there is some truth in that. In part this is an unnuanced evaluation, which is why the double-axis method of the compass I use I think is far more significant. That being said, I am curious what your source is for suggesting this particular version of political ideology because as far as I’m concerned it is a drastic misunderstanding to characterize libertarians and anarchists as part of the extreme right, particularly since they are so firmly entrenched in the socialist tradition. Recall that the term libertarian dates to the mid-19th century and comes from Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his form of anarcho-communism from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a fellow anarchist. The two philosophical positions were similar but Déjacque felt that his form of anarchism was different enough that it needed a new name. Anarchism itself is a kind of variation on the socialist and communist models without the dicatorship of the proletariat. Hence, the anarchist revolt in Spain in the 1930s was firmly in line with classic socialist principles and used that as a developmental model for their economic system.

This wikipedia article is a pretty good summary of what I'm referring to, if only for this nugget: "The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)

Any asshole who voted for, supported Reagan, H.W Bush, or GWB and waved their stupid flags for those serial killers has no business criticizing any president from here to eternity. They've forfeited their right to have such an opinion for their own good as to not loudly present themselves complete backward hypocrites....

It's just that stupid redneck bully mentality. "If my big white good ole boy Republican President does it, it's fine by me" ..... Yawn!

But it's fine because weeding out the sociopaths isn't a bad thing.

Same goes with anyone who supported Clinton.

Well, you know that's how partisan politics work, right? The Democrats hated the wars under Bush now they love them under Obama. The Republicans loved the wars under Bush and now they hate them under Obama.

I don't know ANYONE who loves the wars under Obama!

Sorry!  My bad. I was certain I put it in The Sandbox! Looks like I picked the wrong time to quite huffin'.   :lol 

Hey... howabout that, KittKat!?  You were right about one thing.  It's a start!!  :angel:

Let me step in here...

Partisanship.  There's nothing wrong with partisanship.  It's the parties that aren't living up to the demand.
The government is far too powerful, enormous and unwieldy.  Obama cannot control it.  That's his excuse and David Axelrod said as much.

While they're correct -- the government is way out of control -- it's a silly diversion.  They want the government (IRS) terrorizing libertarians and conservatives and the Tea Party.


Pinder... have you ever flown a plane before -- it's ok! It's ok!  We're gonna land this bird... you and me...  :p

Your analysis is still Stalinist. Wikipedia is not a reliable resource for accurate political/economic information. Nice try...but no (Cuban) cigar.

How so?


Since I have made part of my living by assessing the credibility of other people's citations and also ensuring that my own citations are legitimate, I am curious what credentials you have to make that assessment and would also ask on what grounds is it not a reliable resource for accurate political/economic information. Until you can offer these reasons, I will take this response for the reactionary non-response that it is.

I would also suggest that you re-read my post since virtually none of the material I wrote was influenced or taken from Wikipedia. The url I presented was for further reading. In that case, you engaged with exactly none of my points and merely zeroed in on the final line as an excuse to avoid the substantial points I raised above it, none of which, I repeat, came from the website that I posted.

Rockandroll, are you leaning to the left? Just curious. :)

Ha - yes, I'm definitely on the left.

This entire thread is asinine-

Did the IRS single out tea party groups and conservatives for harrasment for the purpose of intimidaion? YES. We all know that.
Was this information known before the 2012 eelction? YES.
Is the person (Sarah Hall Ingraham) who served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012 in charge of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office (Obamacare)- YES

These are facts.

As a sign of one's truthfullness and integrity, are there any leftists on this board that will AT THE VERY LEAST admit that there is some serious corruption going on... you know, call a spade a spade. This isn't an ideological discussion about left vs. right... that is just a distraction. There is some real merda going on from the IRS, and IMO, the Obama administration the purpose of keeping people silenced, scared, and powerless.

...now before you get all bunched up and bring back W., or Clinton, or Mickey 'friggin mouse, forget all that. We are talking right now. Today. This is about the IRS. This is about Obama.

Well, until it can be proven that Obama broke the law that prevents him from requesting “directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer” then we can only suggest that this is not about Obama but about the IRS.

As far as I'm concerned, given that this scandal is trivial in regards to greater crimes committed by Obama, I can safely say that this is the issue that's the distraction, as scandals always are, just as George W. Bush's alleged stupidity and his controversial election win kept the public away from his war crimes, as Lewinsky-gate kept the public away from Clinton's sanctions that led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, etc. Scandals like this are always meant to keep the public away from the more important and far more severe systematic issues.

