Guns and Nazi Teabaggers

Quoted for emphasis...

 

You yourself have shit to say about how there are not really two parties, and all that shit.

But then you go defining liberal and conservative, with those two parties.....

I'm talking about liberal and conservative, not Liberal and Conservative.

Conservatives want to continue a 70 year tradition of a race-motivated drug war, want to continue the traditions of the fed, wealth disparity, and all that. Conservatives conserve political tradition and precedent, liberals are liberal with changing things that they perceive to need change. Obviously this can go badly or well, but conservatives are too afraid to try, because it COULD go badly, or because they have a vested interest in the status quo.

Ron paul is a horrible fucking hypocrite, he's in the republican party. No matter what or how honorable his own ideals would be, he's just an obnoxious imposter, whether he's a fake republican or a fake libertarian.

And it seems that he's a fake libertarian. He's recently gone crying to the UN for help circumventing the free market, and free transactions between free people. You should look it up.

 

I am talking about liberal and conservative ideology -- not the Democrat and Republican parties. There are many areas where ideological conservatives and liberals overlap in their viewpoints. There is nothing about ending the drug war which is fundamentally liberal or conservative, though I don't see how anyone who argues for truly limited government could be in support of the War on Drugs.

No, Republicans do. And "conservatives" who think they're conservative but are not (usually because they've been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity).

So-called wealth disparity is caused by government backed by private banks like the Federal Reserve, yet liberals seem to think the answer to this is even more government.

The fact is, the bigger and more socialistic government becomes, the more poverty there is as a result.

Also, I am not a Ron Paul supporter.

 

What, pray tell, defines conservative and liberal ideology, other than wanting change or not wanting change?

Because I'm highly liberal, and support.... welfare and very progressive taxes, gutting the fed and reversing what's happening with our currency, dramatically rewriting banking/lending rules, ending the war on drugs, repealing the patriot act and ndaa and all that shit and passing a slew of different laws that would provide modern protections to supplement the bill of rights, dismissing the political supreme court and putting in guys who don't go on speaking tours of the US to essentially campaign for stupidity, using the aforementioned legislation to open the door for massive punitive damages awarded against law enforcement agencies for violating citizen's rights, passing clear legislation that prohibits extrajudicial torture, rendition, detention, and killing (as this and the previous administration have played fast and loose with) etc etc etc etc.....

Get the idea?

That's liberal.

If I was conservative, I would be all about preserving our policies.

You are linking conservative and liberal ideology with the republican and democrat parties, while saying you're not. Right=slow change, left=speed change.... real simple.

If you're not a ron paul supporter, I still suggest that you read about his website débâcle, it's quite amusing

 

But a lot of what the left sees as "change" plays right into the change the government wants to bring about, which always entails bigger government under the guise that it will solve the problems which it in fact created itself to justify that ever increasing size and scope of government. Conservatives don't want to "preserve the current policies." That is absurd and simply false. Conservatives (true conservatives, that is) want limited, constitutional government. What is constitutional about the current government? There is nothing conservative about wanting to preserve the Patriot Act, the drug war, or any of that shit. Your views on conservatism have been shaped too much by Republican propaganda which poses as being conservative. 90% of what Republicans and fake conservatives support is not by definition conservative at all.

Most Republicans support policies which have more to do with authoritarianism and socialism than they do conservatism.

Simply put, true conservatism entails limited government that works according to what is laid out in the Constitution. There are almost no politicians (except perhaps Ron Paul) who openly champion the Constitution and believe in holding our "elected officials" accountable according to what is outlined in it.

 

I see where you're coming from, but my opinion is based on the origin of the left and right wing terms.... the french revolution, and that meeting where they sat on opposite sides of the hall, and probably ultimately decided to cut off a bunch of heads, don't remember.

Liberal doesn't mean "make government more powerful", by at least as long a shot as conservative doesn't mean "keep it identical".

In practical terms, the political liberals are useful idiots, and the political conservatives are corporate fascists for hire.

But simply because when you briefly mention something it can be compared to an evil plan involving the guise of similar measures, does not mean that it's the same position.

Between our "two" parties, I think the hope lies with actual left democrats, but only IF all politicians are taken down a notch.... like not being paid, and being forbidden from corporate campaign donations, and the like. As it is, there's money in doing it wrong, it's a big game for both sides. Money and power corrupt, and they're being paid money based on how they use their power.... is their corruption any surprise?

 

He said: “deep flaws”
Could you put "fundamentally flawed" in context?
Do you think he was talking about the version that included all US citizens or just white US citizens?
If it was only referring to certain US citizens isn't it or wasn't it "fundamentally flawed"?
He was discussing the compromise struck by the Founding Fathers to avoid a direct confrontation over slavery, as well as the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments after the Civil War. Those amendments outlawed slavery, required “equal protection” under the law, and stated that African-Americans must be provided the right to vote.
Which didn't happen.

" According to one view, the Framers embraced ambiguity in the constitutional text since it allows for compromise and cooperation about broad concepts rather than specific circumstances."

Obviously it is flawed because it was written by man...
e.g...
http://undergod.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=77

Tell me it isn't flawed...


http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-constitution/2008/10/27/id/326165#ixzz2MQtctoG7

 

I don't think not mentioning slavery makes it flawed! Slavery was a flaw in the morals of mankind, the Constitution (a document which doesn't advocate slavery, is not flawed merely just because it didn't go against slavery! Our founders allegedly believed that "all men are created equal. The fallacy was in the citizens, not the documents they wrote. We didn't need constitutional amendments to decriminalize slavery, because slavery deprives people of life, liberty and, property and is therefore the thing that was fundamentally flawed!

It sounds like Obama is the one with misguilded anger, the constitution didn't legalize slavery!

 

StpLSD25 'Our founders allegedly believed that "all men are created equal.'

Well, they obviously didn't or slavery wouldn't have been around, also it states 'all men' - where do you think women figured in the constitution?

Why didn't the constitution decree ALL men AND women?
The slavery issue is one aspect, I did not include everything he was talking about.
Please, put 'fundamentally flawed' in context - and articulate what you think he meant.

Well it, initially, didn't did it?

 

Yeah, you're right, all men are created equal, blah blah....

Tell me, I forget..... how much of a man does the constitution say a black man is worth?

It doesn't much matter if they thought all men are equal, if the definition of a man is a white male with land holdings.

The fact is that many aspects of the constitution are flawed. Like it or not. It's mostly been "interpretations" of it that have kept the US functioning. Not to say it's a lost cause, all it takes is an amendment to fix ANY particular flaw. The problem is the politicians who have not amended it as necessary.

I don't see that obama was expressing any anger at the constitution, he was being honest. The constitution was, and is, a deeply flawed document. You can't fix it if you don't admit it.

Of course, obama has done nothing to fix or strengthen the constitution, and has gone the opposite direction for the world. But the fact remains, it's a deeply flawed document.

 

Which president has in the last 100 years?

 

Again, that's not a "flaw" in the document, but a flaw in the mind of people around at that time. They didn't see black people or women as equals. (which is messed up, but people were not fully evolved back then, this type of white male government control has been around since ancient Greece) Actually women and african Americans, didn't even have full rights until the Civil Rights movement!

But what I'm saying is, that the people in those days were racist/sexist. I don't believe we need laws to tell us not to descriminate, we should just morally oppose it..

I suppose we're speaking about the same thing, and if that's the case, I guess he said "deeply flawed" and was talking about slavery. But it only mentioned slaves once or twice, and still didn't legalize/ endorse nor support slavery, it merely mentioned it.

So, that is to say, (in my opinion,) it's pretty bold to act like it was such an awful document, just because we're culturally opposed to something today, that was relatively normal in 1776..

