Who is "anit-government"?
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 1998
Posts: 1,719
Likes: 1
From: Blue Ridge Mountains, GA
Wiki actually has something right: "Fascists tend to support a "third position" in economic policy, which they believe superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism"
"State Socialism" is a left-wing ideology.
A long read, but well worth it: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...ftist/id8.html
"State Socialism" is a left-wing ideology.
A long read, but well worth it: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...ftist/id8.html
Last edited by Frank S; Jan 10, 2011 at 07:18 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,895
Likes: 0
From: Starkville Mississippi
KMac:
With all respect, have you ever been to a Tea-Party rally? Oligarchy is not what they want. Teabaggers simply want a Republic that follows our Constitution, gives states individual power, small federal government, and after that, everyone basically fend for themselves. They're tired of being taxed to death because the tea party is 99% white, hard working, tax paying, Main Street Americans that are tired of working until Wednesday of every week simply to pay the government to pay government hand-outs to another portion of our nations citizens. 99% are not the 'right wing christian **** terrorists' that Nancy Pelosi likes to spew out of her sewer that she calls her mouth. Of course there are a few nut-jobs in the tea-party; there will always be a few that align with a group but the group as a whole would not accept them.
With all respect, have you ever been to a Tea-Party rally? Oligarchy is not what they want. Teabaggers simply want a Republic that follows our Constitution, gives states individual power, small federal government, and after that, everyone basically fend for themselves. They're tired of being taxed to death because the tea party is 99% white, hard working, tax paying, Main Street Americans that are tired of working until Wednesday of every week simply to pay the government to pay government hand-outs to another portion of our nations citizens. 99% are not the 'right wing christian **** terrorists' that Nancy Pelosi likes to spew out of her sewer that she calls her mouth. Of course there are a few nut-jobs in the tea-party; there will always be a few that align with a group but the group as a whole would not accept them.
Last edited by Green_98; Jan 10, 2011 at 11:35 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,278
Likes: 0
From: Seabrook,NH
I am for reasonable, responsible government. A government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Stop filling government seats with lawyers. Start filling those seats with hard working Americans that truly represent the population. We are not all lawyers.
Stop filling government seats with lawyers. Start filling those seats with hard working Americans that truly represent the population. We are not all lawyers.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Why can't a majority of the people in this country think this way? Life would be so much simpler.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
KMac:
With all respect, have you ever been to a Tea-Party rally? Oligarchy is not what they want. Teabaggers simply want a Republic that follows our Constitution, gives states individual power, small federal government, and after that, everyone basically fend for themselves. They're tired of being taxed to death because the tea party is 99% white, hard working, tax paying, Main Street Americans that are tired of working until Wednesday of every week simply to pay the government to pay government hand-outs to another portion of our nations citizens. 99% are not the 'right wing christian **** terrorists' that Nancy Pelosi likes to spew out of her sewer that she calls her mouth. Of course there are a few nut-jobs in the tea-party; there will always be a few that align with a group but the group as a whole would not accept them.
With all respect, have you ever been to a Tea-Party rally? Oligarchy is not what they want. Teabaggers simply want a Republic that follows our Constitution, gives states individual power, small federal government, and after that, everyone basically fend for themselves. They're tired of being taxed to death because the tea party is 99% white, hard working, tax paying, Main Street Americans that are tired of working until Wednesday of every week simply to pay the government to pay government hand-outs to another portion of our nations citizens. 99% are not the 'right wing christian **** terrorists' that Nancy Pelosi likes to spew out of her sewer that she calls her mouth. Of course there are a few nut-jobs in the tea-party; there will always be a few that align with a group but the group as a whole would not accept them.
The biggest problem with leaving things to the states is the mass confusion it can cause in the whole scheme of things. Thirty or forty years ago this would have been fine. Today, the nation and the world is seemingly smaller. While most commerce and dealings were in town or in state at most, today individuals can trade around the world in moments.
Technology has brought us to the point where even some things may be too big to handle at a nation level and will eventually have to be dealt with more globally. Why do you think the EU went with a universal currency?