Re- Read what I wrote- "IMO"... however, even the NEW YORK TIMES is printing that members of the Obama administration knew- back in June of 2012.

Rock n Roll- I know your tactic- you bring up W. You bring up Clinton- I even predicted you would.

The IRS going after people for political means was important enough to be brought up in the Articles of Impeachment of Nixon, so yeah, while it may be in your opinion a distraction, it is important nonetheless. Again- this is Obama's time-
W's time is over... This guy has been in charge for 4 years now, and his party has been in charge since 2007--- This stuff doesn't happen without people knowing... err, before a presidential election.

To be fair, the Republicans have controlled the House since 2011.

No, but I crashed a 747 simulator at LAX when I was 10 years old (my dad was an airline Captain) ..... Maybe that says something :P

Whoa? Even the New York Times?  ::)


No you didn't. What you suggested is that someone would bring up those names as a deflection - as in, "Yeah, okay, but Bush did X." By that logic, your reference to Nixon is as much of a "tactic" as me referencing those names.


Well, the Articles of Impeachment for Nixon were extraordinarily trivial in comparison to the far greater crimes that Nixon committed while in office. In fact, Watergate only came to be because the target of Nixon's criminal behaviour was half of the country's political power and when you target powerful people, that's a no-no but when you commit far worse crimes, like illegally infiltrating and destroying social and political groups on grounds that you have arbitrarily decided that they are too subversive to exist, or carrying out targeted assassinations, or presiding over a call for genocide, as was the case with US actions in Cambodia, then that's perfectly acceptable. Again, Watergate exists as a perfect example of what is to be constituted as legitimate and illegitimate actions and how that's meant to filter down into the population. The media largely kept the public well informed about the Watergate scandal because it was a typical scandal in the same fashion as the kinds that I described above, while keeping the public in the dark about the far greater crimes that were largely acceptable to the ownership class.

And, yes, I do think that this tenuous connection between the White House and a fairly independent body is a far more trivial matter than, say, radically expanding the Middle East war, committing war crimes, and acts of terrorism, and pushing a law that if passed would amount to a free speech violation unseen in the country in over 70 years. But again, we're not supposed to care about those things because, again, those are the things acceptable to the ownership class. To pursue those issues might actually mean recognizing that we fundamentally need to change the system in which we live, rather than say, impeach someone and wait until the next election to vote for the other faction that represents virtually the same issues so that the farce can continue.

You can always spot a neo-Stalinist by their insistence that the Nazi Party in Germany was "right wing".

Remember: When you argue with a Leftist, any 'here & now',  real-time factual information will be dismissed as a "distraction". They'd rather bring up an ex-President who has been out of office for FIVE YEARS.

I don't buy that argument either, there is nothing right about Nationalsozialismus. But I understand why the Cultural-Marxist power elite uses a term like right-wing. They want to demonize people who've seen through their propaganda and agendas. People who want a smaller government are a danger to the power elite so hey, let's call these people Nazis even though there are no similarities.

what are you talking about? If anything, it's the power elite who want smaller government! ..... It's less expensive for them to have less people to pay off, bribe etc etc....

I honestly wonder if anyone dying on the street or in some shitty hospice bed ever thought about how they really want a smaller government.... We're all so smug as to assume we'll never be in such a situation ourselves.

I'll give you a big list of things I am talking about tomorrow. It's almost midnight here now.

Don't bother. I don't buy the "we just want smaller government" line either. Not for a moment. It's just what you're supposed to say when your parents or whoever tell you you're a conservative/Republican or whatever bullshit you decide to accept.

The real power elite are neither leftist/Marxist or Right Wing/Conservative and they laugh at such imbecilic terms.

OK.


Why don't you buy I want smaller government? I want smaller government with all my heart.


This statement is correct. I fully agree.

I just don't buy it anymore than the cliche that "Lefties" want bigger Government. Neither a massive/oppressive Government is optimal, nor is a tiny, ineffective one (this IS a rather large country after all)... Problem I have with right wingers screaming for smaller government is that it comes off as really just "more money for me. f*** everyone else" ....

