Saturday, January 14, 2012
Romney
I'm not gonna be spending a whole lot of time on this guy, hell I may not even vote. To all the Ron Paul critics out there and it's all good but tell me why I should vote for Romney. He probably has the nomination wrapped up by now but to me it's boring, hardly blogworthy on a daily basis anyway. It's been rather apparent for some time now that the conservative infrastructure in this country, pundits, commentators, talking heads, chuckleheads, opiners-at-large while not maybe passionately in love with Romney at first have tacitly nodded their assent and the question is why? I kind of pride myself on my astute political analysis but to me it's a mystery, all I can come up with is he's not scary. Saw him recently on The Charlie Rose Show and he's articulate and can talk and again maybe he makes mainstream conservatives comfortable in a coffee, cruller and blog sort of way, throw in a nice sweater and a cat on the couch. I honestly don't even think pro-choice Republicans are that threatened by him and even here I think his flipflopping may be the wrong term. He's gone from pro-life to pro-choice back to pro-life again and in physical terms, to put it in the jargon of science this is more like a vibrating strand of energy, a string (pro-life pro-choice pro-life pro-choice pro-life pro-choice pro-life pro-choice) and it's not to be taken seriously, it could be a mood. It's fluidity that's all like tipping that glass chemistry tube with the blue liquid inside, swishing it back and forth to study it and if he was pro-choice once he can be pro-choice again since he's able to see so many angles and sides. He ain't no static Santorum that wants to outlaw buggery or something and take away the coils and pills. Mormonism is an interesting subject and I've been meaning to google it, oh hell let's do it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism. It's just a touch Secret Circle-ish to me but that don't bother me none, hell if the guy's a Mormon the guy's a Mormon. I don't think though that ABO (Anybody But Obama) is the right way to look at it, the political calculus for modern conservatives to live by. On another note "I ain't no angry black woman." OK so go tell Oprah:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
At this juncture it is way premature to suggest Romney has the nomination wrapped up. What's more, even if he did, he is going to have a tough time beating Obama. I won't vote for him and no Ron Paul supporters (independents or otherwise) I know will either. The guy is not only Constitutionally illiterate, he is all Wall Street.
ReplyDeleteJust go to a quiet room, look at the ceiling, and think of money.
ReplyDeleteHe is a white Obama.
ReplyDeleteRomney's compassion (or lack thereof).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9cn0M_AFWg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Dr. Ron Paul's compassion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CHVI8Q-OXQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I love Soapie. He's like a fanatical Amway salesman, except about Ron Paul.
ReplyDelete"He is a white Obama."
ReplyDeleteUm, Mr. Obama is half white. Maybe what you meant to say was that Rmoney is a half-white Obama? The other half would be, what?
Mr. Obama was not born into wealth and privilege, as Rmoney was. Rmoney is worth several hundred million dollars.
Whatever Mr. Obama has achieved in his life, he achieved on his own, not because he had a famous name.
Plus Mr. Obama supported the repeal of DADT, he is pro-choice, is supportive of gays' right to civil unions, has thrown his support behind the repeal of DOMA, passed the ACA, Obama was for the bailout for GM, Obama got the debt ceiling raised.
Other than those little differences, they're exactly alike: They're both married men with children.
I can get you in on the ground level. You don't have to buy anything.
ReplyDeleteOh come now Shaw. They are both wedded to Wall Street, warmongering nationalists one of which signed a defense authorization bill with a provision to indefintely detain American citizens without due process and the other one surely would have and both, despite one being a Constitutional law professor, are completely clueless about it and really the whole concept of the rule of law.
ReplyDeleteRomney would prosecute marijuana users just as Obama's DOJ is cracking down on despenseries. The prez is a grade AA tyrant.
ReplyDeleteDefinition of TYRANT
ReplyDelete1
a: an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b: a usurper of sovereignty
2
a: a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b: one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
When you use indescriminate hyperbole, you lose the right to be taken seriously.
Well by me, anyway.
You want perfection in a politician, and you think Ron Paul is that perfection?
I have some very sad news. There is no such politician, not even your hero, Paul. There never was and never will be. That's not being cynical, just practical and grown up.
I'm sure you're aware that during Lincoln's time, his political adversaries called him The Tyrant.
"Sic temper tyrannis!"*
*John Wilkes Booths' words after he shot Lincoln.
Good grief.
Nothing hyperbolic about it Shaw. The tyrannt assassinated three American citizens without due process. Try again.
ReplyDeletePerfect or not, I will put Ron Paul up against the tyrannt and bet you the house.
ReplyDelete**walks out of the room on tippy toes**
ReplyDeleteProbably your best move. You'd have lost the shirt off your back.
