right wing gun nut jobs try to kill NYC mayor

Exactly man!

Classic Liberalism=Libertarianism

Current Liberalism= Socialism/Facism/ (and probably secretly an oligarch of elites)

 

Big surprise,they found the dumb coward that sent the Ricin. Some dumb Texass bitch that tried to frame her husband for the deed. So typical, for chicken shits to try to blame others for their own stupidity. In her note she sent, she was so macho, threatening to shoot the cops in the face if they came to her door. But not only did she not have the guts to follow through, she didn't even have the nerve to face the music. Sounds so much like the cowards that hide behind their computers and talk shit here.

 

The true coward of this story is the one who hides behind his minions of soldiers, police, plastic death machines and, spies on his own citizens to combat the fact that he, nor his puppet masters, have the consent of those they govern.

 

That's a weak defense for being a McVeigh sympathizer. Macho man LSD gonna take on the cops and the military...hiding behind his puter. PFT!

 

Actually, I'm just excercizing my Right to speak freely. The government is trying desperately (as you are with me,) to insinuate that Americans that love freedom are "homegrown terrorist."

Using force is never right- whether it's done by some neo conservative, OR Obama with his police/military/ plastic drones. NONE of it is "okay."

You think she's a bad person, because she "tried," to kill someone. Meanwhile, you worship Obama and he kills innocent civilians every single day.

The acceptance of Government force is the reason why "peace" and, "love" may never come again, (at least not for awhile even many hippies and Liberals sadly, support a government who has committed genocide, theft, spying on its citizens and, brutalizes women and children around the world!! And somehow you skew my words to make it appear as though I'm some crazy right wing nut job (as you always attempt to do.) When the fact of the matter is, "Left" or "Right," Rebublican/Democrat, virtually makes no difference in the realm of American politics. So sadly, you and other Liberals who support Obama, (as you do,) support the same policies of the former George W. Bush, and the "New World Order," from the Rockefellers and former President George HW. Bush.

Really, Liberals like you support the status quo far more than me! The elites hate the Libertarian message of small government, so do Liberals, because they want government to be everone's mother.

 

How the hell did McVeigh become relevant to this thread? And why is StpLSD25 being accused of being a supporter of McVeigh? Where did I miss that claim, or is rjh simply making another irrational insinuation?

"Really, Liberals like you support the status quo far more than me! The elites hate the Libertarian message of small government, so do Liberals, because they want government to be everone's mother."
The above is probably the most reasoned and true words I've seen in this thread.

 

OH Indie

Re: Types of Government, Explained

I’ve never seen such hogwash in my life. Complete bollocks, absolute laughable crap. Really is this rubbish what you base your ideas on?

No wonder you can’t defend your ideas, you really, really need to do a bit of studying and begin questioning stuff rather than just accepting things. You might then realise that things are a bit more complex and nuanced.

*

A republic is a description not an ideology.

A republic means without monarchy and as I keep pointing out there can be many forms of republic you can have a democratic republic and olicargical republic and even a dictatorial republic.

*


It confuses authoritarian government with ‘left’ and libertarian with right – the problem is that there is left wing libertarianism.

Communisms ultimate goal is complete lack of government. The theory was that the government would ‘wither away’. I know teenagers who know that. Anarchists such as Proudhon were part of the same socialist movement as communism.

Anarchy is defined not in the theoretical way (as a form of government) but in the scaremongering way as rape, murder and chaos. And anarchists are portrayed as self seeking hypocrites that only want take power for themselves.

Try reading Demanding the Impossible by Peter Marshall
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Demanding-Impossible-Anarchism-Peter-Marshall/dp/0006862454"]Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism: Amazon.co.uk: Peter Marshall: Books

*

It claims that the best balance is a ‘a government that protects the rights of the people’ but for most of US history in todays terms that wasn’t the case, so it cannot claim as it seems to that this is ‘Americanism’

*

Oh hell half way through and this really is laughable it is soooooooooooooooo simplistic and biased.

AGAIN as pointed out in most of the early US the system was oligarcical with only about 10% having the vote and even few being allowed into office (with wealth based restrictions).

The US constitution set out a type of government not a form of government, it meant the republic could have a oligarcical or democratic form of government.

*

“The rule of law is the essence of a republic”?????

Hell this is dumb – so every other form of government is lawless?

Most states have laws, even dictatorships have laws, what is this rubbish?

*

The posse story is ridiculous – US history is full of people being lynched with the knowledge even the nod of those who were meant to uphold the law. If anything a well functioning democracy is a bulwark against such practices.

*

It uses ancient Greece as an argument against democracy?

Has there been no thought or experience of Democracy since then?
And come on the ancient world’s idea of the political cycle is one of the most well known things in political thought. Did this guy think he was only going to get away from doing a bit of it?

‘Democracy ALWAYS descends into mob rule and anarchy’

The full cycle is that out of anarchy comes noble monarchy which descends into bad tyranny, which is overthrown by noble aristocracy which descents into despicable oligarchy which is overthrown by noble democracy which descends into mob rule and anarchy and off we are on the cycle again.

It is rather simplistic I mean who decides what is good or bad, noble or despicable, is there inevitability etc this has been discussed for thousands of years, just pick up any primer on political thought. Then there is religion that got in the way after the ancient period etc etc.

This person really needs to go back to school.