Any capitalist style system is on the right, and Hitler's Keynesian-style economics was a version of capitalism so indeed the Nazis were on the right.


It has nothing to do with demonizing - it simply has to do with the factual evidence. If it is a demonization to refer to people as being on the right then that's the fault of people who are objectively on the right, not mine for merely stating what is an objective fact.


The only people I've called Nazis are Nazis and I am unsure of anyone in this thread who has done otherwise. Perhaps you can point them out. Until then I can only assume you are arguing against a fabricated construction.

Furthermore, "wanting a small government" does not belong exclusively to one side of the political spectrum. There are both right and left wing positions that call for a small government. Marx noted, as many anarchists who were influenced by Marx picked up, that socialism could only function properly when political power had been eliminated. There are many ways to achieve society with no political power. Certainly the right-wing faux-Libertarians of the American variety are not the first and only ideology to have ever suggested the possibility of a small government.

And while, yes, some activist and political groups who "want a smaller government" or indeed elimination of government altogether as we know it are indeed "a danger to the power elite," that could certainly not be said for the faux-Libertarians who present next to no danger for the "power elite" since they are essentially representing the interests of the "power elite" and hardly stray from the status quo which, quite frankly, is why they get the particular sort of audience they get.

Ok, ok.  It's fact time...

1. Obama has now used the IRS to attack his political opponents.  Nixon X 10.
2. Obama is working with media to keep Benghazi from being nothing but a video you didn't see.  Nixon X 211.3
3. Obama has intimidated innocent Americans who disagree with him.  Nixon x 357

Now... let's all enjoy....

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02461/Obama_fly_2010_2461812c.jpg)

Rand Paul for president! 8)

He is not as good as his dad.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

This is how utterly one dimensional your logic is:

Premise 1:
There are private companies in a capitalist system.

Premise 2:
There were some private companies in Nazi-Germany.

Conclusion:
Therefor Nazi-Germany is capitalist.

Well, it makes sense? Doesn't it? There is not thing wrong with this conclusion. But hey, look here:

Premise 1:
Rules and regulations pertaining to companies are planned and enforced centrally in a socialist system.

Premise 2:
There were a lot of centrally planned rules and regulations pertaining to companies in Nazi-Germany.

Conclusion:
Therefor Nazi-Germany is socialist.

Keynesianism is not capitalism - it is the absence of capitalism. A Keynesian economy is controlled by central planners (central banks, politicians and others), not by free private companies run by ordinary citizens. Please tell me you are aware of this. I wanted to write a longer reply, but I have to go jogging and swimming.

First of all, I disagree with the way you are characterizing my premises. Maybe this is a matter of wording but I would never say something like "There are private companies in a capitalist system" because that would be a little bit like saying "There is water in the ocean" or perhaps more appropriately, "There is wetness in water." I mean, yeah, you can say it and it is sort of true but it is not quite correct. It is not so much that there are private companies in a capitalist system as what actually makes an economic system capitalist is private ownership of the means of production. That's simply what capitalism is. As for your second premise - "There were some private companies in Nazi-Germany" - I wouldn't quite characterize it that way either.

Nationalization was fairly common after the Great Depression and like many other countries, Germany had taken part in attempts to nationalize some resources. What made Germany under the Nazis uniquely different from other western capitalist countries during that same time was their push to transfer ownership of firms to the private sector. In fact, 1934-1937 were crucial years of re-privitization in Germany which saw railways, steel and mining, banking, ship building, and shipping lines placed into private hands. This was a policy that turned, in one particular case, the largest publicly owned business in the world at the time (German Railways or the Deutsche Reichsbahn) into a privately run organization. Indeed, government did intervene in markets as we have seen throughout all historical examples of right-wing capitalist, industrial-based societies. As Claude Guillebaud put it at the time: “the State in fact divested itself of a great deal of its previous direct participation in industry . . . But at the same time state control, regulation and interference in the conduct of economic affairs was enormously extended.” Gullebaud concluded that it was a “cardinal tenet of the Party that the economic order should be based on private initiative and enterprise (in the sense of private ownership of the means of production and the individual assumption of risks) though subject to guidance and control by state.” Guillebaud here could very well be describing the kind of system that brought modern England and the United States to power, though Guillebaud is admittedly leaving out the particularly perverted way that the Nazi state “guided” private industry.


