Journal Bill Dog's Journal: Now that some of the dust has settled, ... 59
...it seems to me that Jared Lee Loughner [I guess three names are used for (in)famous murderers, to take pity on those unlucky enough to have the same first and last names?] had some random hodge-podge of extremist philosophy from both political sides lodged in his defective head. Orwell's and Ayn Rand's writings would typically interest the far Right, who worry about the Left ridding us of freedom and individualism, and Marx's and Hitler's writings would typically interest the far Left, who want to learn how to rid us of freedom and individualism (in favor of social and economic "justice").
Distrust of govt. is a hallmark of the far Right, but belief that our govt. was behind 9/11 is a hallmark of the far Left. Belief in the importance of a sound currency backed by something tangible is characteristic of the Right, but belief in the notion that words essentially create realities is characteristic of the Left.
Beyond this, he once went to a local political event to ask a politician about govt. mind control or something, and that politician at that time and local to him happened to be this lady, and she didn't know how to respond to a distorted question, and he took it as a slight and held it as a grudge as his mind spun further and further out of control over the next few years.
I think the best summarization of the "why" behind this guy and his attack was a quote from one of his former philosopy professors: "His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world."
p.s. At least he gave us the parting gift of a good mug shot.
p.p.s. Glenn Beck was lamenting the "politicization of violence" on his (TV) show yesterday, and it struck me that that's just the flip side of what for lack of a better wording I'll call the "violencification of politics". It's Leftist canon that to overthrow a current system of unjustness due to the existence of inequities, the underclasses must be provoked into rioting in the streets et al. So for those who deem violence a critical aspect of politics, it's not a shocker then that politics could be deemed a critical aspect of violence.
It also makes sense in regards to how I think many (but definitely not all) of today's Left, at least in America, prolly have largely abandoned the original dream of violent overthrow of capitalism, the glorious revolution as essentially a single, pivotal moment in time, in favor of a slow erosion or slide, death-by-a-thousand-cuts type methodology. It only seems natural that former radicals who believed in politics-motivated violence, would then simply adopt the tactic, in trying to convey the message of "now see us as mainstream and respectable people, and Ma and Pa America as the outcasts and dangerous", of trying to project such on the other side.
Altogether, it's sad that there's evil in this world. I wish the world were rid of all forms and personifications of it, but I don't believe in fighting evil with evil, and I believe that in the grand scheme of things, all evil will be defeated and justice will prevail, in good time.
Signed,
A "dangerous" Right-wing "nutjob"
The question was worse than what you thought. (Score:2)
He asked a stupid smashup of philosophy classes all in one stupid question: 'What is government if words have no meaning?' [blogspot.com] is a quote
Re: (Score:1)
It might not have made a difference in this case, but I would've asked my constituent what he meant by his question. If you're going to open up the floor to questions, one should try to answer those questions and not assume heckling and be dismissive. Or belligerent, as some politicians in their town hall mtgs have been.
Of course the congresswoman did not deserve to be shot, but we shouldn't allow the magnitude of his gross over-reaction to keep us from realizing that there's the possibility that she maybe
Mein Kampf Leftist? (Score:2)
Nazi Germany was jingoistic nationalism patriotism protectionist, and every other right-wing descriptor.
Nazi Germany also attempted to kill all the gays, handicapped, and communists.
This notion that Hitler's writings appeal to the left is an odd notion. I understand that the right wishes to reject the work, because it honestly does not represent their modern views; but to assume that because it does not fit with their views then it must align with those of their political opponents is a false dichotomy.
Hit
Re: (Score:1)
Why? That statement is incorrect. Hitler was just as much a leftist as Stalin was. Now go read the Nazi Party Platform. Any of it sound familiar? It should, a large part of it was the same fascist nonsense that FDR supported.
No go be a good little statist and be sure the goods you purchase bear the insignia of the Blue Eagle.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler uses the main thesis of "the Jewish peril", which speaks of an alleged Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership.
Anti-semetism... let's see... which side of the aisle does this fall on? Hollywood values are part of the left, right? And Hollywood is run by the Jews, right? So, the left doesn't have a reason to hate the jews, right?
Of course, today, the Right is making an argument for a Muslim conspiracy to gain US leadership, and take over the world, right?
The narrative describes the process by which he became increasingly anti-Semitic and militaristic...
Let's see... which side of the aisle is for militarism? The lefts with their calls to cut defense spending, and work to create guns illegal? Hm... no, that does
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-semetism... let's see... which side of the aisle does this fall on? Hollywood values are part of the left, right? And Hollywood is run by the Jews, right? So, the left doesn't have a reason to hate the jews, right?