*

OH my giddy aunts – its praising the Roman Republican form of government, this must be the most misguided and myopic take on history I’ve seen in many a month.

I could recommend a few books to read on roman history try the works of HH Scullard he’s a bit old but an enjoyable read especially ‘From the Gracchi to Nero’
http://www.amazon.co.uk/H.H.-Scullard/e/B001IQZFH8/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

Back to the Youtube garbage - it’s so mangled the history that it is hard to know where to start – the history of the RR is a complex struggle between plebeians and patricians, between the people and the ‘nobility’. This developed through adaption into the system so much praised by Polybius.

If you did a bit of research you’d understand the complexity, it’s not just a matter of ‘little government’ ‘allowing’ ‘people’ to get on with their lives.
[FONT=&quot](I mean LOL It talks about people being allowed to keep the ‘fruits of their labour’ under the roman system did the person that wrote this not know that the system was slave based? )
[/FONT]
In simplistic terms the big problem and the cause of the republics fall was empire. One strand of that was that the rewards of empire mainly went into the hands of a few giving them greater power and influence and upsetting the political balance between the few and the many. The poorer became poorer while many of the wealthy were blind and deaf to their predicament.

Read up on the Gracchi brothers, who saw the problem and tried to deal with it only to end up murdered by wealthy conservatives.

But as I say do the study don’t just accept some worthless propaganda - start thinking for yourself.

Its not a matter of ‘demonising’ the right wingers like yourself it’s the fact that you seem unable to defend your ideas in anything like a rational and reasonable way.

I mean look at this rubbish you present to back up your ideas.

 

Bal,

If that admittedly rather simple video explanation went over your head, I'm sorry. But then again I recognize the fact that you seem to have zero dimension tunnel vision when it comes to politics.

 

Indie

I’m just amazed you fall hook line and sinker for such guff.

Anyway I’ve made my criticisms of the misguided and inaccurate video and I notice that as with seemingly everything else you present you are totally and utterly unable to defend it from criticism.

As I’ve told you before you’d be better off studying real stuff and questioning things rather than just trawling the web for stuff that fits in with your prejudices and just accepting it without question.

 

Thank you for your opinion.

 

The mentality of a five-year-old, thinking he went over someone's head. If only cons could really perceive reality. Narcissists are so full of themselves.BWAH HA HA HA HA!

 

Oh Indie I’m happy to point out the deep flaws in your thinking and ideas.

But I’ll ask again why do you promote things that you seem totally and utterly unable to defend from such criticism?

 

Bal,
You obviously either did not understand the video, or simply wish to try and make use of it to promote a long series of irrelevant posts. Perhaps another would care to waste their time in an inane and endless debate with you over things which we simply cannot find common ground at all. We are definitely NOT members of the same society, and I think THAT is a major component of what allows me to exercise my freedom.

 

Indie

What is obvious is that you are completely and utterly unable to address the criticisms I’ve raised.

ONE – if the criticisms are so inane shouldn’t that make them easier to address? So why do you instead always run away?

TWO – This is not about finding ‘common ground’ it’s about trying to work out why you promote ideas you can’t defend from criticism.

THREE – Dumb ideas dumbdown other better ideas they are mixed with - to me a dumb idea is one that can’t even be defended from criticism by the people that promote it. So it would seem to me to be a bit silly to try and find ‘common ground’ with dumb ideas that seem deeply flawed.

Again with the FREEDOM misdirection – as explained in criticisms that you refuse to address the ideas you promote are more likely to increase the power and influence of a few to the detriment of everyone else.

 

Misdirection? The horizontal line used in the video served as an indication of the degree of freedom allowed the individual to exercise.

Based upon YOUR opinion, and YOUR definition of freedom?

 

Indie

That doesn't address what was raised look you presented something from youtube that you seemed to say backed up your ideas.

The problem was that what you presented was a bit of guff that does not seem to stand up to even the mildest scrutiny.

I posted a number of criticisms of it (a could have done a lot more) – you are refusing to address those criticisms.

The conclusion must be that you know you can’t address the criticisms - that you know your ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Which begs the question –why are you promoting ideas even you know are flawed?

 

Backed up my ideas?

Only talking about one ideal, freedom of the individual, rich or poor, NOT my ideas.

Unlike you, I do NOT equate freedom with the quantity of ones material possessions.

 

OH indie your constant evasions are so tiresome.

We have been through this many times and you know it, why not this time actually address the criticisms rather than running away like you normally do?

To repeat -

“You throw out ‘freedom’ whenever challenged over anything - but its meaning in your lips as has been shown many times seems to come down in social and economic terms to the ‘freedom’ of a few to exploit the majority. That is why you sneer at the idea of bringing about ‘greater equality’.
(a number of threads but especially Effort or Luck)”

As pointed out before the meaning of what freedom means is open to interpretation.

Freedom from harm, freedom from exploitation, freedom from hardship, freedom from sickness.

There is also peoples freedom of choice this can change according to a person’s circumstance and in a monetary based system wealth can dictate those circumstances.

I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them freedom from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of freedom.

The society is benefiting one over the other and if the ones getting the greater benefit are few compared to the others then that society is benefiting the few and not the many?

 

Bal,

You've posted this same broken record Bullshit more than once already, and if you have nothing new to add just go back and re-read my previous responses.