That's entirely uncontroversially false. If socialism is anything, it is the workers in control of their own resources, not resources controlled by some central power. Once workers are in control of their own resources, Marx says, "the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another." In other words, there is no state power in a socialist society. Even those workers who wrestle power away from the ownership class will "have abolished its own supremacy as a class." What Marx describes is nothing like what you are describing which has nothing to do with socialism in any real sense.


Which has nothing to do with socialism.


Like I said, Keynesianism (which always already presupposes the pervasive existence of privately-owned companies, otherwise there would be no Keynesiansim) is a version of capitalism just as the free market capitalism you are talking about is a version of capitalism. Neither of them are THE capitalism nor are they mutually exclusive on every matter. This is why Adam Smith, while advocating for a kind of laissez-faire style capitalism nevertheless concluded that government intervention would be necessary in a market structure. He noted that in any society where there is a division of labour, it is inevitable for the masses to become "ignorant and stupid" because in such a system, people are reduced to performing "a few very simple operations" and even then, those operations are basically dictated by a dominant force. Smith was acutely aware that when one’s “whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same” then one “has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur” and therefore “naturally loses…the habit of such exertion.” It is for this reason that Smith suggested the inevitable need for government intervention in a capitalist society, noting that "unless government takes some pains to prevent it" that this will be "the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall." The central philosophers behind capitalism, Smith included and as representative here, understood quite clearly the very nature of a market and profit-driven society requires the necessity of government intervention.

We know you're a raging right winger, Bean, but just who is all this Obama bashing directed at? Just who around here is defending him? I think he's an awful disgrace and I'm one of them "libtards" to you. I think Bush was worse, but I am no fan of Obama regardless.... You're punching away at air with all this.

RocknRoll, you're wasting your time with these guys because when it comes down to it, they will NEVER EVER consider themselves a part of the great laboring masses performing simple functions for central power. Therefore, your facts fall on deaf ears. One good thing about this country is it's easy to fool oneself and live in a bubble and feel that all is free and easy and Capitalism is just fine because you get to choose between paper or plastic at the supermarket.

I understand that to a degree. I am just one person vs. a huge, historical propaganda campaign carried out by the most powerful elements of society that puts forth the notion that the one thing getting in the way of genuine liberty is government, which also happens to be the thing that gets in the way of the most powerful elements of society that can only function by keeping the public subordinated. However, if what I do has any purpose, it is to help share a discourse for people who want to get involved in genuine activist politics and have a sense that there are real injustices at work but don't know how to put it into words or where to begin looking for solutions. I think part of the reason why this faux-Libertarian movement is so large now amongst a particular element of the population is because, at one point, many of them came from the same place: they sensed something was wrong with the system, there were significant problems affecting their lives and lives around them, and they didn't know exactly what the problems were or how to articulate them. The problem is that because the ruling, powerful elite control such a large amount of information, these well-meaning people could only access a particular kind of answer. Thus, Libertarianism of the American variety takes off. I can only hope that I can in some way contribute to making a few people aware that there are other possibilities that are, to me, far more realistic, humane, and grounded in a kind of genuine historical reality.

And while we're on the subject of using terms correctly and making honest statements, Swedish Frog, I am curious if you could give me an example where a member from the so-called "Cultural-Marxist power elite" (a real misuse of the phrase "power elite," I should add) has used "a term like right-wing" in order "to demonize people who've seen through their propaganda and agendas."

I'm punching at air?   ;)  Yes... but, not exactly.  Obama bashing is required.  The fact that you think Bush is worse is sort of the point.  But I don't want to argue which one is worse -- that's the diversion.  99% of this thread is a "libtard" diversion.  That's the point!   :lol

The issue is this.
Thomas Jefferson:  When the government fears the people, it's liberty.  When people fear the government... it's tyranny.


Most Americans are already "libtards" Pinder. (Your word, not mine).  By default.  They come out of school this way.  By default.  Their "professors" spew it and stroke it.  By default.  Their TV programs serve it up.  By default.  Their musicians and entertainers glamorize it.  By default.  And their news makes it all make happy little sense -- all in time to watch "The Big Bang Theory."  All by bedtime.

We live in a libtard vortex.

When the government fears the people, it's liberty.  When people fear the government... it's tyranny.