ReplyDeleteSo how bout Tebow against the Pats, yall?
ReplyDelete:)
Who's a fanatic? I like Ron Paul. He's a principled Constitutionalist but I don't give a shit if he wins or loses. I'm my own hero. Give it a go.
ReplyDeleteWell, I Hope that Romney doesn't Get all of the States. That would be Sickening. No One should be so Unchallenged. It Creates a Situation in which he will Think that he has a Mandate to do whatever he wants when he gets into Office.
ReplyDeleteThe Fact that he is not Threatening to anyone, though, is the Exact Reason why he is so Electable and let's Face it; Obama definitely has to go. Our Country simply can not Handle another 4 Years of his Socialist Agenda and, yes, I do Think that there is a Difference between Romney and Obama.
It would Actually be a Good Thing, though, if Ron Paul Won a State or Two. Aside from his Scary Foreign Policy Ideas, he does have some Very Good Points that those in Washington should Listen to, especially in Relation to the National Debt and the Fed.
Yeah, it's "scary" to think we should go to the people, through their representatives (congress), and have a vote in the House and Senate to decide whether or not to declare war as is stated in the Constitution. It's probably a safer route to have the King, er..president, just decide for himself whether to send our young men and women to foreign lands to exploit said country's resources for corporate and banking interests.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are advocating Lista, and what all those pundits and presstitutes you see on TV are advocating is scary. In fact it is Orwellian nightmarish.
Please enlighten us all as to how his foreign policy is "scary".
ReplyDeleteI wish that people would frickin take the time to educate themselves on the actual meaning of the words they choose to use as pejoratives.
ReplyDeleteLista, I'm a Socialist. Obama is not, has never been, and will not ever be, nor his policies, nor his plans.
Thanks.
If not Paul then Johnson. If neither then Huntsman.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely not Romney or Obama.
Soap,
ReplyDeleteThe Point that you have Made about Congress Deciding if we should go to War is something that I'm sure all of the Republican Candidates would Agree on, with the Exception that sometimes there are Emergency Situations, in which Declaring War in a Hurry is Necessary, such as when we are Being Attacked. Obama is the One who Messed up on this One.
The Motives that you have Suggested in Relation to War are another Example of Hyperbole. Shaw is Right that you have Lost your Right to be Taken Seriously, for you Use Hyperbole Often.
Yes, to Over React and Go to War too Quickly is Scary, yet to not Take a real Threat Seriously is also Scary. Like I said, in relation to this Issue, I would love a Candidate that is in-between Ron Paul and the rest of the Candidates, but there just isn't one.
Satyavati,
Republicans and Libertarians Define the Word "Socialist" and/or "Socialized" differently then those in the "Socialists Party" do. Perhaps this shouldn't be so, but that's just the way it is. Many Republicans and Libertarians View Many, if not Most, of the Current Government Assistant Programs as Socialistic, the Take Over of Private Sector Businesses by the Government as Socialistic and also the Tendency to Over Regulate as Socialistic.
When I Talk to Republicans and Libertarians, I have to go with their Definition or there will be Confusion and I will not be Understood.
And anyway, when I used the Word "Socialist", I used it as a Adjective, not a Noun, so I was not Referring to Full Blown Socialism, but to that which, in Time, will Lead Up to More and More Socialistic Programs, or put another Way, more and more Government Control. Even if your Opinion is that the Level we are Currently at is not Socialism, it would still be Foolish, and Perhaps even Deceptive, to Deny that we are Moving in that Direction.
You Accuse me about getting Technical about Words, Satyavati, while Insisting on your Preferred Definition, or that of the Political Group that you believe in. You do not have the Right to Dictate what Definitions are Used, Satyavati. You are not Queen of this Comment Thread.
And Yes, Socialists should be able to Define Words that Specifically Describe their Political Party, yet not of all the Adjectives that Relate to the Movement in the Direction of Government Take Over and Control. I was not Referring to the Socialist Political Party, Satyavati. I was Referring to the Movement towards Government Take Over and Control.
When was the last time a Congressional declaration of war occured? How many military entanglements has the US been involved in since then? Lastly, roughly how many United States service men and women have died since then?
ReplyDeletePlease figure out the answers to those Lista and then get back to me about who is being hyperbolic.
ReplyDeleteI was Referring to the Current Candidates, Soap. I think that they all Understand that there has been a Problem in this Area.
ReplyDeleteNo they don't Lista and they have stated as much on the campaign trail. And regretably Lista, not "all of the Republican Candidates would Agree on" on whether a Congressional declaration of war is necessary.
