The Rage on the Left Is Just Beginning

I have no desire to hold my tongue just because things are the way they are... with that mentality the Founders should have simply given up at the first thought of breaking away from the British Empire. I hold the Income Tax to be nothing but, a use of funds solely for entitlements and War... it steals from those who actually work and produce in this country then it uses those exact funds to pay for those who either don't deserve it or into unsustainable Wars.

Protecting the Global Economy from Unstability? Yeah I guess we really are a Corporatist nation when we send our men and women to insure their Companies are secure across the Globe. Also your remark calling Non-intervention Isolationism is laughable.. go open a dictionary and read the Definition of a Isolationism and then check to see if Non-intervention has Protectionism involved of any sorts.

So we put falliable people in charge of a falliable system and expect the system to work even though it has failed for the past century... Yup lets continue on shall we?

Oh those (*)(*)(*)(*) dirty Arabs! I can't believe they actually attack us.. I mean it's not as if our foreign policy relies on the people we attack to forget what just happened 5 minutes prior to what just occurred. Oh don't worry we're just bombing your country, establishing a Government that is Pro-Western/USA and killing your people as we do it. Don't worry we're overthrowing your Elected Leader in Iran because we fear he may be a Communist (OMG THE REDS!!!!) please don't hate us afterwards just because we put a Brutal Dictator in charge that will soon slaughter a portion of you.

What the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you typing? We need to fill the shoes of Rome, Britian, Spain and various other World empires that all came crashing down? Sounds like another logical plan. Yes we do have a choice... just because you can only see violence to secure your means doesn't mean there are other ways with the possibility of not being so thick headed as your ideas.

So at the end of the day we're busy protecting Corporate interests and resources secured by Corporations. Isn't that pretty retarded that we're sending people to die so someone can secure more money? If you really believe this to be the true Path America should follow you value life less than a dollar it seems.

Forced Morality in all Social Issues that don't belong in the hands of few to determine how everyone else should live. Just because the Majority pushes through an Agenda doesn't mean the Agenda isn't retarded... the entire generation of Anti-Drug users consists of hypocrites.

Bringing forth the will of the People that inflicts harm to the Minority was never intended in a Republic because the sole responsibility of the Republic is to protect the Minority from the Majority. You really do not care for the Republic if you keep pushing this agenda... your ideas are nothing but age Old Imperialism which has been seen throughout the World for 3,000yrs... all of those Empires crumbled.

It was also accepted the World was Flat, The Stars were Heaven, Evil Spirits caused the Plagues and people of different colors/class were Subhuman to those on the top. The lunacy of Keynes has brought much of the Economic destruction in this country and the Corporatist take over... Since you have no conflict with Corporations pulling the strings you should surely support Keynes.

 

I'm just saying that's the sense I get when I hear rad libertarians talk. Their rhetoric sounds just like Jefferson Davis when he left the Senate to go back to Mississippi after it seceded. Most of these issues libertarians cry for, were fully decided 150 years ago by force of arms. You may feel it was "armed tyrrany" but that's what happens when rebellions fail.

Look man a Republic only protects you as a minority up to a certain point. The year your ideology shrinks to a small enough proportion of the population(somewhere around 30% IMO) you are at the mercy of Democracy, Constitution or no Constitution.

Pff.. now we have Libertarians defining what "conservative" is? Reagan must've been a raging statist IYO.

I've offered scientific study after study. Survey after Survey and the source is always attacked as part of the vast Government Conspiracy to strip the American People of their freedom. So I gave up. You cannot argue with people whose view of an issue is clouded by a conspiracy theory.

Like I said, A Republic doesn't protect extreme minorities.

 

So, we shouldn't vote?

 

Ask our hyper-Conservative Congress why they took time off too.

And from what most people know, the President is essentially telecommuting this week; not completely off the job.

 

Go back and look at our entire history! Imperialism is as native to America as Baseball and Mom's Apple Pie. The founding fathers embraced imperialist expansion military/economic means from the very beginning. What do you think Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine were about? One of the little known causes of the Civil war were Southern plans to invade and annex Mexico and Central America clear to Panama and annex them into a future CSA.

Just because you want to abandon the ideals of economic expansion and global dominance that our Founding Fathers embraced freely don't get mad at the rest of us who haven't.

America was BUILT on economic expansion. Without it we die. If it takes a military to protect, secure and maybe even assist in that expansion, it's not unamerican to pursue it because we have done so for 223 years.