It's high-fashion to be a tard.  It's "enlightened" to be a tard.  It's hip to be a tard.  One is deemed evolved to be a clueless, know-it-all-about-nothing Libtard.  And (here's were you come in) if one does not wear the ribbon of ignorance they get called... raging Right-Wingers!  (Am I raging?  I don't feel raging...)

Usually we're called far worse.  Usually it's topic diverting names like "racist" and "bigot."  You know, "war on women" stuff.  You're actually kind to only call me a raging whatever.  So thank you for being so kind.

When people fear the government... it's tyranny.

Perhaps it's overly simple... but it is wonderful point.  And I, for the life of me, cannot believe where we are today.  I'm sitting here in stunned amazement with what people are a putting up with.  How much will they take?  Is protecting the Democrat party, this important?  They're a big evil corporation, by their own definition.

Yet, here it is... Tyranny.

(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Obama/Penn/psu-1.jpg)
(http://cryandhowl.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/swooning-googly-eyed-obama-supporter1.jpg)

Rockandroll. I really think your heart is in the right place. I do not think we speak the same "language". To me a sadistic dictatorship is not a laissez-faire environment. Sorry.

Let's stay on-topic. Have you noticed there have not been any new Obama scandals this week?

.

Sure I could. Happens every day in Sweden. Just read the newspapers. I know you do not speak Swedish.

I will reply to you tomorrow. Going out tonight.

Drunk. The Real Beach Boy please remove this

I'm sorry too because I have no idea what you're talking about. If you think I have suggested that the Nazis presided over "a laissez-faire environment" then I highly suggest you re-read what I wrote since I wrote the exact opposite.

However, quite apart from Nazism, a laissez-faire capitalist environment can very well be tyrannical since the structure of a capitalist system is tyrannical in nature.


Remember that a "Cultural Marxist" is a very specific group and is not synonymous with Marxist. In fact, the connections between Cultural Marxists and Marxism are tenuous at best. I am only saying this because you need to be careful when you use a term like Cultural Marxist, a school in which people like Fredric Jameson, Terry Eagleton, and Slavoj Zizek reside comfortably.

 ::) x1000

No! Diversion would be to mindlessly bash Bush while defending Obama. What YOU are doing is the utmost example of diversion. Problem with right wingers like you is you go to sleep fat and happy when someone like Bush is in office and rah rah whatever death and destruction he wracks upon the land because you think he wears your stripes.... Then when we get a "Democrat" in office you suddenly think you're political or something when all you're doing is being a schoolyard bully because your mommy and daddy told you long ago that you were a Republican.....

I still don't get why people assume that all who oppose Obama's policies agreed with them under Bush. They BOTH suck(ed) as presidents and as people.

Anytime anyone mentions how Bush was bad or worse than Obama, Bean calls is a diversion. Meanwhile, he's posting endless pictures making fun of Obama. Where are the silly Bush insulting pics? You do the math.

The real diversion is how far this has been diverted from the first post of the thread, which was this:



Maybe some folks would rather not talk about the current IRS and the Justice Department issues for their own political reasons, which is sad in a way because those issues have implications far beyond Obama's second term if they're allowed to go unaddressed or brushed under the proverbial carpet. And saying "Bush did it too" or "Clinton did it too" ignores and diverts attention away from what can be done now to prevent such issues from happening again if they are found to be in violation of either the law, the Constitution and Bill Of Rights, or are shown to be any other form of abuse or misuse of government power and authority.

Certainly, not "all." But Bean Bag's thinking points in particular are entirely stolen from the Republican machine. He even still clings to the "death panels" argument.

Yes, but you don't build a house roof first. If you want to enter into a relevant discussion of Obama's policies, you have to go back into the past. Don't worry, this includes going back well beyond Bush.....

It's quite paradoxical to suggest that it is necessary to deal with these issues because they are systematic rather than simply part of Obama's second term and then go on to argue that it is a diversion to point out just how systematic these issues actually are.

But that IS their diversion tactic, rockandroll! They know it too and will keep doing it while accusing us of the same....

And still no comments about the current IRS or Justice Department issues. I'll make it more direct:

1. The IRS: This remains either the only or one of the few government agencies which can accuse a US citizen of wrongdoing, seize assets or property, and force that citizen to then "appeal" to that same agency the enforcement of a penalty rather than have the case heard before an impartial judge in a court. That's what it is, if it should change than it wouldn't be too soon in light of giving the IRS more power and hiring thousands more agents to administer and enforce the Affordable Care Act set to take full effect in 2014 (watch your 2013 tax forms for specific health care questions which you'll need to answer when filing your 2013 federal tax return).

