Well Obama got the nobel peace prize.
-
zbrown;291613 wrote:
These threads are pointless becauseI usually find these threads interesting. I like to try to figure out the thought process of the left leaning folks. I haven't figured it out yet, but maybe someday....
:icon_geek:
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
thrash;291607 wrote:
So the short version is: I haven't really done shit.I can tell you a couple things i did just this week
called and/or sent out emails to senators/congressman and district reps. A total of 33 in all
Had 2 approx 20 min discussions with a group of 5 people discussing fundamental points of the constitution and explaining to them how it is being usurped.
Myself donated an undisclosed amount to Michelle Bachmann, and garnered another $260 from other people as well. If you do not know Pelosi has her as her #1 enemy to defeat in the next elections and are raising a large amount of money. Im not particularly worried about her losing as she is, in my opinion the closest thing to a perfect politician i have ever encountered. I had a discussion with her one day in St Cloud when i ran into her for almost 20 min, and i have to say i will do anything i can to make sure she remains in office, either the current one or one much higher.
It isnt that difficult to get this stuff done but i put in a couple 14hr days this week and didnt even realize i had done anything till you posted that
-
zbrown;291613 wrote:
These threads are pointless because anyone who likes politics and is active in the thread is never going to persuade someone of a contrasting view...... and the ones who could care less about politics are not even reading the thread so...Did i say anything about the last post??
Actually I've probably moved more to the right because of thrash and I engage in these because (like Dave said) I like to see what the other side is thinking and why. Sometimes I present the leftist side of an argument, even though my gut tells me I'm more center/right on it, just to get another perspective.
Unfortunately, for every post of thrash's pushing me further right, I get redneck racists claiming they are conservatives calling for harm/death to the president...if not calling for it outright, saying they would be extremely happy if it did happen, and that pushes me back to the left because I really don't want to be associated with people of that mindset.
You guys seem to be all bent about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize because of his ideas, saying he hasn't done enough to warrant it, but I say that if that is the case, you have no right to call him a Nazi Socialist because he really hasn't done a whole lot to take away your civil liberties (the only socialist program that I've really seen PASS in congress was the takeover of GM via a very large loan...a bailout that began under Bush for those keeping track at home...along with TARP, also a Bush era plan).
Yes, the healthcare reform may end up with a socialist tinge to it (again, not in favor of a public option) and yes, there will be taxpayer money going into it, but its not like it is something new/unique to Obama. The fed has poured in BILLIONS of dollars every year for healthcare for many years...in fact our gov't pays more per capita for healthcare than any other "socialized" medicine country. So to pin that squarely on Obama is a LOOOOOOOONG stretch, and if I'm not mistaken, the bill that is currently in the Senate would decrease the amount of spending by the Fed instead of increase it.
**Short version of what I wrote: Obama was neither deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize nor the label as a Nazi...because both are based on possible ideas/goals, and not necessarily in reality.
**As for the copy/paste, I've said it before and I'll say it again, if/when I copy paste, I try and give credit where it is due. Do I forget on occasion? Yes. Sorry for not being perfect.
-
DaveH;291622 wrote:
I usually find these threads interesting. I like to try to figure out the thought process of the left leaning folks. I haven't figured it out yet, but maybe someday....:icon_geek:
Good luck, the way i figure it will take more than just one lifetime
-
Trafik Jamz;291629 wrote:
Unfortunately, for every post of thrash's pushing me further right, I get redneck racists claiming they are conservatives calling for harm/death to the president...if not calling for it outright, saying they would be extremely happy if it did happen, and that pushes me back to the left because I really don't want to be associated with people of that mindset.Rather than being pushed "right", think of me trying to push you up! Maximum economic freedom, maximum social freedom. Yeah baby!
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.htmlI think it's weird to let an argument against a guy's policies or ideology made by one person be diminished by an argument against a guy staying alive [because of his skin color!] made by a different person.