I make no apologies for America's imperialism because, even though people can deny it all they want, HISTORY has PROVEN that America's economic imperialism has made the Earth a better place to live for billions and continues to do so to this day.

America was begun as an imperial power, and hasn't seen it's nadir yet unless we choose to allow it. America without economic dominance will die. Plain and simple fact.

 

The westward expansion and the Monroe Doctrine happened well after the founders were dead.

So in response, the North invaded and annexed by force 11 sovereign nations.

Your view of history is one sided, is it not? Isolationism vs expansionism is one of the longest debates in our country and the expansionists didn't always win; a difficult point to prove by the countries we didn't invade and annex.

Japan was built on military and economic expansion until we showed them a better way. They no longer need to invade China, Korea, or Siberia to advance themselves.

I think WE decide what our foreign policy is and a growing element among conservatives wants to restore us to a less beligerant interaction with the world. We are Ron Paul conservatives. Count our numbers.

To a point I agree with this, but honestly, the results are mixed. In my thread http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...200971-thank-you-white-people-ode-whites.html I made the point that the subjegation of my own people, the American Indians, was terrible and yet beneficial in the long run. I'd rather be a Native American with flush toilets, hospitals, and X-box that the brutish existence I would have had the white man never conquered us. But I would also say that the thinking that the ends justify the means is an excuse for the worse crimes imaginable.

 

In response to your statement on westward expansion, historically speaking, it was Thomas Jefferson that started westward expansion with the Louisiania Purchase in 1803. If I am correct, Jefferson was a founding father. He was the prmary writer of the Declaration of Independence. However, he was not a member of the Constitutional Convention, as he was the Minister to France at the time.

 

Everybody's mad at him. Yet he thinks he can get re-elected. Must have something up his sleeves, besides the backdoor amnesty.

He's one sneaky politician.

 

So in all fairness, the westward expansion did start with the founders. Yes, I'm admitting that siliconmagician is technically right on that. But the brutal conquering and subjegation of the inhabitants...that decision was made by their successors. What's remarkable about the founding fathers is the relative peace we had with American Indians.

If we're going to be historically accurate, the slaughter of Natives really began after the Civil War. The federal government, already having usurped unconstitutional power and exercised it in a brutal way, felt it could do anything it wanted. And they could because we were no longer a nation of laws, we were a nation of force and the only law was the law of the jungle.

 

Get over it! That view of America is DEAD and has been for ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS. That is the main problem with libertarianism, it's 19th century thinking! It's a return to ways that were deemed insufficient for governing an industrialized economy. Industrialization was cruel, and needed to be controlled. We've just gone to far now and its time to ratchet back the regulation, but to strip the Federal Government down to the bone and treat every State like it's own soveriegn nation was destroyed over a century ago. Stop trying to bring that back!

"..and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, ONE NATION.."

WE ARE ONE.

We didn't invade and annex Afghanistan or Iraq. We don't want to conquer them, we just want them to live in peace with their neighbors, each other, Israel and the United States. That is all we want.

To think that the US Navy is a tool of imperialist aggression on the level of the IJN is absolutely outrageous. We protect the silk road because no one else cares to or has the money.

You're about the same proportion of the population as liberals 25-30% no more.

What? The Native American fought hard for 400 years. You see any other native people on the planet that took 400 years, from 1610 to 1900 to fully subdue? Every other native people on the planet that Europeans colonized were subduded continentwide almost immediately, except the native American.

Now though, he can enjoy the freedom he once had. His greatest religious places are now protected national parks where he, like all Americans, is free to go and pray or dance or commune with nature and no one will question him.

No one is going to force Christianity on him anymore, or force him not to use his native tongue. Now the Native histories are revered and protected and that culture has become of part of the American Heritage.

I worked on an indian reservation and frankly I think they are barbaric institutions. Mini-despotisms where native elders stroke their own people for their hard earned money. Any sensible native would leave the reservation, get an education and a career then rescue as many people from the despots that they can.

If I ever get rich, I plan to do just such a thing through scholarships to rescue kids off the reservations.

 

The reason people can't "get over it" is because the dominion of federal power began with that war. We need to understand the origins of the problem in order to effectively deal with it.

If by 19th century thinking you're referring to Tocqueville, Jefferson, and Smith, then we need more of that type of thinking in the 21st century in a day when we've forgotten what made us great.