As such a seemingly powerful and autonomous government agency, the ability to use such an agency for political purposes outside their stated purpose and goal is there and has been used for political tactics in the past.

Question: Should we not pursue any and all documented complaints of potential abuse by agents working within the IRS to first gather all the facts, next discipline if not dismiss any agents or groups within the IRS working outside their jurisdiction or stated goal, and finally put in place measures to guarantee such issues will never happen again to any group or individual based on political philosophy?

The IRS should be a non-partisan agency, and by that I mean doing its job outside any political biases or affiliations, solely as an unbiased agency assigned to do a job. The ability to use the IRS in any way as a political weapon against any group on any side of the political spectrum should be eliminated as even a remote possibility.

2. The Justice Department monitoring and potentially tracking the communications of reporters.

At some point the issues of freedom of the press and protecting sources must again become front and center. On a more simplistic level, assume a reporter whom the Justice Department is tracking or surveilling in some way to uncover a confidential source happens to be *your* friend from, say, high school or college. So you call him or her on occasion to chat, you exchange email or Facebook chats, heck you might even be rekindling an old love affair decades later.

Going beyond the basic issue of protecting a confidential source, does a government agency have a right to your private and confidential conversations for the sole reason you happen to be friends with or belong to the same mailing list as a reporter or a confidential source of that reporter, while you have absolutely nothing to do with that case whatsoever?

For some folks that's no big deal, that's part of the digital era, etc. For others, privacy rights either via telephone, mail, or digital communications are much more important and more valuable to protect.

Question: Should a government agency or department, in this case the D.O.J., have the right to seize a reporter's or a news agency's communications for any reason? Should they have the ability to wiretap or monitor any form of communications from any member of the press?

Again, this is an issue where identifying, confronting, and preventing future abuses surrounding an issue like this should be the focus.

If some cannot see these issues beyond "us versus them", don't run protesting and crying in the streets when the "us" and "them" roles are reversed. Better to prevent it from happening at all.

Newt Gingrich (as usual) brought up an interesting point -- our current civil service model is an outdated pile of horse do.  I added "horse do."

These IRS agents are some of the most arrogant pieces of excrement you'll ever meet.  And the horrific OBAMA-idea of having these azzhats in the IRS run OBAMACARE is scary.  SCARY.  That word gets used a lot... but think about it.  "Oh sorry, Mr Bean Bag... but says here you don't like the leader... you get the yellow pill."

"What's the yellow pill?"

"It's yellow.  Do you want it or not?"

Ya'll seen the Seinfeld with Elaine's chart?  For once, I'm not kidding around... this is scary sh!t.  This is tyranny, guys.  WAKE THE FK UP.

Don't worry Bean. My guess is we'll have a Republican president in 2016 and you can go back to sleep with a smile on your face.

and I'm no fan of the IRS. Never have been, never will be. I don't care what stuffed shirt's in the White House.

I can keep going if you want.  Here... let's revisit this dandy...

I mean, this one's ripe.  This will put my kids through college, if you know what I mean!

These are called "banners."  One and done.  They rarely come back, because they're panicked.  What brought them in to post is the topic name.  They know what's inside.  And it's a total world collapse.  The fabric of their political-universe is a small protected bubble.  And this is bad.  They don't want to come back.  They need to express their absolute horror with this topic's existence (and the a-hole who posted it) -- and then they need to get the hell away!

I always laugh, because I usually get called the troll.  I mean, pot, kettle?  Right?!   :lol

That would be nice!  But there will still be libtards.  They just don't go away.  They like power and HATE progress.  And the Republican party will, on schedule, try to "reach across the aisle" and "work with" these lunatics.

So... unfortunately... no.  Sleep is for the dead and libtarded.   :-\

(http://cryandhowl.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/swooning-googly-eyed-obama-supporter1.jpg)

Note that Lois Lerner, who headed up the embattled division of exemptions within the IRS and who had just pleaded the 5th refusing to answer direct questions under oath this week after declaring under oath she had done "nothing wrong", has been placed on "administrative leave" and has been replaced by an interim manager. This was after a coalition of "us and them" including Sens. Levin and McCain had drafted a letter urging the agency to dismiss and replace her.

