-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 12:24:47 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Carnival Of Sound
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Washington Scandals
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Washington Scandals  (Read 30928 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #75 on: May 20, 2013, 02:57:24 PM »

Don't bother.

OK.

I don't buy the "we just want smaller government" line either. Not for a moment.

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

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

This statement is correct. I fully agree.
Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #76 on: May 20, 2013, 03:15:20 PM »

Don't bother.

OK.

I don't buy the "we just want smaller government" line either. Not for a moment.

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

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

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" ....
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: May 20, 2013, 08:19:38 PM »

I don't buy that argument either, there is nothing right about Nationalsozialismus.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 08:32:20 PM by rockandroll » Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: May 20, 2013, 09:32:36 PM »

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....

« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 09:43:03 PM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: May 20, 2013, 09:53:15 PM »

do not be intimidated.  donate.   wake up.  take part.  do not be intimidated by the president.

« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 09:57:32 PM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #80 on: May 20, 2013, 10:05:24 PM »

Rand Paul for president! Cool
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #81 on: May 20, 2013, 10:25:33 PM »

Rand Paul for president! Cool

He is not as good as his dad.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 01:49:37 AM by Swedish Frog » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #82 on: May 21, 2013, 08:57:12 AM »

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.

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.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 09:08:33 AM by Swedish Frog » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: May 21, 2013, 12:08:01 PM »

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Which has nothing to do with socialism.

Quote
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.

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.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 10:59:38 AM by rockandroll » Logged
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #84 on: May 21, 2013, 12:08:39 PM »

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....



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.
Logged
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #85 on: May 21, 2013, 12:12:06 PM »

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.

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.

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." It is not so much that there are prviate 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 admitted leaving out the particularly perverted way that the Nazi state “guided” private industry.

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

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.

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

Which has nothing to do with socialism.

Quote
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.

Like I said, Keynesianism 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 all the time. This is why Adam Smith, while advocating for a kind of laissez-faire style capitalism nevertheless concluded 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 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.

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.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 12:13:06 PM by Pinder Goes To Kokomo » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: May 21, 2013, 12:27:36 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 12:29:31 PM by rockandroll » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: May 21, 2013, 02:04:07 PM »

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."

Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: May 23, 2013, 09:46:56 AM »

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.
I'm punching at air?   Wink  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.


Logged

409.
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #89 on: May 24, 2013, 11:31:17 AM »

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?
Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #90 on: May 24, 2013, 11:31:37 AM »

.
Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #91 on: May 24, 2013, 12:01:38 PM »

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."
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.
Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #92 on: May 24, 2013, 12:08:23 PM »

Drunk. The Real Beach Boy please remove this
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 12:09:18 PM by Swedish Frog » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: May 24, 2013, 12:48:04 PM »

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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.
Logged
Dunderhead
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1643



View Profile
« Reply #94 on: May 24, 2013, 01:21:04 PM »

 Roll Eyes x1000
Logged

TEAM COHEN; OFFICIAL CAPTAIN (2013-)
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #95 on: May 24, 2013, 03:51:21 PM »

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.
I'm punching at air?   Wink  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.




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.....
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 03:55:03 PM by Pinder Goes To Kokomo » Logged
Jason
Guest
« Reply #96 on: May 24, 2013, 04:34:43 PM »

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.
Logged
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #97 on: May 24, 2013, 04:52:40 PM »

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.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #98 on: May 24, 2013, 05:20:24 PM »

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:


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  Huh


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.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: May 24, 2013, 05:20:45 PM »

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.

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.37 seconds with 21 queries.