If you ask my kids, I've already brought back child labor...but that's a different story.

I have to give the Left this...when we have a prolonged occupation of a foreign nation, we can rightly be characterized as imperialist. We went about this war wrong from the start. When we were attacked, our sole mission should have been retribution...not making friends.

Ron Paul conservatives are growing in strength and numbers. It will soon be the neocon warhawks that will be antiquated within the Conservative movement.

In all fairness, white people were not in a prolonged effort to subdue American Indians. And in all fairness, some tribes were never conquered, including one in my own bloodline.

If you've read my thread, you'd know you're preaching to the choir.

Which is why I was raised off the reservation and my parents told me, "Take nothing from them." I've never used a federal Indian pandering program in my life and I never will. The reservations are a blight and a perpetuation of white aggression against the red man.

I pray you encounter great fortune, my friend.

 

Far left? LOL. You don't know anything about the leftism. Obama is center-right; or maybe you're so radical to the right, that something a bit centered you think that is far left, because if we see the real far left, I don't know what you would think about them.

 

LOL

To you I'm your worst enemy. Bourgeoisie to the core.

 

lol. No, I won't tell what I think about you because I will be banned.

 

Was it stupid of the Germans to vote Hitler in? yeah ok, and so goes the liberals too.


...

 

Nothing but lame appeals to the majority and the status quo. Don't you have anything substantive to say?

Of course the majority CAN circumvent the Constitution, and of course the status quo is unlikely to change, but that is just stating the obvious. If I needed someone to regurgitate inane and obvious facts to me, I wouldn't be on a debate forum where people are expected to intellectually defend their position.

So, do you have an intellectually defensible and consistent argument as to WHY majority rule is just and practical? or will you simply repeat the obvious? And do you have an intellectually defensible and consistent argument as to WHY having a draconian central government is just and practical? or will you simply tell me 'that's how it is' and pretend you've made some brilliant point?

This is complete and utter BS. There isn't a shred of scientific evidence to suggest that drug prohibition has anything but a devastating effect on society. The demonstrable failure of alcohol prohibition proved this beyond a reason of a doubt and yet you still cling to your ridiculous crusade against drug users simply because you find them personally revolting. That's the only "reason" you have and will ever have to support the prohibition of drugs.

It does when the Constitution is designed explicitly to insure that the rights of the individual - the ultimate minority - is protected from the tyranny of the majority and its government proxies.

But you are just doing what you usually do, which is to make another empty appeal to what is or what is likely to be instead of what ought to be.

Why don't you make an argument as to why it ought to be that way instead of just telling us how it is. That would be a welcome change of pace from you.

Oh my! Another profound rebuttal from the resident "conservative". Last time I checked, Keynes' hypotheses had mostly been discredited by the likes of Hayek and Friedman. Of course, a "conservative" like you already knows that, I'm sure...

 

Congress goes on recess for a month, and that doesn't bother anyone. The president cannot pass any legislation, which is what is needed. People have asked him if he thought he should call congress back to work. his response was that it wouldn't do any good. they weren't getting anything done when they were in session, it wouldn't be any different if he called them back. the republican house is not going to do anything that would help Oboma , such as put people to work or improve the economy in any way.

 

please point out the part of the 12th amendment that supports your argument.

please point out this part of the 12th amendment.

please point out the part of the constitution that dictates the two party system.

 

How the hell do you not understand the difference between an unintended consequence and a dictate?

 

This is why I have a problem with the American Constitution. It's very inflexible. When a problem arises, it requires a huge amount of effort to change it and people use a phrase in the constitution as an argument when they are supposed to use the reason why the phrase was in the constitution as an argument.

In Sweden (here we go again), we rewrite parts of our constitution every now and then because we understand that times change, we cannot expect society to look the same as it did 100 years ago. The latest part is from the 70's.

 

As opposed to what Donny-Boy?
Bachmann?
Romney?
That Texas twit with questionable sexual preference?

Its sure a good thing your avatar is so imposing...otherwise I doubt anyone would take this sort of crap seriously at all...

 

did you say something ?

 

DNC has a major trouble-it is a lose coalition of pro-unionist, centrists, liberals, deviants, anarchists, far lefts etc.-they have always pushed their ideology ahead of issues that affect production-which is bottomline of economy and job generation. Unionism is a fundamental right as long as production is not compromised by strikes.