For even more fun and laughs, search the name Sara Hall Ingram. Ms. Ingram was in a supervisory role within the IRS, where those running the tax-exempt division would answer to her.

Sara Hall Ingram has been promoted to director of the IRS "Affordable Care Office", in charge of administrating the Affordable Care Act, including the determinations of whose current plans meet the new requirements and whose plans fall short and will be subject to penalties and fines, collected through the IRS, if they do not comply.

Essentially the woman whose employees reporting directly to her are the ones being accused of misconduct in determining who qualified for tax-exempt status will now be in charge of the department of the IRS which will determine who qualifies for health care under the new Act.

Again, make sure to check those 2013 federal tax forms, you'll need to answer some questions about your health care when filing your taxes before April 15, 2014.

Just be careful whose petitions you sign or which groups, candidates, or causes you donate to in the next year. The IRS may have a form letter coming to your mailbox using terms like "audit" and "review", even though political affiliation or ideological leaning is supposed to play no part whatsoever in the way the IRS does its job or makes decisions regarding tax status.

How do you feel then about the IRS being put in charge of administering the Affordable Care Act?

I don't want them in charge of anything other than clearing out their offices!

And Bean, you're just showing your true colors as an extreme Right Wing partisan who is incapable of participating in an informed/shaded conversation..... Keep it up. Obama will be gone soon and then what will you do?

Reality isn't as black and white as you think it is.

(http://i41.tinypic.com/2rop9vs.jpg)

Same here, but I wouldn't even trust some of them to do that simple task without causing a problem, or filing a workman's comp case if they strain their back lifting the file box full of their bobblehead dolls and coffee mugs.

That was the same person who came in here, said we were all racists, and bailed like a bitch afterwards when I called that bullshit remark out.

Showing my true colors!?  Was I previously "hiding" my true colors?  :lol

Well, let me finally remove the mask!  Only the Left assumes that people are inherently dishonest, because this is how they are.  They have to be.  They can't be truthful with what they want, because nobody would dig it.  Liberalism is bad, shameful and wouldn't sell d-ck.  That was one of the first things I learned... so I'm glad you brought this up.  Being a Democrat -- a left-wing extremist -- is all about being angry and dishonest, and how to say things to keep people off your trail.  You know... how to make people think you "care."  As one rises through the ranks -- from rent-a-mob thuggery to a volunteer, then to a position of authority and power in the Leftocracy, they learn what to say.  How to hide.

Oh, boy.  This again?   ::)

I wish it were limited to him.  Nothing would make me happier! (see my pics!).  But it's just not that simple.  We've got entire government departments and agencies.  ObamaCare, etc.  The Demorat Party.  My goodness Pinder!  This thread/topic is kind of about that, right?  I mean... it was supposed to be.   :lol  We've got big, big problems.  I really wanted to know if people felt the same way.  We're all in this together.  I mean, it's not "my" country.  It's mine, yours, theirs.  Government is out of control.  Or quite possibly in Total Control.

And stop getting so hung up with me providing balance with my unrelenting bashing of the disgustingly, askew Democrat Party and thus assume that I'm oblivious to the other party.  Reality is not that black in white.
Your chosen picture, Pinder, clearly depicts a reality where both black and white Americans can come together without the Demorat Party.  So this picture should never have gotten out.  Thanks for posting the truth.   ;)

Once again, ALL you've done is slam the "left" and Democrats.....

You have nothing to bring to the table. You are nothing but a slave to word-sausage and it's pathetic. You are a single-minded and simpleminded drone who clings to these childish terms and definitions because they make you feel big and bad and superior. Your misdirection tactics and hypocritical deflection is straight out of grade school... I don't think you'd know a "liberal" if one were sitting right next to you or didn't look exactly like Obama or if you didn't see them on Fox News with a big banner over their head saying "Democrat"

I know I'm being an ass, but I think you might be able to understand what irks me here. I am neither a liberal or a right winger. I keep trying to break this "conversation" out of those constraints, but you keep dragging it back with your Obama pictures (as admittedly funny as they are) and it's rather heartbreaking actually. If you really do care about things as you claim to, you would understand this and quit insisting on enforcing your comfortable definitions. At least amongst us Beach Boys loving friends. If you wonder why "liberals" might put you in an unfair box, maybe it's because they don't want to thrown in with you in even the smallest way because you'll just insult them.... Think about it. Do you see me putting up insulting pictures of Mitt Romney or Bush? No! Have you heard me criticize Obama? The Government? The IRS? Yes! .... So, please ease off the rabid "liberal" bashing, please? It's tiresome.... Speak with examples (which, yes, you've done and I respect that) not rhetoric.