Americans have the view they are the greatest civilization ever and are beyond reproach. We have a whole world to deal with today at a smaller level.
If something affects everyone in the nation, it is better to deal with it at a larger level. Economies of scale. For example with health care, why should someone have to change plans they like just because they move?
It wasn't all that long ago that you couldn't get a credit card from a bank out of state. Today we have mega-banks like JP Morgan Chase and B of A that serve virtually everyone in the country.
I understand that things progressing is scary to people. Some want consistency to continue for eternity but it isn't a reality.
At local levels things fail miserably too...look at public education. In some areas it is great and others it is a shambles. A big part of the problem is funding as some areas just cannot support a good level of education and in turn we pay later for higher crime rates and warehousing people.
Big government isn't the total answer but the Federal level has the means to do much more than individual states can do in general. The idea that the Federal level only serves to protect our borders is out of touch with the reality of today.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 664
Likes: 1
From: Whitehorse, Yukon
July 4th Tea Party rally: "If ballots don't work, bullets will!"
Remember this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB7g3...layer_embedded
The ballot didn't work in Giffords case and wit defended this maniac to the bitter end. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
(Key portion at around 6:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB7g3...layer_embedded
The ballot didn't work in Giffords case and wit defended this maniac to the bitter end. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
(Key portion at around 6:00)
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Yes, to the bitter end:
Phantom MOD deletions
Originally Posted by wittom
Part of being in a disscussion is to read what others are saying.
It's fine if you believe that what she said is crossing the line. You've posted her words, so everyone can make that decision for themselves.
She did say:
if ballots don't work, bullets will.
That does sound pretty heated but is it not the truth? Like I said in the tread that was deleted, she didn't set a time line.
She did say:
when I say I'll put my microphone down on November 2nd if we haven't achieved substantial victory, I mean it. Because if at that point, I"m gonna go up into the hills of Kentucky, I'm gonna go out into the Midwest, I'm gonna go up in the Vermont and New Hampshire outreaches, and I'm gonna gather together men and women who understand that some things are worth fighting for -- and some things are worth dying for.
You can take from this what you will, but it doesn't expressly say what you are claiming it does. You are assuming that when she said this that she meant that she was going to go to these places to gather people with weapons. Is it possible that she meant that she would try to rally people who understand and believe in the vision that our founding fathers had, to become more involved in the process set forth by our founders? It is possible that she meant that and not that she was going to go in guns a blazing. She didn't say that if the elections didn't go the way that she wanted that she was going to organize and armed takeover of the government. If you can somehow know what she was thinking, and what she meant, you are a better man than I.
Let me contrast what this woman said, with some words of some other "Tea Party Poopers":
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
I may or may not agree with what this woman said and/or how she said it. I know for a fact that any one persons words do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and values of the entire movement labeled the "Tea Party". I do tend to agree more with people who advocate for the defense of liberty, than with people who advocate the abolition of it.
People have not been silent. You are just hearing what you want
It's fine if you believe that what she said is crossing the line. You've posted her words, so everyone can make that decision for themselves.
She did say:
if ballots don't work, bullets will.
That does sound pretty heated but is it not the truth? Like I said in the tread that was deleted, she didn't set a time line.
She did say:
when I say I'll put my microphone down on November 2nd if we haven't achieved substantial victory, I mean it. Because if at that point, I"m gonna go up into the hills of Kentucky, I'm gonna go out into the Midwest, I'm gonna go up in the Vermont and New Hampshire outreaches, and I'm gonna gather together men and women who understand that some things are worth fighting for -- and some things are worth dying for.
You can take from this what you will, but it doesn't expressly say what you are claiming it does. You are assuming that when she said this that she meant that she was going to go to these places to gather people with weapons. Is it possible that she meant that she would try to rally people who understand and believe in the vision that our founding fathers had, to become more involved in the process set forth by our founders? It is possible that she meant that and not that she was going to go in guns a blazing. She didn't say that if the elections didn't go the way that she wanted that she was going to organize and armed takeover of the government. If you can somehow know what she was thinking, and what she meant, you are a better man than I.