ReplyDeleteYour Hyperbole is based on what you have Claimed are the Reasons that we have Gone to War; "to exploit said country's resources for corporate and banking interests" and whether you agree with that or not is Irrelevant. All that any of us Knows is what the Politicians and Presidents have Claimed. If you Choose not to Believe it and to Make Up your Own Stories about the Motives, that's fine, but to me it's Hyperbole.
ReplyDeleteBy your own admission you are not very well versed or very well read up on the goings on politically or economically. That said, we can get into the minutia of the facts and data which speak directly i. support of my "hyperbole".
ReplyDeleteObama = Wall Street
ReplyDeletehttp://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
Romney = Wall Street
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00000286
Flip Side, Same Coin
@Shaw, Lincoln was a tyrant. Suspending the writ of habeas corpus will do that.
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."
ReplyDelete"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union."
That position may not be tyrannical in your mind, but it certainly is crazy in mine.
Does Paul believe the government has the right ot enforce integration when it involves allowing American citizens to attend publicly funded schools and universities, but find it interferring in personal liberty when the government looks the other way while racists keep American citizens from eating at their private lunch counters or shopping in their private stores?
And how, exactly, did Paul think that was going to work out in an area of the country where they stopped lynching people with impunity only a mere few decades ago?
Do you think those people in those areas, who actually fought against abolishing lynching laws, would have voluntarily integrated because it would have been good for business?
It is wonderful to be a purist and to believe Paul is some sort of white knight who will rescue this entire country from its wayward march into godknows what evil and tyranny you believe it is drowning in.
But reality is a much, much different kingdom. And Paul would not have the power to dismantle everything he's proposing and set up a Randian distopia that the Paulites so desperately hope for.
The futility in your argument Shaw is that it suggests that we are, ideologically and philosophically, where we were 50 years ago. Obviously we are not.
ReplyDeleteI don't fault you for being unable to process the idea of individual liberty; a concept which is quite young to the human mind.
The government holds a monopoly on its services. While neither myself nor Dr. Paul are advocates of racism, we are advocates of private property and freedom of association.
When he and his son speak of the civil rights legislation, that is what they are speaking in terms of. Of course it is an easy enough issue for yourself and others to demagogue and distort and you all do it quite well.
The country is economically and politically at a cross-roads. One can either come to terms with the unsustainability of our government largess and correct it so that they may live or one can go on ignoring it and find themselves suffocated beneath the weight of it.
"It is wonderful to be a purist and to believe Paul is some sort of white knight who will rescue this entire country from its wayward march into godknows what evil and tyranny you believe it is drowning in."
There is no white knight. We will not be rescued by any single individual/politician. This is why I have repeated ad nauseum that it doesn't matter if Ron Paul wins or not.
Evil and tyranny isn't merely my belief Shaw it is a reality in this country which is manifesting itself as we speak. It may not have the same look as Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mussolini, or Hitler but it is evil and it is tyrannical no doubt.
"If not Paul then Johnson. If neither then Huntsman."
ReplyDeleteHuntsman dropped out and endorsed Romney. I had a suspicion his purpose all along was to try and peel votes away from Paul. If you watched any of the debates, he echoed Paul probably more so than he did any other candidate.
soapster: "The futility in your argument Shaw is that it suggests that we are, ideologically and philosophically, where we were 50 years ago. Obviously we are not."
ReplyDeleteBut I wasn't speaking about now, I was speaking about Paul's claim that the Civil Rights Act, which was enacted in the '60s, was an intrusion on people's privacy, and that he was against government interference because it destroyed the principle of private property and private choices.
The fact that the government DID intervene and make it illegal to descriminate against American citizens based on the color of their skin takes us to where you so nicely claim that we're not where we were in the pre-Civil Rights era. Attitudes have changed because of government enforcement of the equal protection section in the Constitution.
I would also posit that had there been a President Paul instead of a Johnson, our struggles to get the evil of racial descrimination behind us would have been worse, instead of improved (not perfect, but improved).
It is not demagoguery to point out what would have been the result of Paul's own admitted beliefs in this matter: Allowing a majority of racists to keep things exactly as they wanted--unequal and segregated.
You will recall Shaw that unequal and segregated occured with the blessing of government. Even within their own military ranks.
ReplyDelete"I was speaking about Paul's claim that the Civil Rights Act, which was enacted in the '60s, was an intrusion on people's privacy, and that he was against government interference because it destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."
It most certainly DID destroy the principle of private property and private choices Shaw. There is no denying that.
The government holds a monopoly on force and on certain services. If you need a hunting license, a fishing license, a driver's license, a building permit, etc. you must go through government in order to obtain one. Thus, because there is in effect only 1 government, government shall not discriminate based on skin color, sexual orientation or otherwise.
However, your house is your private domicile. You are free to invite over and to associate with the people of your choosing.