Don't get me wrong, I think the colonist and those at the start of this country had some big moral flaws, but that doesn't rule out things they wrote to protect citizens, it just means we respect many more people than they used to as free individuals. Mankind has evolved in a very positive way... But we didn't need government to legalize it, it was the morality of those alive in those times...

 

Barrack Obama's laws are much more deeply flawed than our constitution. I honestly don't think many of you who talk bad about it, have actually read it! Slavery is barely mentioned, and by todays standards Black people and women are entitled to their constitutional rights, so as I said, it was the morality of mankind that was flawed, NOT the Constitution itself!

 

StpLSD25

I don't think you can expect deeply flawed individuals or, if you wish, 'not fully evolved' individuals to draft a document that includes a level of equality, but not be fully realised by those that wrote it. What do you think they were doing - writing a document for future flawless people and 'fully evolved' decedents?

We should not need laws today, but we are talking about the constitution.

You do speak of the constitution as if it is not an ambiguous document, isn't open to interpretation, and includes all the social norms apparent today - which it clearly did not.
Are you not interpreting the constitution to remove any flaws because it is expedient for you to do so?
You don't have to agree with Obama, but you should be able to see flaws in the document.

Yes, 'we' have removed certain flaws to include others because it is morally just to do so. It obviously wasn't interpreted in the same way, and it is clear it wasn't drafted to include the same people as it seemingly does today.

It's a little like the bible in that respect.

You are judging it in a very liberal way.

 

...and what does that mean?

 

Btw,

Why is this still in you signature?

 

I don't think you're understanding me.. The Constitution mentions people own slaves. But it didn't legalize slavery, nor did it legalize descrimination. It merely mentioned the word "slaves" once or twice.

Morally, we're opposed to it, because morally people have evolved! Much like the Virgin Mary... she was very young, like around 13 years old! Today, a 13 year old having sex is morally unacceptable, but back then it was the norm! Well it's the same with slavery.

But just cause the Bible may mention underage sex, it doesn't make the entire bible deeply flawed...

So, it's the same with slavery and the constitution. Yes, I see where you guys are coming from, their mentality was flawed not to include women and black people, but it also didn't say "All men are created equal, EXCEPT BLACKs" or anything like that! So it's not the document I see to be flawed, racism and sexism is wrong from the get go!

 

Typical STP, and typical libertarian, and anarchist, on the other end of the spectrum: I don't believe we should need laws, people should just do right.

Well sure, that's great, but the fucking fact is, we do need laws, because overwhelmingly, people do NOT do right. Basing government, or a lack thereof, on whishful thinking about how humans SHOULD be, is not a very bright strategy.

And YES, the entire bible is deeply flawed! For many more important reasons than god knocking up a thirteen year old!

Simply because something was in step with it's time, does not make it's deep flaws not count as flaws.

 

Cause I simply disagree with Ms.Iknoweverything. I think Barrack Obama sees human rights as negative Liberties! Do me a favor and READ just READ our bill of rights, and explain to me how any of these Liberties are negative.

None of these laws take any freedoms away from us, they only take freedom away from bad governments. These rights were not given to us by our founder, but rather, recognized as human rights, none of which are negative. She said "it was written in a negative context" I suppose because it says "Congress shall make no law,"

But honestly, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion..All these Rights are made so the people can keep dibbs on their government, NOT so the government can take freedom away from the people. Infact "Negative Liberty" is a oxymoron in it's entirety! There is NO bad freedom (unless a country legalized rape or murder) but that's certainly not the case in America..

 

I hate talking to you guys, cause I don't even finish a post, and I'm getting attacked again!

The Constitution mentions the word slavery, whihc is not happening anymore! IT doesn't make the freedom that the constitution promises citizens "Flawed." if anything is "flawed" in the constitution, it is JUST them mentioning slavery! Our Liberty is not negative, and never will be! And now that mankind has evolved, women and black people are protected under these rights too!


the constitution doesn't endorse slavery, it mentions it. I just mentioned slavery, that doesn't deem everything I've said automatically "flawed."