Let me contrast what this woman said, with some words of some other "Tea Party Poopers":
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
I may or may not agree with what this woman said and/or how she said it. I know for a fact that any one persons words do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and values of the entire movement labeled the "Tea Party". I do tend to agree more with people who advocate for the defense of liberty, than with people who advocate the abolition of it.
People have not been silent. You are just hearing what you want
Originally Posted by wittom
Some individuals have commited acts of violence but is it right to condemn an entire political party or movement for it? Should we condemn and entire religion for the Ft. Hood shooting?
Last edited by wittom; Jan 12, 2011 at 10:42 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,895
Likes: 0
From: Starkville Mississippi
Habibi:
There's not much in her speech that I disagree with. She's 100% correct that there is a reason that we have a 2nd Amendment...it is for the people to be able to protect themselves and fight off a tyrannous government. Plain and simple. Many hardcore right wingers are seeing this administration as trying to steam-roll the conservatives into a socialist mindset, and people like this get an itchy trigger finger when confronted with radical left-wingers in power.
I dont agree with her taking an armed mob of rednecks to Washington and charging capital hill, but she's got a point. As said at 7:15, this administration needs to be beaten with ballots and the out of control trainwreck halted before the election. I couldnt agree more.
There's not much in her speech that I disagree with. She's 100% correct that there is a reason that we have a 2nd Amendment...it is for the people to be able to protect themselves and fight off a tyrannous government. Plain and simple. Many hardcore right wingers are seeing this administration as trying to steam-roll the conservatives into a socialist mindset, and people like this get an itchy trigger finger when confronted with radical left-wingers in power.
I dont agree with her taking an armed mob of rednecks to Washington and charging capital hill, but she's got a point. As said at 7:15, this administration needs to be beaten with ballots and the out of control trainwreck halted before the election. I couldnt agree more.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 4
From: Friendswood Texas
saw this in the news
that describes a few people here
i also saw where he was into Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism.
at this point if he was affiliated with a political party someone would have nailed it and shown proof.
sometime people are just nuts, they dont have to be religious or republican...just nuts
He is a person described by friends as an atheist, who reportedly had an occult shrine in his backyard. A man obsessed with government, who didn't vote in the last election.
i also saw where he was into Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism.
at this point if he was affiliated with a political party someone would have nailed it and shown proof.
sometime people are just nuts, they dont have to be religious or republican...just nuts
Senior Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: Crestview, FL
Anyone remeber this one?
and all this stuff?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...ife_fight.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/2...-your-enemies/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/us...cs/21memo.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25891.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/0...e-***-to-kick/
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...---next-year/1
and a nice little link with all the Lefts violence and rhetoric if thats not enough:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10...r,%202000-2010
We can go round and round for days....its not all just Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, lets not chastize one side but act like the other side doesn't do it too, and at the same level. All of it from both sides, could be turned down a notch.
Originally Posted by Ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...ife_fight.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/2...-your-enemies/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/us...cs/21memo.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25891.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/0...e-***-to-kick/
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...---next-year/1
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10...r,%202000-2010
We can go round and round for days....its not all just Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, lets not chastize one side but act like the other side doesn't do it too, and at the same level. All of it from both sides, could be turned down a notch.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Remember this?
Why the change in tune? Why is it that with Ft. Hood, personally things like this saddened you deeply because there's not much of a difference between Canada and America. You value them like a good brother and good neighbor. Then with the Arizona shooting, unanswered details don't matter and it's not this time a delicate and complicated situation? Why didn't you blame Palin, the GOP and hate speach for Ft. Hood?
Ok.
Originally Posted by Habibi
There's still so many details unanswered; especially if he acted alone.
Originally Posted by Habibi
To say it's a delicate and complication situation is an understatement.
Originally Posted by serotta
C'mon Witt you know she's indefensible.
Originally Posted by wittom
I may or may not agree with what this woman said and/or how she said it. I know for a fact that any one persons words do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and values of the entire movement labeled the "Tea Party". I do tend to agree more with people who advocate for the defense of liberty, than with people who advocate the abolition of it.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane