GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Total freedom is Anarchy, Libertarian's want minimal government intervention, laws do have to exist but at some point you get a muddled system where everything is fucked up. Most modern democracies nowadays.
Muuuuuuuslim Baaaaaan! But don't call it that!
- Thread starter Crni Vuk
- Start date
Total freedom is Anarchy, Libertarian's want minimal government intervention, laws do have to exist but at some point you get a muddled system where everything is fucked up. Most modern democracies nowadays.
Yes they do hate authoritarians, most of the time because the police kinda is geting into their shenaningans when the Red Necks want to do their thing, and they hate any authoritarian that attacks THEM, not when they attack a minority, or groups that have actually zero to do with them, how often have those gun owers, as a unified group, like the NRA actually stood up for blacks, gays, and any other group that was either discriminated or their rights violated trough out history.
D
Deleted member 98605
Guest
Fucked up by which standard? HDI, Economics? Happiness? The states above the US in those regards are basically nanny state welfare cradle-to-grave social democratic nordic model Keynesian/New/Neo/Post Keynesian economic pinko lands. Adjust inequality, and even the relative gun toting Czech Republic is higher than the USA. Most democracies are, by most definitions, objectively, not fucked up.
I apparently am part of the Libertarian Left, but my view of a government is probably as statist as any other compared to the Libertarians of the USA. Like most things, actually, the USA is warped - a first world anomaly. My Spain turned from a literal nationalist dictatorship into a standard first world nation in thirty years, same with Portugal, and sure, there are economic problems now, but these nations can do it - same with Argentina, Chile, Uruguay - yet the US can't. Odd.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
My politics can generally be summarized as lots and lots of government regulation but very little government power. The only thing a government should be good at is protecting freedoms and that includes, ironically, non-state actors which can and do try to abridge them. I have anarchist sympathies but consider government regulation a necessary evil the way medicine is for sickness even if I'd rather not take it.
It's why Hillary and Obama weren't exactly the champions of the Left they pretended to be. They were authoritarian technocrats who expanded Presidential power exponentially while engaging in a massive covert series of undeclared brushfire wars as well as economic controls. They expanded American spying to police state levels, illegally mind you, and were in bed with American corporate interests like we were living in Robocop. They were COMPETENT at their job but that just meant they were really good at shredding the Constitution. Certainly, I don't think they made the global stage a safer place.
But yes, I voted for Hillary because I felt Trump was dangerously underqualified, preaching nonsensical plans, and pandering to the idiots who make people think rural Americans are racist dumbasses.
It's why Hillary and Obama weren't exactly the champions of the Left they pretended to be. They were authoritarian technocrats who expanded Presidential power exponentially while engaging in a massive covert series of undeclared brushfire wars as well as economic controls. They expanded American spying to police state levels, illegally mind you, and were in bed with American corporate interests like we were living in Robocop. They were COMPETENT at their job but that just meant they were really good at shredding the Constitution. Certainly, I don't think they made the global stage a safer place.
But yes, I voted for Hillary because I felt Trump was dangerously underqualified, preaching nonsensical plans, and pandering to the idiots who make people think rural Americans are racist dumbasses.
D
Deleted member 98605
Guest
And do you stand by that feeling?
Especially since Hillary would had entered the presidency with a republican house and senate.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Obama managed to create the world's most effective (and I speak with a kind of "That is one awesome Tower of Evil and/or One Ring" inflection) surveillance system as well as create a robot army he used constantly to kill people like he was playing Battleship. This despite the fact he entered with a ridiculously hostile Congress and Senate.
I stand by my belief Hillary would have probably done a fair amount of continuing Obama's policies despite said opposition.
But yes, I would have been happy to have her opposed by the Senate and House if not for the fact they had no problem expanding Executive authiority and warmongering. They just hated free health care and building up green US infrastructure.
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
Aren't the two dependant on eachother, though? How can you have so much regulation when you have very little power to actually enforce said regulations?
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
To go back to the Founding Fathers of the United States:
Although the terms "Separation of Powers" and "Checks and Balances" are not found in the Constitution, these principles are key to its vitality. As George Washington wrote in February of 1788, the two great "pivots upon which the whole machine must move" are: (1) "the general Government is not invested with more Powers than are indispensably necessary to perform the functions of a good Government[,]" and (2) "these Powers are so distributed among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, that [the Government] can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy or any other despotic or oppressive form, so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the People." As recently as 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed that these principles were "intended, in part, to protect each branch of government from incursion by the others. The structural principles secured by the separation of powers protect the individual as well."
The original idea of the United States which was an astoundingly good one and why the government keeps functioning despite its many many horrible flaws (and slavery) is the idea you shouldn't have all power concentrated in one single branch of the government. The King or Dictator will always be a tyrant because his views are impossible to moderate. Instead, the idea is these three branches should be adversarial to a degree and limit each other's power. People are always saying the government is painfully slow and that's a good thing to an extent because it means its working.
To give an example of what I mean, I love the environment and believe corporations and government should be forced to not totally destroy it. However, I wouldn't want the EPA to have authority beyond which a clearly defined mandate by the people allows. It may seem contradictory to say rules can protect freedom but freedom can't exist without them to define it.
