[Weird how some posters here who apparently really, really hate America are contributing to a Beach Boys tribute site. That's a puzzle wrapped in a conundrum. Pubic schools at fault?]

[quote author=You are hilarious.

You probably think the Benghazi thing is a big scandal too.

By the way, you righties are having quite the week aren't ya? First you lose your traitorous, treasonous Confederate flag, and now the Supreme Court (of which a majority is conservative) just upheld Obamacare for the second time. Ain't life great.

Viva la socialism baby!=quote}

Weird how some posters here who apparently really, really hate America are contributing to a Beach Boys tribute site. That's a puzzle wrapped in a conundrum. Pubic schools at fault?

[This entire thread is asinine-]

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.

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.

Rockandroll, are you leaning to left? Just curious.

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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:

is most certainly not "extreme right"...unless you are using the liberal/Stalinist "right-to-left" scale

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.

with Nazis (socialists) as the extreme right

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.

and Communists (socialists) as the extreme left

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.

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)

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

Yeah? Which of the Nixon-founded Agencies do you work for? The EPA or the DEA? Real domestic policy savants.

Those agencies are needed to combat pollution and drug/gun crimes.

They're doing such a great job of it. Just ask small organic farm owners, Mexican border town residents or Brian Terry's parents.

Would you feel better without them with the cartel having free reign in the southwest US? These cartels are so powerful as "shadow nations" in mexico that the US government has to fight them to ensure "the general welfare" of the people as layed out in the preamble of the Constitution.

I'd feel better if the Justice Dept./ATF/DEA hadn't provided the weapons to the drug cartels TO shoot up the Southwest US with.

Stop throwing insults at rockandroll, and debate his ideas with substance for once.

Or you'll do what? The Marxist/Capitalist debate ended in 1989. The Socialists can never win when the people are informed and motivated.
Hence the last election here...where a fraud was given a second term by the citizens of "The People's Republic Of Honey Boo-Boo-istan".

No guns = No Republic.

That wasn't true in India. They kicked out the British with passive resistance and that was when the British were more powerful.

So, yes, that's bulls#!t - another myth perpetuated in order to keep the weapons industry profiting.

If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means.

I suggest you look back at the thread. I mean, this claim is even more ludicrous than the first one. This is not 1776. You're living in a highly technological first world country that has the most powerful military in the world and an enormous stock of nuclear weapons. If you are going to pretend as if you could fight off the tyranny of that kind of state with guns, then you might as well be living on Neptune. Furthermore, it is simply ignorant of how power operates now. Now, the country is owned by a small group of wealthy elite who are far more powerful than the government. They essentially create the day-to-day conditions of the nation, they basically decide who gets into power, and most importantly they control information and knowledge. The way you truly subordinate people is not by taking away their guns - that may have been true in 1776 or it may be true now in Somalia or something but it's a different world now. Now, you subordinate people by shaping their beliefs to the extent that they share the same point of view as the extremely small minority running the country and exploiting the population. Once the population dutifully argues in favour of their own exploitation, which is by now the norm, it doesn't matter if they have guns or not. Obviously if an authoritarian tyranny is truly going to work, it will work best when the population doesn't realize it's being subordinated or gleefully subordinates themselves. Therefore the powerful elements in society are only too happy that the population is misguided into the belief that the real enemy is some government planning on taking their guns.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

Yeah, thanks for the usual quote that I see consistently from the reactionary right - a real testament to the lack of independent thought amongst your ranks. Again, like I said in the post that you quoted entirely without addressing, the United States is not a third world country, nor are they currently in a colonial relationship. To use the situation of India in the early 20th century to make a comparable case for the US now is a textbook definition of ignorance. And even if that's what Gandhi felt, he nevertheless illustrated very clearly how colonial power can be overthrown without guns and therefore your initial point before you shifted the goalposts that "No guns = No Republic" is flat out false.

You're such a one-trick (collectivist) pony. I've yet to see you present an independent thought on this forum that I haven't been hearing for decades from other 'bourgeois-privileged' Marxist layabouts. Don't feel too safe...the academics are always among the most expendable "elites" in a socialist revolution.

Since you have yet again neglected to engage with the substance of my post, I'm afraid I am unable to take this conversation further.

Typical Commie dodge. Adios, coward.

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

Yeah? Which of the Nixon-founded Agencies do you work for? The EPA or the DEA? Real domestic policy savants.

Those agencies are needed to combat pollution and drug/gun crimes.

They're doing such a great job of it. Just ask small organic farm owners, Mexican border town residents or Brian Terry's parents.

The notion that everyone has an equal chance of success in a capitalist society is ludicrous. The capitalist system works to create wealth through the exploitation of surplus value.  A worker creates more goods than he could possibly need, and the excess is sold on the market.  In this sense, the working class will continue to be at a disadvantage because the value of their labor will go straight to the top. That is an inequality that is built into the capitalist model and it is the reason why in capitalist countries with less government protection, you find a much larger gap between the wealthy and the poor because the system is built to create that gap.

Doesn't the value of a workers labor go directly to him in the form of a paycheck by which he is compensated exactly the amount his labor his worth?

Had to respond quickly so some of this is a repeat:

Labourers don’t get paid for their work. They are paid for their labour time. In a capitalist system, a worker sells their labor to an owner who buys their labor from them at the lowest possible price so that they can make the highest amount of profit (I suppose this how "the amount his labor is worth" is determined) and the only people who are in a legitimate position to decide the terms of this relationship are the owners/shareholders, while the laborer gets absolutely no say, despite the fact that the owner is appropriating the product of their labor and selling it on the market for their own personal profit. This is textbook exploitation. There are ways to make this less exploitative - so, for instance, there might be mechanisms put in place where labor has some kind of bargaining power (i.e. unions). This allows labor to play some role in deciding the terms of the relationship but whatever they get (pensions, vacations, etc.) the relationship will always be a shameful, exploitative, and altogether barbaric one, as long as labor does not get to profit off their own work.

Sheesh...this Marxism thing sure is tiring! That's probably why only the very young and the politically immature have the energy for it.

What's impossible? And a moron with a gun is supposed to be logical? Tell this to my friend Pat who got into an argument with a friend at a BBQ (held in honor of him enlisting in the Marines) and this friend went in the house and came back, held a gun to Pat's head before it was taken away from him by a "responsible gun owner" .... Oh, but the gun went off as he was showing off how to safely unload it and hit
Pat in the leg severing an artery. He was dead before he made it to the hospital.

You are a f***ing idiot.

The rest of us shouldn't be asked to forfeit freedom just because you have stupid, irresponsible friends.

No guns = No Republic.

That wasn't true in India. They kicked out the British with passive resistance and that was when the British were more powerful.

So, yes, that's bulls#!t - another myth perpetuated in order to keep the weapons industry profiting.

If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means.

I suggest you look back at the thread. I mean, this claim is even more ludicrous than the first one. This is not 1776. You're living in a highly technological first world country that has the most powerful military in the world and an enormous stock of nuclear weapons. If you are going to pretend as if you could fight off the tyranny of that kind of state with guns, then you might as well be living on Neptune. Furthermore, it is simply ignorant of how power operates now. Now, the country is owned by a small group of wealthy elite who are far more powerful than the government. They essentially create the day-to-day conditions of the nation, they basically decide who gets into power, and most importantly they control information and knowledge. The way you truly subordinate people is not by taking away their guns - that may have been true in 1776 or it may be true now in Somalia or something but it's a different world now. Now, you subordinate people by shaping their beliefs to the extent that they share the same point of view as the extremely small minority running the country and exploiting the population. Once the population dutifully argues in favour of their own exploitation, which is by now the norm, it doesn't matter if they have guns or not. Obviously if an authoritarian tyranny is truly going to work, it will work best when the population doesn't realize it's being subordinated or gleefully subordinates themselves. Therefore the powerful elements in society are only too happy that the population is misguided into the belief that the real enemy is some government planning on taking their guns.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

Yeah, thanks for the usual quote that I see consistently from the reactionary right - a real testament to the lack of independent thought amongst your ranks. Again, like I said in the post that you quoted entirely without addressing, the United States is not a third world country, nor are they currently in a colonial relationship. To use the situation of India in the early 20th century to make a comparable case for the US now is a textbook definition of ignorance. And even if that's what Gandhi felt, he nevertheless illustrated very clearly how colonial power can be overthrown without guns and therefore your initial point before you shifted the goalposts that "No guns = No Republic" is flat out false.

You're such a one-trick (collectivist) pony. I've yet to see you present an independent thought on this forum that I haven't been hearing for decades from other 'bourgeois-privileged' Marxist layabouts. Don't feel too safe...the academics are always among the most expendable "elites" in a socialist revolution.

No guns = No Republic.

That wasn't true in India. They kicked out the British with passive resistance and that was when the British were more powerful.

So, yes, that's bulls#!t - another myth perpetuated in order to keep the weapons industry profiting.

If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means.

I suggest you look back at the thread. I mean, this claim is even more ludicrous than the first one. This is not 1776. You're living in a highly technological first world country that has the most powerful military in the world and an enormous stock of nuclear weapons. If you are going to pretend as if you could fight off the tyranny of that kind of state with guns, then you might as well be living on Neptune. Furthermore, it is simply ignorant of how power operates now. Now, the country is owned by a small group of wealthy elite who are far more powerful than the government. They essentially create the day-to-day conditions of the nation, they basically decide who gets into power, and most importantly they control information and knowledge. The way you truly subordinate people is not by taking away their guns - that may have been true in 1776 or it may be true now in Somalia or something but it's a different world now. Now, you subordinate people by shaping their beliefs to the extent that they share the same point of view as the extremely small minority running the country and exploiting the population. Once the population dutifully argues in favour of their own exploitation, which is by now the norm, it doesn't matter if they have guns or not. Obviously if an authoritarian tyranny is truly going to work, it will work best when the population doesn't realize it's being subordinated or gleefully subordinates themselves. Therefore the powerful elements in society are only too happy that the population is misguided into the belief that the real enemy is some government planning on taking their guns.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

Beside watergate, Richard Nixon was a great president for the GOP with foreigh policy and domestic policy.

Yeah? Which of the Nixon-founded Agencies do you work for? The EPA or the DEA? Real domestic policy savants.

No guns = No Republic. Nothing complicated there. If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means. A man is being prosecuted in the U.K. now because the family dog might have injured a burglar who was breaking into his home. That's the kind of America that I've been longing for. Personal property rights and individual self-defense are all so "20th Century".

Go on, pretend you aren't glad Romney lost. I dare ya. 

I'm kinda glad Romney lost. It will make the 2016 Marco Rubio Presidential victory all the sweeter after four more years of Obamanomics.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You're glad the Republicans lost so that they will win later? If the goal is that the Republicans win, why would you be glad the Republicans lost?

Mitt Romney was the wrong kind of "Republican". That political party is moribund at this point. The Bush family killed it off decisively.

Go on, pretend you aren't glad Romney lost. I dare ya. 

I'm kinda glad Romney lost. It will make the 2016 Marco Rubio Presidential victory all the sweeter after four more years of Obamanomics.

Another problem that faces the United States is controlling the black-market of weapons to and from Mexico right now.

It might be less of a problem if the Justice Department didn't themselves aid and abet illegal gun trafficking using taxpayer money:

http://www.amazon.com/Fast-Furious-Bloodiest-Shameless-Cover-Up/dp/1596983213/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357933167&sr=1-1&keywords=Fast+%26+Furious

"Beez in a trap..ah ah beez in a trap."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/world/middleeast/netanyahu-warns-that-iran-bombmaking-ability-is-nearer.html?_r=0

I'm starting to think that Benjamin Netanyahu is the worst war criminal on this planet...and DAMN, there's tight competition. There is no nation on this planet more terrifying than Israel.

Uh...were you the guy that I saw chanting "Seig Heil" at the Westboro Baptist Church demonstartion on the news?

Godwin's law, argument over.

Sorry, Charlie. Rabid brainless anti-Antisemitism invites comparisons to the Fourth Reich...and Godwin's Law is not applicable in the case of such obvious Jew-hating bigots such as yourself. Go burn a Synagogue...you'll feel much better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/world/middleeast/netanyahu-warns-that-iran-bombmaking-ability-is-nearer.html?_r=0

I'm starting to think that Benjamin Netanyahu is the worst war criminal on this planet...and DAMN, there's tight competition. There is no nation on this planet more terrifying than Israel.

Uh...were you the guy that I saw chanting "Seig Heil" at the Westboro Baptist Church demonstartion on the news?

EDIT: Sorry for making this political but I just feel like I need to make my case whenever somebody puts down Obama.

It's not a put-down to state that he doesn't have much in common with the 'common man'. It's the truth.

Having said that, I have absolutely no use for Obama and I feel anyone who believes either of these empty suits running for President really have any idea how to fix this country's woes is dangerously naive.

The Beach Boys in their prime represented a time when "hope" and "change" could actually mean something.

Yes, I agree that neither candidate is proving worthy of my vote.  But I'm sick of listening to the Obama Kool-Aid drinkers ejaculate over a man so unworthy of praise.  Guess what?  His stance on gay marriage ain't gonna fix sh_t over our sinking economy.  But you know what will bury us even deeper?  His completely impractical universal health care plan.  

And while Romney may be as charismatic as sandpaper, I will admit I'd prefer him to win the election.  But it's kind of like rooting for getting kicked in the face over getting shot in the junk.  

I can't believe that anyone would give ANY credit at all to President Obama regarding his stance on gay marriage when he does not have
the courage or character to come out of the closet himself...rather than constantly pimping his own sham marriage to Michelle Robinson.

I have no right to tell you to pay for my condoms or my health care.

This is where we differ - I don't see it that way at all. Moreover, I'm happy to pay the pittance it costs to put easily accessible condoms in schools because the alternative is a bunch of teenagers getting pregnant, or no teenagers having sex because condoms and the pill are expensive (that's your beloved private sector for you). And lets face it, if I wasn't able to have sex when I was that age, it wouldn't have been much of a life at all. To not have to worry about forking out £6 for condoms when I could get them free from my school, if anything happened my girl could get the pill for free down the chemist was rather.... liberating.   I mean, there's a theoretical 'liberty' which you can feel pissed off about paying for someone's medical bills which could feel rather hollow if you suddenly got cancer and couldn't afford the bills.

The thing is, do you seriously not care if someone couldn't afford treatment for something that wasn't their fault? Like, picking one example out of nowhere, did Levon Helm having to throw concerts and parties to fund his treatment for throat cancer not strike you as a little skew-whiff?

I think we've argued about taxation before, TRBB. The way I see it, everyone has an obligation to pay taxes to provide a certain standard of life in a country. Your philosophy seems to boil down to 'I don't care about others and they shouldn't care about me'.  But then I'm a leftist hippie backpedalling communist, so we'll probably never agree  

I find abortion personally repugnant, but I am 100% willing to let some of my tax dollars support abortions and contraceptives for those people who believe that they are entitled to free healthcare and reproductive control at the expense of society/the taxpayers. At least that way I am reassured that we are 'thinning the herd' of these non-productive leeches in the long run...since hopefully our present day 'takers' will not be reproducing quite as much. The ultimate goal here being to decrease the size of the next generation of spoiled, non-productive gimmie-gimmies who would further siphon off future tax revenues that could be used for far nobler purposes. I would consider this expense a wise investment in our ultimate success as a sovereign nation.

I wasn't talking to you.

If this isn't an open forum, use private messaging comrade.

I have no right to tell you to pay for my condoms or my health care.

This is where we differ - I don't see it that way at all. Moreover, I'm happy to pay the pittance it costs to put easily accessible condoms in schools because the alternative is a bunch of teenagers getting pregnant, or no teenagers having sex because condoms and the pill are expensive (that's your beloved private sector for you). And lets face it, if I wasn't able to have sex when I was that age, it wouldn't have been much of a life at all. To not have to worry about forking out £6 for condoms when I could get them free from my school, if anything happened my girl could get the pill for free down the chemist was rather.... liberating.   I mean, there's a theoretical 'liberty' which you can feel pissed off about paying for someone's medical bills which could feel rather hollow if you suddenly got cancer and couldn't afford the bills.

The thing is, do you seriously not care if someone couldn't afford treatment for something that wasn't their fault? Like, picking one example out of nowhere, did Levon Helm having to throw concerts and parties to fund his treatment for throat cancer not strike you as a little skew-whiff?

I think we've argued about taxation before, TRBB. The way I see it, everyone has an obligation to pay taxes to provide a certain standard of life in a country. Your philosophy seems to boil down to 'I don't care about others and they shouldn't care about me'.  But then I'm a leftist hippie backpedalling communist, so we'll probably never agree  

I find abortion personally repugnant, but I am 100% willing to let some of my tax dollars support abortions and contraceptives for those people who believe that they are entitled to free healthcare and reproductive control at the expense of society/the taxpayers. At least that way I am reassured that we are 'thinning the herd' of these non-productive leeches in the long run...since hopefully our present day 'takers' will not be reproducing quite as much. The ultimate goal here being to decrease the size of the next generation of spoiled, non-productive gimmie-gimmies who would further siphon off future tax revenues that could be used for far nobler purposes. I would consider this expense a wise investment in our ultimate success as a sovereign nation.