Something that people tried to make a big deal out of during the 08 primaries was how Stormfront and all these other white power groups loooooved Ron Paul, and some people were adamant that Ron Paul should return their money, refuse to talk with Stormfront, etc. And my take on all that stuff was always that groups who are marginalized by society are ALWAYS going to be drawn to the candidate that says "I will leave you alone".
But the more relevant point is that Paul was always clear that his ideology and voting record weren't going to actually help these guys acheive any of their goals, and that nobody else has ever bought him off politically, so what's the harm in taking money from a hate group and then spending it on non-hateful ends?
There are people who don't want to frustrate people the way I do by writing e-novels in every single post, but are still pissed off and frustrated but either not dedicated enough or not articulate enough to say anything other than what they're saying. And certainly there is the troll-bonus-modifier for some of these people. I'm not automatically a friend of anyone who is anti-Obama, and the rude awakening that most of these fair-weather-freedom-lover republicans are in for is that none of the RP supporters are going to give them the time of day because they fucked it up for everyone last time they had power.
So there may be people that nod their head about libertarian or pro-freedom talking points because they like anything that is anti-Obama, but that's obviously not what I'm about or what I'm suggesting you [or anyone else] should be about.
And i spend at least 10x the effort [and words] away from FS.com convicing conservatives that they got it wrong and that they need to join the libertarian badnwagon. And it's really hard to crack those nuts because generally, I agree with their social preferences and they get economics mostly right, but I need them to understand that the problem is the system, and not who happens to be in power at the time.
You guys seem to be all bent about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize because of his ideas, saying he hasn't done enough to warrant it, but I say that if
Well, Alfred Nobel's description of who is qualified to win the prize specifically says "has done", as in actions, past tense. So Obama doesn't really meet that bar, does he?
that is the case, you have no right to call him a Nazi Socialist because he really
as far as not calling Obama "names".. Hitler was a Nazi when he was sitting in jail. His ideology was the same before and after he had power.
I've tried to make clear on many occasions that Obama's ideology is the problem, and a man with that agenda -- even if he doesn't get 1% of it -- has no business having a job who's responsibilities include "uphold and defend the constitution". He hates that thing.
So Obama the ideologue is absolutely a socialist democrat, in the european sense, and it's fair game to bandy about words like "facist", "nazi", etc, because he doesn't really seem to grasp limited government power [but he's following a lineage of great teachers in that regard, right?]. He's done things that GWB never tried [like up-ending contract law and bankruptcy law to pay back political supporters [the UAW]].
Obama *the politician *is turning out to be no better than GWB in terms of giving us back lost liberties. And his agenda hasn't changed, although he's [thankfully] hitting some road blocks on making it happen.
-
thrash;291671 wrote:
I think it's weird to let an argument against a guy's policies or ideology made by one person be diminished by an argument against a guy staying alive [because of his skin color!] made by a different person.The thing is, I hear that Obama should be shot from 95% of the "conservatives/republicans" (their definition, not mine) that I speak with (and trust me, I knock on a lot of doors in a given week and talk insurance)...and they say it has nothing to do with skin color, and I believe them on that, but I also feel that given the chance they would applaud the assassination of Obama. That is a group that I have a hard time ever associating myself with. Libertarians are a completely different group (in my mind) than what most are considering conservative, even though they meet that definition better than (current) republicans do.
Something that people tried to make a big deal out of during the 08 primaries was how Stormfront and all these other white power groups loooooved Ron Paul, and some people were adamant that Ron Paul should return their money, refuse to talk with Stormfront, etc. And my take on all that stuff was always that groups who are marginalized by society are ALWAYS going to be drawn to the candidate that says "I will leave you alone".
But the more relevant point is that Paul was always clear that his ideology and voting record weren't going to actually help these guys acheive any of their goals, and that nobody else has ever bought him off politically, so what's the harm in taking money from a hate group and then spending it on non-hateful ends?
