|
we should ban all these right wing organisations in the name of freedom of speech loving democracy
oh....wait
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 15:18 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 15:17 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 15:11 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 16 2009 15:10 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On April 16 2009 14:52 Jibba wrote:
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool. Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college. Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off. Lulz. Touchy subject? I'm still waiting on your explanation of a collectively working society free of coercion. I think history favors my assessment of human nature much more. And it is nature, not nurture. Rational self interest. See, that's the thing. I think rational self interest for the greater good dies away when the population becomes too large, either because people become too detached from one another and stop caring about the greater good of others, or simply because everyone will disagree on what the greater good actually means. The landowners' opinion will be hugely different than a city person, and they'll be pissed if their business is doing poorly because of it, and complete freedom also entails the freedom to organize, which begins the cycle all over again. Within a government, they're just competing interest groups rather than competing mobs.
We're not as primitive as when the first bureaucracies that were formed, but I think we'd turn to them for the same pragmatic reasons.
Repeat: BTW, are you in grad school right now? If so, what department and what school?
No, I'll be there next year unless I take time off to be a hippie. I'd like to go to the Naval Post Graduate School.
|
On April 16 2009 15:44 Choros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 15:05 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:40 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 14:32 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections. How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor. If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans? Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy? After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections? The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left. Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same. Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example. I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem. You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today.
RIGHTWING EXTREMIST
|
On April 17 2009 05:02 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 15:44 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 15:05 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:40 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 14:32 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections. How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor. If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans? Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy? After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections? The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left. Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same. Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example. I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem. You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today. RIGHTWING EXTREMIST
nah, he'd have to start babbling about the mythical "states' rights" first
|
On April 17 2009 06:02 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 05:02 HeadBangaa wrote:On April 16 2009 15:44 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 15:05 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:40 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 14:32 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections. How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor. If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans? Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy? After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections? The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left. Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same. Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example. I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem. You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today. RIGHTWING EXTREMIST nah, he'd have to start babbling about the mythical "states' rights" first
Not according ot the Department of Homeland Security and major media outlets.
And wow, what a hyper-federalist.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 17 2009 07:13 HeadBangaa wrote:
Not according ot the Department of Homeland Security and major media outlets.
And wow, what a hyper-federalist.
To our imperial overlords in Washington, that's only a tad better than being an anti-federalist.
|
United States22883 Posts
I haven't bothered to check, but has it occurred to anyone else that the DHS may have been putting out similar reports for the past eight years, but the media didn't choose to make a big deal out of it? The context in which we're looking at the story is all through the media's frame, which I don't think has been questioned.
|
On April 17 2009 07:13 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 06:02 Mindcrime wrote:On April 17 2009 05:02 HeadBangaa wrote:On April 16 2009 15:44 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 15:05 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:40 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 14:32 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections. How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor. If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans? Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy? After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections? The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left. Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same. Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example. I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem. You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today. RIGHTWING EXTREMIST nah, he'd have to start babbling about the mythical "states' rights" first Not according ot the Department of Homeland Security and major media outlets. And wow, what a hyper-federalist.
Hyper-federalist? Read the Constitution.
|
On April 17 2009 08:39 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2009 07:13 HeadBangaa wrote:On April 17 2009 06:02 Mindcrime wrote:On April 17 2009 05:02 HeadBangaa wrote:On April 16 2009 15:44 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 15:05 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:40 Choros wrote:On April 16 2009 14:32 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote:
If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections. How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor. If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans? Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy? After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections? The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left. Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same. Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example. I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem. You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today. RIGHTWING EXTREMIST nah, he'd have to start babbling about the mythical "states' rights" first Not according ot the Department of Homeland Security and major media outlets. And wow, what a hyper-federalist. Hyper-federalist? Read the Constitution.
I can't, it's too mythical.
Oh, you mean the US Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 17 2009 08:28 Jibba wrote:
I haven't bothered to check, but has it occurred to anyone else that the DHS may have been putting out similar reports for the past eight years, but the media didn't choose to make a big deal out of it? The context in which we're looking at the story is all through the media's frame, which I don't think has been questioned.
This is true. In fact under Bush 2 studies were started, one on the rise of left wing extremism and the other on the rise of right wing extremism.
Obama just happened to be the President when the studies were finished.
I think in reality the right wing extremism report was purposely brought out and debated on the same day that everyone knew the "tea parties" were being planned. You don't have to directly accuse anyone at these parties of being deranged, all you need to do is show a camera shot of the gathering, then switch to a report on right wing extremism and let the viewers make subconscious associations on their own.
Thats why I have repeatedly criticized StealthBlue for making this thread and making it as he did because it was obvious that he was trying to use this report to make half the American political spectrum (the half he does not follow) look bad. When in reality the report had NOTHING to do with conservatives. I believe the report was on like neo nazis and people like that, NOT fiscal or social conservatives. Its certainly not about people who are against the bailouts or who oppose the current high government spending.
So I try to keep this thread as derailed as possible because it is stupid OP, but every political thread quickly turns into a general political debate which is good. Hopefully we will keep this thread about general liberal/conservative discussion and ignore the dumb OP.
|
United States22883 Posts
Thanks, Savio. I figured as much. I'm not intimately knowledgeable about DHS (yet D: ) but I figured they're not a department that can crank out reports in 90 days.
|
Article put out today regarding this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w91.html
It discusses some of the things like that these studies began under Bush, and the similarities to the political atmosphere before Waco, along with its possible implications in the future.
|
Woah, how surprising. Who saw this coming. Right-wingers...extreme, stupid, and dangerous? Over the last 8 years I've had no idea there was any one of those things in the Republican Party.
|
I just thought I would bump this in light of the two recent shootings. report vindicated?
|
|
|
in long: no, the guy is a nutjob
|
|
|
Both guys are nutjobs. And the report was about nutjobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