If you got rid of all rules, then the rule of the strongest would automatically make a dystopian tyrany. Allowing corporations to do whatever the fuck they want resulted in the Company Towns and debt slavery of miners here in West Virginia. They needed someone to appeal to in order to protect their freedoms. The trick is balancing the old adage of, "the freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
For me, order vs. chaos aren't opposing forces but simply a measure of functionality based on hundreds of competing forces.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Oh Valcick changed his post after he came up with another thing he thinks is a zinger but actually just proves my point further. And I get my answer, they are just completely lacking in self awareness.
Let me guess one thing, you have unironically called other countries you have never stepped foot on "hellish shitholes" right?
Let me guess one thing, you have unironically called other countries you have never stepped foot on "hellish shitholes" right?
Supreme Shah Ismail
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Its easy for an American to sit comfortably on his/her couch and let the media tell them what other countries are like.
That's a bit unfair though, looking at the current situation, the US is probably as divided on the issue around Trump like never before in recent history. If Trumps target was to unite the nation, than he has done a very shitty job so far. The President for 'everyone' my ass.
The weird nutjobs that run around seeing all Muslims and/or Islam as the root of everything evil, are still the minority though. A lot of people are simply confused, and who can blame them. I am reading a lot about Islam, for fucks sake I have the Quaran at home and I read it from time to time. It's a fucking difficult book, and it's not easy to read leave alone to interpet. Islam is not a religion of peace, that's bullshit, and a lot of groups like ISIS use it for their purpose, that's a fact, and the Muslims which denny that, are either delusional or don't know their religion. ISIS is nothing exceptional in Islam, historically speaking of course. But it's not much different when you compare it to christianity. Again, when you look at it from a much broader sense, like the last 5000 years, when you count in Judaism and their fundamentalists, which have proven to be as equally zealots during the Roman occupation, the name of one of the most prominent groups was Zealots. So I am not a friend of religion in general.
What disturbs me, is when people talk about Islam, like as they would actually 'know' something about it, but most people don't even know their own religion, or what the difference is between those two, and where the similarities are. Funny enough, conservative moslems should actually actually be best friends with conservative christians, when you keep in mind that they all follow only the tradition of the religion. No one would get the idea to compare someone like Mike Pence with the Westboro Bapdist Church, but I am pretty sure that our honorable vice President isn't very fond of gay marriage with the same rights as heterosexial marriage, and this is a view that he problably shares with many conservative muslims, including the idea of traditional values, like the importance of family, faith in god, rightousness, justice, you name it.
We can take the Islam, read chapters in the Quaran, or taking the Biography of the Prophet - which I have to get a copy at some point, and think, yeah! That thing is pretty violent. But we're not doing it justice by cherry picking, the people that call the Islam a peacefull religion, do exactly the same, they take some Surah where they talk about love, peace and all that stuff, and say all the viollent chapters have no meaning as they should only seen in a historical context, well, go and tell this to ISIS, not us. But we do the same shit with the Bible, how many do still practise the idea of slavery? Or the old testament, which to a 'true' christian has just as much merrit like the new one! Jesus by himself can be quoted on the importance of the old testament. The Bible isn't just about the Sermon on the Mount. And neither is Islam only about choping heads of and killing infidels.
We should simply do, what we do with christians as well, when dealing with Muslims. Treating them like people, not like a 'book' they follow. I have grown up with a lot of muslims, and I never had issuees with them, when I treated them and their religion with the same respect that I show to any christian.
The weird nutjobs that run around seeing all Muslims and/or Islam as the root of everything evil, are still the minority though. A lot of people are simply confused, and who can blame them. I am reading a lot about Islam, for fucks sake I have the Quaran at home and I read it from time to time. It's a fucking difficult book, and it's not easy to read leave alone to interpet. Islam is not a religion of peace, that's bullshit, and a lot of groups like ISIS use it for their purpose, that's a fact, and the Muslims which denny that, are either delusional or don't know their religion. ISIS is nothing exceptional in Islam, historically speaking of course. But it's not much different when you compare it to christianity. Again, when you look at it from a much broader sense, like the last 5000 years, when you count in Judaism and their fundamentalists, which have proven to be as equally zealots during the Roman occupation, the name of one of the most prominent groups was Zealots. So I am not a friend of religion in general.
What disturbs me, is when people talk about Islam, like as they would actually 'know' something about it, but most people don't even know their own religion, or what the difference is between those two, and where the similarities are. Funny enough, conservative moslems should actually actually be best friends with conservative christians, when you keep in mind that they all follow only the tradition of the religion. No one would get the idea to compare someone like Mike Pence with the Westboro Bapdist Church, but I am pretty sure that our honorable vice President isn't very fond of gay marriage with the same rights as heterosexial marriage, and this is a view that he problably shares with many conservative muslims, including the idea of traditional values, like the importance of family, faith in god, rightousness, justice, you name it.
We can take the Islam, read chapters in the Quaran, or taking the Biography of the Prophet - which I have to get a copy at some point, and think, yeah! That thing is pretty violent. But we're not doing it justice by cherry picking, the people that call the Islam a peacefull religion, do exactly the same, they take some Surah where they talk about love, peace and all that stuff, and say all the viollent chapters have no meaning as they should only seen in a historical context, well, go and tell this to ISIS, not us. But we do the same shit with the Bible, how many do still practise the idea of slavery? Or the old testament, which to a 'true' christian has just as much merrit like the new one! Jesus by himself can be quoted on the importance of the old testament. The Bible isn't just about the Sermon on the Mount. And neither is Islam only about choping heads of and killing infidels.
We should simply do, what we do with christians as well, when dealing with Muslims. Treating them like people, not like a 'book' they follow. I have grown up with a lot of muslims, and I never had issuees with them, when I treated them and their religion with the same respect that I show to any christian.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Is he American?
CaptJ
The Rival of Roquefort Hall
So that you may switch between the three whenever it is convenient for your argument?
He meant that he was openly racist instead of secretly/subconsciously racist which some people accuse everyone of being.
He couldn't have won without the vote of those who voted Obama. Why is it easier for you to believe that a significant portion of the population is secretly racist? The whole prejudice plus power argument is stupid. How do you expect people to be equal in every aspect? How do you define or quantify power in every interaction?
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
You really aren't getting what I'm saying. At all.
I don't think a significant portion of the population is secretly racist at all. I think a significant portion of the population is openly racist. I also think Trump's polices on immigrant are racist and stupid but people mostly voted for Trump because of the economy and general hatred of Hillary. His promise to "drain the swap" and bring back jobs are a reflection of the general hatred and dislike of the system as is--which I agree with. I just don't think Trump is the answer.
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
According to his profile he's Slovakian. If this turns out to be true, then a mea culpa is in order.
He's bigoted more so than racist - I'd even go so far as to say that the guy doesn't really give a shit about what color you are, so long as you're valuable to him.
I just don't understand how Hillary even won the primaries. She's a neo-con warhawk that botched the 93' medicare bill by trying to shotgun it through congress, used private investigators to collect information on and bully Bill Clinton's mistresses, completely messed up and failed to respond to information alluding to the Benghazi incident...
How the fuck did the Dems think this was the candidate to rally the party? She's not going to go down in history as someone that lost the presidency, she'll go down in history as the candidate that lost to Donald Trump, the twitter twit.
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
What post? I never change the content of my post, if I edit some typos/mistakes it's always added at the end of my previous post labeled as "edit", without removing anything.
No, I honestly don't remember that. Tried to double-check by searching right now, returned zero results to me.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Hillary won because Bernie had no political friends and his primary base of support was mainly young, naïve folks. Bernies pro BLM statements, communist like attitude, and blatant hypocrisy, like selling his soul to the dems, cost him a LOT of support, as well. What kind of fool openly states that only blacks know what it is like to be poor? It is this kind of asinine pandering that started the domino effect of populism. As I have said before in different threads, no other democratic candidate went as far as Bernie to openly pander free shit ALA Lenin.
Trump saw how effective populism was and decided to use it as well for his own gain. Pie in the sky promises, power to the people, 'draining the swamp', these are all bullshit promises that anyone with half a brain could see through, whether they come from Sanders or Trump. Yes we have democracy but it is REPRESENTATIVE, not direct. It is often said that the people who do not want power are the best ones to wield it. It sounds great on paper but sadly, doesn't work out in real life. Those who do not want power will not actively seek it while those who do will do what is necessary to obtain it. It is really as simple as that.
The best thing to do is to support a centrist candidate that will compromise something you do not care as much for while fighting for the things you REALLY care for. The great thing about division of power is the president does not have unlimited power.
Trump saw how effective populism was and decided to use it as well for his own gain. Pie in the sky promises, power to the people, 'draining the swamp', these are all bullshit promises that anyone with half a brain could see through, whether they come from Sanders or Trump. Yes we have democracy but it is REPRESENTATIVE, not direct. It is often said that the people who do not want power are the best ones to wield it. It sounds great on paper but sadly, doesn't work out in real life. Those who do not want power will not actively seek it while those who do will do what is necessary to obtain it. It is really as simple as that.
The best thing to do is to support a centrist candidate that will compromise something you do not care as much for while fighting for the things you REALLY care for. The great thing about division of power is the president does not have unlimited power.
Last edited:
TheGM
The voice of reason
Because it was her turn. also has a vagina, which is what this country needs right now. also also only candidate the dems ran. sure Sanders was there but he didn't he even get mentioned by news outlets half the time. not that he was a great candidate or anything.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
So which ones here are from a country that has had a woman leader? Me, Crni_Vuk & Hassknecht (Merkel) and that's about it? Our leader, Tarja Halonen, was prez for 12 years, two six year terms. Compared to previous presidents she was down to earth and very good diplomatically. She managed to negotiate with Russia and get a lot of good deals with them. I'm glad we had a woman leader, it sent a message to the world. Cause you know, there are countries out there where women are referred to as "vaginas" etc.