I understand your point, but what if it were Taliban/Al-Qaeda money (coming from a source in the US) that were going to him? Would you still suggest that he just spend it, or would you suggest he return it? I just want to know where the line in the sand is that you don't cross.
There are people who don't want to frustrate people the way I do by writing e-novels in every single post, but are still pissed off and frustrated but either not dedicated enough or not articulate enough to say anything other than what they're saying. And certainly there is the troll-bonus-modifier for some of these people. I'm not automatically a friend of anyone who is anti-Obama, and the rude awakening that most of these fair-weather-freedom-lover republicans are in for is that none of the RP supporters are going to give them the time of day because they fucked it up for everyone last time they had power.
I've always thought that your posts were well thought out and clearly spoken. I understand and respect your views, even if I don't agree with all of them. FWIW, I agree with most everything you just wrote. Just like I am not automatically a friend of a Democrat or hate all Conservatives.
So there may be people that nod their head about libertarian or pro-freedom talking points because they like anything that is anti-Obama, but that's obviously not what I'm about or what I'm suggesting you [or anyone else] should be about.
Agreed
And i spend at least 10x the effort [and words] away from FS.com convicing conservatives that they got it wrong and that they need to join the libertarian badnwagon. And it's really hard to crack those nuts because generally, I agree with their social preferences and they get economics mostly right, but I need them to understand that the problem is the system, and not who happens to be in power at the time.
Something we can both agree upon again. I'm fairly close to center on every "political compass" type test I take, usually just a little to the left and up toward libertarian (usually more up than left).
Well, Alfred Nobel's description of who is qualified to win the prize specifically says "has done", as in actions, past tense. So Obama doesn't really meet that bar, does he?
Excellent point, I did not/have not read the rules for the Nobel Prize, because I've never really put any credibility into it.
as far as not calling Obama "names".. Hitler was a Nazi when he was sitting in jail. His ideology was the same before and after he had power.
Another good point. I still don't think he is a Nazi, he is definitely a social democrat, but I really don't see him as a full blown nazi/communist....even with the advent of the healthcare reform being proposed.
I've tried to make clear on many occasions that Obama's ideology is the problem, and a man with that agenda -- even if he doesn't get 1% of it -- has no business having a job who's responsibilities include "uphold and defend the constitution". He hates that thing.
I disagree. I don't think he hates it, I think he sees it as a document that needs to be flexible enough to change with the times. Or he sees it as a document that is subject to interpretation.
So Obama the ideologue is absolutely a socialist democrat, in the european sense, and it's fair game to bandy about words like "facist", "nazi", etc, because he doesn't really seem to grasp limited government power [but he's following a lineage of great teachers in that regard, right?]. He's done things that GWB never tried [like up-ending contract law and bankruptcy law to pay back political supporters [the UAW]].
I'll admit, I listen to a LOT of talk radio and most of it left-wing.... Most of the UAW callers that called in or were guests of the hosts were bitching that he catered to the car manufacturers (big business) and left the little guy (UAW worker) hanging. I tend to agree with you however that it did seem like a political payback. This is something that took me some time to fully realize.
Obama *the politician *is turning out to be no better than GWB in terms of giving us back lost liberties. And his agenda hasn't changed, although he's [thankfully] hitting some road blocks on making it happen.
I agree with you here. While I don't think he has taken many of our liberties, he certainly hasn't restored any either (patriot act for example).
-
thrash;291671 wrote:
Rather than being pushed "right", think of me trying to push you up! Maximum economic freedom, maximum social freedom. Yeah baby!
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.htmlNot bad for being a pinko-commie-liberal-bastard
-
-
-
responses in bold
Trafik Jamz;291696 wrote:
The thing is, I hear that Obama should be shot from 95% of the "conservatives/republicans" (their definition, not mine) that I speak with (and trust me, I knock on a lot of doors in a given week and talk insurance)...and they say it has nothing to do with skin color, and I believe them on that, but I also feel that given the chance they would applaud the assassination of Obama. That is a group that I have a hard time ever associating myself with. Libertarians are a completely different group (in my mind) than what most are considering conservative, even though they meet that definition better than (current) republicans do.people like that are pathetic, even if i would say most of them are just saying it for effect and honestly dont think that
I understand your point, but what if it were Taliban/Al-Qaeda money (coming from a source in the US) that were going to him? Would you still suggest that he just spend it, or would you suggest he return it? I just want to know where the line in the sand is that you don't cross.