I have.  And I'm glad you brought this up.  This is called surrender.  And I accept.  

And if you (or anyone else) think I'm being an ass, I'm not.  I'm demonstrating how to end this.

Now I'm going to start it back up again.  (This is called salting their fields so they can't grow crops for six generations!!!  :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol )

Ok... yes.  Yes, you have attacked my people relentlessly.  Just not nearly effectively as me.  And as such... you cannot have a military forever.  I'll defend you if you get attacked.  But no planes, bombs or aircraft carriers for you.

I will.  It's a condition of surrender.  If you sign???

Of course you know, I also have my demands... (hint:  What's a liberal?)   ???

Hey, at least you have "your people" .... I ain't got nobody. No Bush, no Obama.....

You have a home.  You're an individual.  We're all individuals.  And that's what they're after.  They want you to forfeit the fact that you are a sanctified, unique entity.  That's their game.

And that's why you think it's wrong to "got nobody," politically speaking.  You know the old religious metaphor of the devil harvesting souls?  Well, that's not really too far off.  In our material world that means stealing your work, effort, dreams and pursuit of happiness.  The fruits of your labor and your time -- your paychecks.  But not just material sh-t.  They don't just want people to be physically dependent, they really want mental dependence.  That's ballgame.  They want people to feel just like how Detroit looks.  

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqya62kTtn1qb7llao1_1280.jpg)

Now they can't get folks like me mentally.  Just not gonna happen.  So that's why they wanted socialized medicine so freakin' bad.  They needs this.  Cuz once they got our physical bodies under their thumb (and under the cold bony finger of the IRS agent) they figure the mind is just a matter of time.  Which is why this IRS scandal is huge.  And absolutely chilling.  And sadly why "cold dead hands" rings true to more and more people everyday.

Here's my best example of an IRS agent-type!  If you've seen Boardwalk Empire... this dude is spot on.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3ur8RXkz1rx13yzo1_500.gif)
"you ever donate to a Tea Party."

The right wing certainly has your soul. See you're happy to conform when it's the side of the table you think you belong on.... So, you really haven't learned a thing.

I've learned that I'm a conformist by hanging out with people who are not conformists.

But I already knew that.   :lol

You're just talking at yourself as you've been doing all along. You are politically and intellectually dishonest with yourself and everyone here. There is absolutely no point in attempting to engage with you because you have no interest in anything other than ranting into the mirror and poating inmature pictures because it makes you feel tough. Goodbye you partisan hack.

Oh yeah?  We'll you're still clueless.  As in:


This quote demonstrates you're nothing but a hackneyed, misinformed individual with a sad, small view of the human race.  I mean, that's is fncking asinine!  Suicidal.  You know... you're not open minded.  You don't even have half the wits to even pretend to know what you're talking about when dealing with sh-t on my level.  You're so fcking nowhere NEAR my level, Pinder, I could sh-t on your head and you wouldn't realize it.  Because it would freeze before it ever got to you.  In fact, if it did land -- you still wouldn't realize it.  Cuz your head is submerged in the doo.  You're selling doo-doo pies and telling people their brownies.



Now... I feel tough.    ;)

No, I am certainly not at your "level".... I, ya know, get out of the house now and again. It's amazing how varied and wonderful the world is when you do so. I makes a lot of one's smug self assurance and negativity obvious for what it is. The basement is yours, Bean. Fire away at nothing.....

Is this the same basement that Obama was hiding in on Sept 11, 2012?

(http://tomohalloran.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/benghazi-grave-mole-hill.jpg)

(http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/files/2012/12/Death-in-Benghazi.jpg)

Hillary Rodham:  "What difference does it make"
(http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/9c/b8/9cb85e105fac37a8afe81ff085f0b912.jpg?itok=lJHuiL8g)

(http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2013/05/16/5_162013_benghazi-remains-28201_r640x400.jpg?5f283927f7404204a81e453b153d50eb7d86d89b)