Of course, today, the Right is making an argument for a Muslim conspiracy to gain US leadership, and take over the world, right?
Well, doesn't the left have its own demons? The "wealthy" and the "neocons"?
Jews, witches, gypsies, Jacobites, Muslims, rich people, neocons, reds etc. All are/were some group's demon and "responsible" for whatever is happening that that the group doesn't like.
Let's see... which side of the aisle is for militarism? The lefts with their calls to cut defense spending, and work to create guns illegal? Hm... no, that doesn't sound like them at all.
What does private ownership of guns have to do with militarism? Maybe backpacks should be illegal too because the military uses them to help kill people. And clothes, for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
You are forgetting much of your history.
There were/are many Leftist dictatorships that were very big on the military. Just look at Che Guevara, Castro, Lenin, Mao and a good chunk of Latin America during the 60s and 70s.
As long as it was "in the name of the people", armed struggle and armed oppression were easily justified on the far Left.
Hitler was a dictator and a fascist. He was interested in gov't control of industry and central planning -- just like the Left. The National Socialist Workers Party (Na
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-semetism... let's see... which side of the aisle does this fall on?
Mostly the left. There is a very strong tie between the left and support for anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, policies. There is some remnant of anti-Jewish sentiment on the right, but far less than on the left.
Of course, today, the Right is making an argument for a Muslim conspiracy to gain US leadership, and take over the world, right?
No, not right at all.
Let's see... which side of the aisle is for militarism?
Neither. Both.
The lefts with their calls to cut defense spending, and work to create guns illegal? Hm... no, that doesn't sound like them at all.
Actually, the far right is for defense cuts: the libertarians, the Ron Paulers, the protectionists like Pat Buchanan. The more to the center you go on both parties, the more support you get for "militarism."
Private ownership of guns is a completely unrelated issue:
Re: (Score:1)
PUUUUUUUUUDGE !!!!
You un-retired again!! Welcome welcome!!
Anti-semetism... let's see... which side of the aisle does this fall on?
And look at that, so easy.. You know it is a lie to equate anti-semetism with anti-Israel. Why am I not surprised to see you stating such things? To whom do you pledge your allegiance? Hmmm?
Re: (Score:2)
You know it is a lie to equate anti-semetism with anti-Israel.
No, it is not.
Don't look now.. there's a fire in your crotch (Score:1)
Yes, it is so. And you are lying. Please, stop..
Not quite... (Score:2)
This notion that Hitler's writings appeal to the left is an odd notion.
I do agree with that. Hitler was not on the left.
However:
Please recognize that Hitler's writings are the end of your political side that only the insane would dare endorse
Isn't quite right, either.
Because in reality, a left-right political continuum makes sense only economically. Control issues are orthogonal to economic policy and should not be shoehorned onto the same axis because they don't fit there.
In reality, Hitler was a centrist economically. He hardly could have cared less who held the power economically (that is, as long as it wasn't "them") - he certainly wasn't moving dramatically for more or les
Re: (Score:2)
Please recognize that Hitler's writings are the end of your political side that only the insane would dare endorse
Isn't quite right, either.
Well, we can throw any number of dimensions in the way to separate oneself from anything. But in the current single axis projection of politics in the USA, Hitler would register as a republican.
Re: (Score:2)
Please recognize that Hitler's writings are the end of your political side that only the insane would dare endorse
Isn't quite right, either.
Well, we can throw any number of dimensions in the way to separate oneself from anything. But in the current single axis projection of politics in the USA, Hitler would register as a republican.
Well, if one were to force him to register for one party or the other, he would most likely favor the GOP. However I don't think he would do it because of the economic policies of either; but rather because of their perceived positions on other political axes.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if one were to force him to register for one party or the other, he would most likely favor the GOP. However I don't think he would do it because of the economic policies of either; but rather because of their perceived positions on other political axes.
No, most of his policies are more in line with the dems. His militarism is in line with moderate dems (and Republicans), and his views on civil liberties are MUCH more in line with the dems (free speech, guns, abortion, etc.).
His views on nationalism and race are not in line with either party.