All the better! The more money you can get from any source, good or evil that is used solely for good cannot theoretically described as a bad thing in my opinion.
I've always thought that your posts were well thought out and clearly spoken. I understand and respect your views, even if I don't agree with all of them. FWIW, I agree with most everything you just wrote. Just like I am not automatically a friend of a Democrat or hate all Conservatives.
Agreed
Something we can both agree upon again. I'm fairly close to center on every "political compass" type test I take, usually just a little to the left and up toward libertarian (usually more up than left).
Excellent point, I did not/have not read the rules for the Nobel Prize, because I've never really put any credibility into it.
Cause once the PLO and carter got it, any shred of credibility was gone. Also it was outed today that only one judge actually wanted obama to get it and basically bribed the rest on how great it would be, what a disgrace
Another good point. I still don't think he is a Nazi, he is definitely a social democrat, but I really don't see him as a full blown nazi/communist....even with the advent of the healthcare reform being proposed.
Nazi=national socialist. Obama is a socialist at heart, and is a big fan of nationalization policies. Thus-national socialist or Nazi. Just cause your a nazi doesnt mean you are a genocide loving raving maniac, just that your the definition of Nazi
I disagree. I don't think he hates it, I think he sees it as a document that needs to be flexible enough to change with the times. Or he sees it as a document that is subject to interpretation.
Obama has CLEARLY stated that he sees it as a charter of NEGATIVE rights, and thus nothing more than a burden to the creation of big, socialistic government. If that isnt the definition then i dont know what is
I'll admit, I listen to a LOT of talk radio and most of it left-wing.... Most of the UAW callers that called in or were guests of the hosts were bitching that he catered to the car manufacturers (big business) and left the little guy (UAW worker) hanging. I tend to agree with you however that it did seem like a political payback. This is something that took me some time to fully realize.
HA, this made me LOL. The UAW is anti-little guy, not GM. You do realize why the UAW is backing this national healthcare so hard right? They just got billions of dollars to cover current and legacy health programs for its members. if socialized medicine is enacted you know damn well they will kick the workers on to that and pocket all of that money right? GM would like its original contracts honored, bankruptcy law honored and to get rid of the UAW as fast as it could, they are just so overpowered by them they no longer have a choice.
summary of that is GM= good, UAW=the devilI agree with you here. While I don't think he has taken many of our liberties, he certainly hasn't restored any either (patriot act for example).
Agreed, and its gonna be hell or high water before they are restored. As reagan said "The closest thing to immortality is the creation of a government program"
-
Didn't know I needed to respond or that you were looking for a response.
I don't disagree that the UAW is out of control, but I don't blame them for people not buying GM vehicles like they used to. GM is priced lower than Toyota on many areas, but Toyota still outsold them.
Obama has CLEARLY stated that he sees it as a charter of NEGATIVE rights, and thus nothing more than a burden to the creation of big, socialistic government. If that isnt the definition then i dont know what is
When/where has that been stated? I know he is fairly anti-gun...especially on a state level, on a federal level I haven't seen that. I guess I'm just asking for a source....maybe this will be the thing that tips me away from him entirely (I'll admit I'm teetering...) but in doing the google search that CMK/Parker seem to think that I am the grand master of I really couldn't find anything that points to it. Maybe I need to search youtube, but I'm hoping you can help me out and post a link?