A private business is little different. It is privately owned. The owner of such an establishment ought to be free to decide, just as they do with respect to their home, who they wish to peddle their goods and services too.
I wouldn't advocate discrimination and I know Ron Paul wouldn't advocate it either. By discriminating on any of the aforementioned basis' the business owner minimizes his/her success rate significantly.
However, if you believe in private property then you accept the right of the owner to make that decision. Some owners may wish to cater exclusively to white people. And similarly, black people would cater exclusively to black people if they so desired.
The concept of private property has been demonstrably evicerated in today's society.
Consider how effective the smoking bans on private property owners have been. That part of the argument for the bans used as part of the basis an obfuscation between private ownership and private usage speaks directly to this fact.
The initiation of force is immoral despite whatever good intentions are intentioned by it.
Using government as a tool to force people to associate with individuals they might not otherwise wish to associate with does not achieve harmony and understanding.
If done out of force it creates resentment, animosity, hatred, etc.
Obama signed NDAA with the indefinite detention of Americans provision.
ReplyDeleteLast night, in what was to me the most morally repugnant thing I have witnessed yet this year, candidate Mitt Romney declares he'd have signed it as well.
Two sides, same coin.
Talk about back in the day, that's where Ron Paul lives. The rest of us have moved on.
ReplyDeleteMoved on to what? Booing the golden rule, booing one's Mexican heritage, booing the suggestion that pissing on dead corpses is probably wrong?
ReplyDeleteWhat I witnessed last night was without question the most morally repugnant thing I have yet witnessed this year.
But that's fine Z. You can all move on. You'll all come back around after this (ahem) civilization dies out.
Republicans and Libertarians Define the Word "Socialist" and/or "Socialized" differently then those in the "Socialists Party" do.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans use this word as a highly emotionally charged scare tactic going back to the McCarthyite days.
If you want to use a word, know what it means.
If you want to know what 'transubstantiation' is, ask a Catholic.
If you want to know what 'iontophoresis' is, ask an occupational therapist.
If you want to know what constitutes Socialism or a Socialist program or a Socialistic tendency, ASK A FRICKIN SOCIALIST.
Ask someone who knows what the damn word means, not some made up BS definition.
Republicans and Libertarians Define the Word "Socialist" and/or "Socialized" differently then those in the "Socialists Party" do.
ReplyDeleteThis is the exact equivalent of the following statement, which is just as senseless and deluded as the previous one:
"Buddhists and Hare Krishnas define the word 'Christianity' and/or 'Christian' differently than Christians do.
Can you see now how stupid it is to 'define' a word according to your own imagination, when the word has a clear meaning that can most accurately be defined by those who identify with it? What right has a Buddhist or Hare Krishna to make up some convenient and pejorative definition of those words? And wouldn't it be perfectly right and understandable for Christians to be pissed off at the gross misunderstanding and falsehood of that fake definition?
Of course it would. Because making up definitions without regard for their actual definition is a product of absolute ignorance and/or plain flat out deception. You can't just 'make up' some convenient definition of an established word that refers to an established concept and expect to be taken seriously.
If you want to know what's socialist and what isn't, what tendency is socialist and what isn't, what policy is socialist and what isn't, ask a person who knows what the frickin term means and not someone who just made up one that suits them.
Obama is more a fascist than a socialist. Honestly though it matters little in my book. Both are collectives by force.
ReplyDelete'booing the Golden Rule'..yep, that
ReplyDeletewas pretty oxymoronic of the evangelical right. When the electorate really gets fed up,
well Wisconsin voters gathered
over million signatures in two
months to recall their governor.
It will be interesting to see what comes of the Walker deal. Remember they recalled Brown in Cali and look how well that turned out.
ReplyDeleteSaty: "If you want to know what 'transubstantiation' is ask a Catholic."
ReplyDeleteApparently it's better to ask an atheist.
It's been 4 Days since I Last Commented on this Comment Thread and like so Often Happens, I have Lost my Place, so let me Read some of these Comments again.
ReplyDeleteSoap,
I'll Look at those Links a little later.
Shaw,
There is a Difference between what is Publicly Funded and what is Privately Owned. Since the Government represents all People, it has no Business Giving Preference to One Group of People Over another, and therefore, can not Discriminate.
Soap Made a Good Point about the Fact that the Government has a Monopoly. If Businesses Decide to Offer Services to People who are Like themselves, though, this is not quite the same thing, for a Private Business does not Represent all People, but Only the Owner of said Business, and Most Business do not Have a Monopoly. There will always be others like oneself who can choose to Offer such Services.
I'm not saying that I Agree with such Discrimination, but I do Understand the Distinction that both Ron Paul and Soap are Making.
Where this Issue Really gets Annoying, though, is when a Religious Group is Forced to Put someone who does not Believe the same as they do in a Position of Leadership. There is Absolutely nothing wrong with a Church Hiring only those who Share their Beliefs, for Church Jobs are seen as Ministry and Part of the Job is the Sharing of said beliefs.
Unfortunately, this will often Exclude the Homosexual, yet Religious Groups have the Right to Teach what they Believe and to Exclude those who Believe Differently from Positions of Leadership in their Churches.
Similarly, shouldn't the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts also be Allowed to have Religious Principles and Beliefs and therefore the Right to Exclude those who do not Share them. If someone wants to start a Separate Group that has a Different set of Values, No One is going to Stop them.
"Paul would not have the power to dismantle everything he's proposing and set up a Randian distopia that the Paulites so desperately hope for."
Exactly, and that is why I would not be Afraid of him, even if he were Elected, for in Truth, Obama has done far more Damage in Relation to the Economy, the National Debt and Massively Huge Government that has gone Far beyond what it should have.
On the Huge Government Points, I am Fully in agreement with the Soapster.
Soap,
"it doesn't matter if Ron Paul wins or not."
It does Matter, though, rather or not he Gets enough Votes to Make a Statement, for I have Decided that his Statement is Well Worth Making.
Perhaps I should Clarify something for you about me, Soap. On a National Level, I am beginning to Agree with Libertarians More and More, because the Federal Government has Gotten Way Out of Hand. On a State Level, though, more Government is Needed and should not be done away with. Democrats just don't Seem to Understand what the Statement "Let the States Decide that for themselves" is all about.
"It does Matter, though, r̶a̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ whether or not he Gets enough Votes to Make a Statement, for I have Decided that his Statement is Well Worth Making."
ReplyDeleteRon Paul doesn't need votes to make a statement Lista. If you've been watching any of the debates this election cycle (I have seen them ALL), he is making his statement right now just as he has for the past ten years by bringing much of the discussion his way (taxation, spending, borrowing, the Federal Reserve, foreign policy, bursting of the housing bubble, etc.).
This is the beauty of the Ron Paul movement.
"Ideas spread. They can't stop them. An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government." - Ron Paul
The Ron Paul Revolution is about so so much more than Ron Paul or politics.
More for Soap:
ReplyDelete"The futility in your argument, Shaw, is that it suggests that we are, ideologically and philosophically, where we were 50 years ago. Obviously we are not."
Don't these Words, Soap, sort of Spoil your Quest for Consistency. If Private Property and Private Choices should not be Intruded on Now, then shouldn't this Idea, Principle or Equation Work Regardless of the Circumstances, Ideology and Philosophy.
Which Brings me back with my Basic Complaint against Libertarianism, or at least your Version of it, which is the Belief that these Principles are all Inclusive and that there are not any Exceptions.
Shaw,
"Attitudes have changed because of government enforcement of the equal protection section in the Constitution."
I Actually Agree with this one, Shaw. When the Issue becomes Religious, rather then just Relating to the Color of Ones Skin, though, this is when I Oppose to it.
"not perfect, but improved"
Chuckle. That is Exactly what I Keep Telling Soap all the Time, Shaw. I Wonder if One day he will get it. Your 1/16, 3:13 PM Comment is actually rather good.
Soap,
"You will recall Shaw that unequal and segregated occurred with the blessing of government. Even within their own military ranks."
Yes, the Government isn't Perfect. Remind me again, why Lack of Perfection Proves anything. Like the Private Sector is Perfect. Perfect Utopia is not an Option, Remember.
When ever Criminals are Put in Jail, Soap, we Intrude on their Freedom and on their Private Choices. Absolute Freedom is Anarchy. Sometimes it is Necessary to Take Freedom Away and when this is done, Force is the Means by which it is done. Freedom is not an Absolute, Soap. Get Over it!!
You did, however, make some Very Good Points in your 1/16, 3:32 PM Comment in Relation to Property Rights. I do not Disagree with the Basic Concept, Only with Presenting it as an Absolute.
And there's Soap again; Always on Line, or at Least always Connected by his Iphone and I see he Expects Perfect Writing without any Mistakes and he's being Technical again about another Minor Point, just for the Sake of being Critical.
ReplyDeleteVotes Make Ron Paul's Statement more Powerful, Soap. I've seen so many Debates Lately, that I'm Actually Becoming Quite Sick of them.
First things first Lista.
ReplyDeletePlease learn the difference between using whether or rather.
Example:
"Whether you drive or ride your bike doesn't matter. Just be there at 7pm."
"I'd rather drive than ride my bike. I can get their quicker that way."
""The futility in your argument, Shaw, is that it suggests that we are, ideologically and philosophically, where we were 50 years ago. Obviously we are not."
Don't these Words, Soap, sort of Spoil your Quest for Consistency. If Private Property and Private Choices should not be Intruded on Now, then shouldn't this Idea, Principle or Equation Work Regardless of the Circumstances, Ideology and Philosophy."
No it doesn't. What I am inferring when I say "we're not where we were 50 years ago" is that we do not have the degree of racial tension within society as we did then. Thus, if we were to restore the premise of private property by allowing property/business owners to make personal decisions about whether they would like to hire minorities or women or homosexuals, etc. doing so would not roll the clock back to the era of Jim Crowe. On the whole society has evolved in this regard.
"Like the Private Sector is Perfect. Perfect Utopia is not an Option, Remember."
The perfection with respect to free markets Lista comes in that it is a perfectly organic materialization of human action. What I mean by this is a free market will come to bear the natural result that it ought to. It is the only system which is inherent to humanity.
I think when you think of perfection you are thinking in terms of an end result (eg. everyone having the same piece of pie). What I am inferring is that the perfection comes in an unregulated process. Therefore the end result bears naturally what it should.
"When ever Criminals are Put in Jail, Soap, we Intrude on their Freedom and on their Private Choices. Absolute Freedom is Anarchy. Sometimes it is Necessary to Take Freedom Away and when this is done, Force is the Means by which it is done. Freedom is not an Absolute, Soap. Get Over it!!"
What is your point with this statement?
I have stated countless times that I do not believe in the initiation of force. When force is used against someone that individual has every right to respond in kind.
The intent isn't to be technical or critical Lista. The point is to help you understand the difference between the use of whether and the use of rather.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it's up to you whether you take the time to learn it or not.
And please do forgive me for having a smartphone and the capability to multi-task rather effortlessly.
ReplyDeleteI've been having Trouble Keeping Up with this Comment Thread, which is Probably why I have been Making all these Mistakes in my Comments. Aside from the Rather/Whether Mistake that Soap Pointed Out, I also Left Out a Couple of Question Marks in the Second Paragraph of my Previous Comment. As to my 3:27 PM Comment, in Paragraph 4, "Most Business" should Read "Most Businesses". Clearly I was Tired when I Wrote these Comments. I Took a Break, though, after Reading Soap's Comments, because I was Realizing how Tired I was Feeling and was not in the Mood for being Ultra Careful and Walking on Egg Shells.
ReplyDeleteOk, Now let's see, Aside from that, where was I?
NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act; Soap, 1/17/2012 - 8:44 AM:
I Agree. Mitt Romney should not have signed it.
Who are you Voting for, Z-Man? If not Romney or Ron Paul, then Who?
Z & Soap,
Sometime Progress is Good and Sometimes it is not.
Soap & Satyavati,
While Reading your 1/17, 3:25 PM (Soap) & 4:05 PM (Saty) Comments, I just couldn't do much other then Chuckle.
Anyway, Satyavati, you do make a good Point, yet the Main Reason for the Conflict about Socialism is that it does Lead to Communism far too Often and this is a Legitimate Concern. The Fact that as Government Grows, it moves more and more in the Direction of Socialism is also a Legitimate Concern.
Socialism is not the Form of Government that the Founding Fathers Wanted and Like it or not, there are still many in this Country that Agree with the Capitalism that the Founding Fathers Proposed.
BB,
Your Comment is Confusing to me. I'm not sure what Recalling a Governor has to do with the Golden Rule.
Soap,
California is Messed up Beyond Repair in my Opinion. They are Far too Liberal and Recalling One Governor is not going to Fix that.
Z-Man,
Interesting Point about how sometimes even People within a Group do not Know what they should about Words that Relate to their Group.
And now for the Last of Soap's Comments:
ReplyDeleteOh Brother, Soap. I just didn't happen to Catch that Mistake when I was Proof Reading and, In Fact, I Missed several other Mistakes as well. For you to make a Big Deal about it is just Plain Rude. I must of made a Few Good Points that are Requiring you to Need a Diversion of some Kind.
If you Really Want to be Picky, there also should have been Question Marks behind both of the Sentences in One of the Paragraphs that you have Quoted from me. I Must be Tired.
"What I am inferring when I say 'we're not where we were 50 years ago' is that we do not have the degree of racial tension within society as we did then."
Ok, then I guess you Believe that the Intrusion on Property Rights and the Freedom of Association was Ok, back then, but not now. If you Make an Exception for your General Rule or Equation, though, then there are lots of Exceptions that should be Made, which I would Agree with, yet I Know that is more my Position then yours.
As Shaw has Stated, Part of the Reason that we have Evolved and are not where we were 50 Years ago is because of the Legislation that you are Opposing.
"The perfection with respect to free markets, Lista, comes in that it is a perfectly organic materialization of human action."
Humans are not Perfect, Soap, and that is Precisely Why Neither Socialism, nor Capitalism Works in their Extreme Forms.
"I think when you think of perfection, you are thinking in terms of an end result (eg. everyone having the same piece of pie). What I am inferring is that the perfection comes in an unregulated process."
Nope. That is not what I am Thinking. That would be the Extreme of Socialism. I do not Believe in Extremes. Extremes Imply Perfection. Moderation does not and the Second Sentence of what I just Quoted shows that you do Indeed Believe in Perfection. I, however, do not.
The Point I am Making in that "Absolute Freedom is Anarchy." and "Freedom is not an Absolute.", Soap, is that the World is not Perfect and Moderation is the Only Thing that Makes Sense. Absolute Freedom is not Perfection and the Total Absence of Regulation is not Perfection any more then Socialism and Communism is Perfection. Utopia does not Result from either of these Things. The Actual Answer is in the Middle.
"I have stated countless times that I do not believe in the initiation of force."
Then you do not Believe that Criminals should be Put in Jail.
I already Understand the Difference between whether and rather, Soap. I Mess Up when I'm Tired just as most People do and you are Being Picky. I HAVE Taken the Time to Learn the Difference between these Two Words. I've Looked them up Many, Many Times. Probably much more Often than you have.
It's not the Fact that you have a Smart Phone, nor that you can Multi-Task that Bothers me, Soap. What Bothers me is that you quite Often behave like a Smart-aleck and you come across like you Think you are so much Better then me.
Well, guess what? When it comes to Multi-Tasking, Reading and I'm sure a lot of other things, you ARE Better then me. I hope that Rubbing it in my Face Makes you Feel Really good about yourself. Personally, I Prefer to be Humble.
"Ok, then I guess you Believe that the Intrusion on Property Rights and the Freedom of Association was Ok, back then, but not now."
ReplyDeleteYou've guessed wrong. At no time is the intrusion upon private property and the right of individuals to freely associate acceptable.
"Humans are not Perfect, Soap,"
I am fully aware. And, given this fact, it is understood that in a free-market system this risk is inherent in all voluntary transactions. What astou.ds me is this understanding that humans are imperfect and so therefore we should create an entity whereby we entrust these imperfect humans with monopolistic power to rule over everyone and to effect everyone in a negative manner. It is a ridiculous statement. People are imperfect therefore we need a government of imperfect people? Chew on that and you might come to understand how bizzare a thing it is.
"Utopia does not Result from either of these Things. The Actual Answer is in the Middle."
Once again you don't quite understand. The utopia comes in living in a state of freedom Lista. A natural state which develops organically not one where authoritarians move individuals on a chess board. There is no "middle" between vice and virtue. You can go to your grave thinking otherwise but it simpmy isn't so.
Lastly, if you want to play victim Lista then find another playground. You come into this lion's den on your high horse with your knowledge of what socialism is or is not or what libertarians think because you managed to turn the radio dial to some clear channel pundit then prepare to get intellectually slaughtered.
Main Reason for the Conflict about Socialism is that it does Lead to Communism far too Often and this is a Legitimate Concern. The Fact that as Government Grows, it moves more and more in the Direction of Socialism is also a Legitimate Concern.
ReplyDeleteSocialism is not the Form of Government that the Founding Fathers Wanted
Lista, let me explain something to you. Americans don't know what socialism is because they've been miseducated on its definition, as we've recently discussed.
Americans have been trained into a knee=jerk reflex against anything they are told is 'socialism' by people who wish to control their emotional reactions.
Americans don't know (or care, actually) that many countries today operate successfully under at least a partially (if not wholly) Socialist government. And if you tried to tell them so, they would call you a liar, because they believe that Socialism Is Bad. And anything that they believe is bad, therefore, must be Socialism.
For the last 60+ years the American government has spent massive amounts of time and energy teaching Americans this erroneous definition of Socialism (and Communism for that matter) and tattooing into their brains that Anything Socialist Or Communist Is Necessarily And Completely Evil.
All untrue. But as a propaganda campaign, all successful; 'Socialism' has become a synonym for 'any act, idea, policy, thought, or program that is disliked by Republicans'.
Soap,
ReplyDelete"At no time is the intrusion upon private property and the right of individuals to freely associate acceptable."
Exactly. I Know that is your Position and that is the Reason Why your Statement...
"What I am inferring when I say 'we're not where we were 50 years ago' is that we do not have the degree of racial tension within society as we did then."
...does not Make any sense. If your Belief is that the Intrusion on Private Property and Freedom of Association Rights is Never Acceptable, then it is not now and was not then and therefore, whether or not we are at a Different Place now than we were 50 Years ago is Irrelevant.
"It is a ridiculous statement. People are imperfect therefore we need a government of imperfect people?"
It is Equally Ridiculous to say that People are Imperfect and Therefore no Regulations are Necessary.
"The utopia comes in living in a state of freedom, Lista."
How Odd. I am Absolutely Positive that I Remember you saying that Utopia is not an Option.
"There is no "middle" between vice and virtue."
Your Mistake, Soap, is in Assuming that Total Freedom (Anarchy) is the same as Virtue.
I have said absolutely Nothing in my Recent Comments about myself as a Victim. That is nothing more than a Fabrication that has no Basis what-so-ever in the Truth.
I'll Let the Audience of this Comment Thread Decide for themselves whether or not the Arrogant Lions here are Intellectually Slaughtering me, or whether or not I am Making sense.
Satyavati,
You Know what? Forget the Word "Socialism". It's just a Word and Words are not really what's Important. The Point is that I do not Like Large Government, nor Excessive Control, that is the Direction that America has been Moving in and this Extreme is no Better then Soap's Extreme. Call it what ever you want to. If not "Socialism" then give me another Word.
I'm not Going to Debate Definitions with you, Satyavati. If I do, then you will only Accuse ME of being Technical about Words.
Hey Sat why not move to a socialist or communist country if they're so great?
ReplyDeleteThe irony is that we very much have a socialist state right here in the good ol USofA.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more unsettling is that the supposed opposition party isn't much of an opposition at all.
It's a sad depressing thing to watch the marble being slowly and systematically chipped away only to reveal a statue of tyrannts.
I disagree with Saty once again. Most people even if they can't give the most technical definition of what socialism is have more than an inkling, a good enough grasp and it ain't good. So tell me Saty how Obama taking control of certain sectors of the car industry for example ain't moving us in a socialist direction? I think Lista has kinda overcorrected herself here, she had it right in the first place and if we don't know the true definition of socialism then pray give us one.
ReplyDeleteIt pisses me off that people in this country use the words socialism and socialist as pejoratives against anything they're afraid of, don't understand, or is unfamiliar to them.
ReplyDeleteThat kind of ignorant stick your head up your ass where you can feel safe mentality is how Obama gets called a fascist, a socialist, a communist and a nazi in the same sentence by the same person. They don't actually know what any of those words MEAN, but they know they're all EEEVIL and bad.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but I have yet to see an American made car that was produced by the US Government by federal employees.
Moving us in a Socialist direction would be dismantling Exxon, BP, Hess, Sunoco and every other big oil rapist and putting them completely one hundred percent under government ownership and management, with federal employees on the job. That would be Socialist and in my opinion way the hell long overdue.
But simply slinging these words around when you don't know wtf they mean-and then trying to claim that other non-Socialists have a 'different definition' and you're using THAT definition? Now you just have to call bullshit on that.
Otherwise we could just recite Jabberwocky: twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the waybe.. all mimsy were the borogoves and the mome raths outgrabe.
You still haven't told us what socialism is Saty. I've often put it in these terms: if you make a line or graph with pure free-market laissez-faire capitalism on the left end and socialism/communism on the further right end I'd daresay Obama and his anti-business, anti-Wall Street guiding philosophy is past the halfway mark trending towards socialism and that's what Lista meant. The gov't taking control of certain sectors of the auto industry most certainly moves us in a socialist direction and that's not demonizing or just throwing words around it's the uncomfortable truth liberals don't want to face.
ReplyDeleteObama isn't anti-Wall Street and he isn't soft on foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteExhibit A is his campaign finance disclosure.
Exhibit B is his expansion of the use of military drones coupled with the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA among other things.
I always have to laugh when Newt, Romney, and Santorum go on an on and on about Obama being weak on foreign policy. The facts don't support that ridiculous claim.
& let's not forget he may have taken out Osama bin Laden with heavy emphasis on the may have.
ReplyDeletePrecisely. But you wouldn't know that listening to the war hawks.
ReplyDelete"..may have taken out Osama bin Laden with heavy emphasis on the may have." ...say, you got OBL stashed back there in Yonkers?
ReplyDeleteBB we've been over this and btw there are too many traffic cams here in the big YO for him to hide out. Leon Panetta said at the time that when those SEALS went in that compound there was only a 50/50 chance or so that he was even there so on that basis alone it was a highly reckless operation. Let's say they did kill the wrong guy who closely resembled OBL, well that would set off some controversy in Pakistan a sovereign nation no? chances are good they'd cover it up and why get rid of the Body so fast by dumping it in the sea only several hours later? I'm not giving this one to Obama, it's simply a matter of opinion.
ReplyDelete