-
easy as hell to find, welcome to the right side chuck
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf7DU9ywQ4[/ame] -
since im going to bed now and i saw nick in here, ill just post this for your enjoyment
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHtw6WbbnM[/ame] -
Grr;291957 wrote:
easy as hell to find, welcome to the right side chuck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf7DU9ywQ4I actually came across that in my search, but then heard the rest of the interview and saw the clarification of it. It was discussed pretty well here, with this being the answer that I used to dismiss what was said as being out of context: http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/665688-post5.html
-
Grr;291958 wrote:
since im going to bed now and i saw nick in here, ill just post this for your enjoyment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHtw6WbbnMTed Nugent is fucking AWESOME.
-
Chuck, I posted that blurb at least 1 year ago about that exact story. And the "dismissal" is a crock of shit. It's glossing over the real point and trying to tell readers they're not as smart as lawyers, and their feeble little minds just don't understand what was actually happening.
My claim was and continues to be that Obama wishes the constitution didn't get in the way of his goals. He laments that you cannot use a negative liberties (one that protects people from the government) document to get the sort of socio-political outcome he wanted, and he further laments that the civil rights folks before him tried using the courts and failed. Listen to the fucking contempt in his speech. Unlike the bozos before him, who tried to get the supreme court to decide something, he figures a more effective strategy is to do it in the legislature. The supreme court says NO, Obama says people ought to go about doing it some other way so it's not up to them.
"Social Justice" has nothing to do with the constitution. There is no guarantee to a "right" of education or any such horseshit. Those are all inventions of the left, they tried to get them via the courts, the court said no, and Obama says they'll try something else.
I have my disagreements with the courts, but my disagreements go in the other direction - namely, that the court has been entirely too lenient in letting bullshit happen and in stripping away the protections of the constitution. So while I'm no unambiguous supporter of the court, on occasions where the court says "the constitution doesn't let you pull that shit" and Obama says "so?", I'm inclined to think Obama is an asshole.
I've been trying to make the case for at least a year: Obama doesn't beleive in any compatible notion of America that someone like me would recognize. In his world, the power of government isn't limited, the function of government isn't to protect individuals, and the role of government isn't to stay the fuck out of the way. That's not how he rolls. Instead, the government can do whatever needs to be done for social justice, there is a taxonomy of group identities and some groups are more deserving than others, and the government should meddle in every damn aspect of the human condition.
That 50% or more of the populace seem to agree with him reflects poorly on him, them, and the public education he claims to be so enamored with [but won't subject his own children to].
The man may be a nice human, but he is utterly and completely irredeemable as an American. And don't change the subject to whine about the last guy, or any other former president -- we're talking about *this *guy. And ideologically, he's a disaster, and the only possible silver lining is that he might fail so hard in practice that some of that 50% of hopey-change dopes that voted for him will step back and think about not taking a bigger bite out of the shit sandwhich that they just got served (after all, it's what they ordered).
topical reading:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/hasnas1.html
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/FeelsLike.htmI have a modest but helpful library of pro-capitalism, pro-libertarian books that I'd be happy to lend to anyone that's interested. Being a capitalist, I beleive in value for value, so the upside for me from lending you a book is that your future votes, conversations, and way of approaching things might not actively work against the interests of me and ultimately of any version of America that deserves to retain the name it inherits.
And as to why I keep running my mouth about this crap, to paraphrase Milton Friedman: "don't be impressed when you convince someone in an evening. The next person they talk to will lead them entirely astray on some other evening. The minds you need to fight for and win are those who need to think it over for a while."
So I hope my efforts aren't wasted, and that after more than a year of skipping over my long ass posts, some of you are thinking things over. Hopefully if you borrow a book from me you'll really get it and be able to overcome any disservice I may have done by trying to make an argument first presented by guys much more clever and articulate than I.
In other words: I'd love it if you went straight to the source. The best starting point I know is "Capitalism and Freedom", by Milton Friedman. Incidentally, he's most commonly associated with the University of Chicago. Proof that solid intellectual talent *can *come from that city
My 40th anniversary paperback edition is sitting behind me on the bookshelf. I'll lend it to anyone who asks and who can meet me to pick it up.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login