Re: (Score:2)
and his views on civil liberties are MUCH more in line with the dems
That is pure conjecture on your part...
free speech
Neither party has a lock on oppressing or supporting free speech. Both parties have endorsed (at the very least by manner of not opposing) actions to shout down the other and anyone who claims that their party doesn't do so is lying or enveloped in spin.
guns
I am not aware of Hitler taking any particular stance on guns being carried in public by Germans. Feel free to share a source on that if you have one.
abortion
Bei
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, how nice of you to come back.
You are making a perfectly false implication.
and his views on civil liberties are MUCH more in line with the dems
That is pure conjecture on your part...
No, it's not. I listed off examples.
Both parties have endorsed (at the very least by manner of not opposing) actions to shout down the other and anyone who claims that their party doesn't do so is lying or enveloped in spin.
Only one party -- the Democrats -- advocates actually banning speech they dislike, whether it be campaign speech by third parties, hate speech, political speech on the airwaves, and speech that might be taken as threatening to people in office. (So, while the Bruins play the Senators tonight in Ottawa, apparently it would be illegal for me to post "Kill the Senators!" on Facebook, as I did earlier this evening.)
Granted, many
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, how nice of you to come back.
You are making a perfectly false implication.
To clarify, I was referring to the time gap in your comment history. You hadn't posted any comments (at least as Pudge) on slashdot in quite a while.
Both parties have endorsed (at the very least by manner of not opposing) actions to shout down the other and anyone who claims that their party doesn't do so is lying or enveloped in spin.
Only one party -- the Democrats -- advocates actually banning speech they dislike, whether it be campaign speech by third parties, hate speech, political speech on the airwaves, and speech that might be taken as threatening to people in office.
Again, I asked for an example, and again you provided conjecture.
(So, while the Bruins play the Senators tonight in Ottawa, apparently it would be illegal for me to post "Kill the Senators!" on Facebook, as I did earlier this evening.)
Maybe someone cares what you post on facebook, but I am not that someone.
I am not aware of Hitler taking any particular stance on guns being carried in public by Germans. Feel free to share a source on that if you have one.
Um. Yes, they did not restrict guns for Germans. They did so for everyone else! And funny, we have a long history of Democrats who favor gun control and are in favor of banning guns who get gun permits for themselves.
Do you have a source for this? I specifically asked for a source. You claim to have a degree in journalism; it shouldn't be that hard for you to find and provide sources.
abortion
Being as the Nazis actually forbade German women from having abortions I don't see your claim holding water here.
Again, you are looking only at GERMANS. They kept abortion legal for non-Germans, explicitly because it was a cheap and easy way to kill off more of them.
And which party wants to ban abortion? There a
Re: (Score:2)
Only one party -- the Democrats -- advocates actually banning speech they dislike, whether it be campaign speech by third parties, hate speech, political speech on the airwaves, and speech that might be taken as threatening to people in office.
Again, I asked for an example, and again you provided conjecture.
False. I conjectured not a bit. I did assert, but that's not the same thing. Learn something.
And honestly, if you need examples, you're unfit to discuss this.
Just this weekend, some Democrats called for banning speech that may be deemed as threatening to elected officials.
Democrats, including the top Dem legislators in DC, have for years called for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and renewed their statements after Obama got elected, including Schumer and Reid and Feinstein.
The Democratic Congress le
Re: (Score:2)
False. I conjectured not a bit. I did assert, but that's not the same thing. Learn something
I recall you are not fond of the dictionary, but nonetheless I will take definitions from it because it is a source that does not care about either of us specifically.
Conjeture
: inference from defective or presumptive evidence
By comparison
Assert
: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively
Being as your evidence was undoubtedly defective and presumptive, you clearly conjectured. However you also declared aggressively, so you asserted as well. Oddly enough in this case, while indeed the two acts are not completely synonymous, they both describe what you said.
Being as you do both frequently, it is not surprising
Re: (Score:1)
Oh bullshit. Abortions aren't being mandated on ANYONE.
IM(NS)HO abortions would be required for children who would be born with severe retardation or another serious birth defects.
But fuck it, you won't see ANY politician advocating that POV.
Shit it is not like Obama mandated killing white babies. (Although that might improve the average IQ of the country by a fair bit!)
Re: (Score:2)
He has expanded abortion
Oh bullshit. Abortions aren't being mandated on ANYONE.
And I am not talking about him mandating abortions on anyone. I am talking about him legalizing abortions for "undesirables."
IM(NS)HO abortions would be required for children who would be born with severe retardation or another serious birth defects.
Yes, you would fit right in with Hitler and Sanger.
Re: (Score:2)
He has expanded abortion,
Oh bullshit. Abortions aren't being mandated on ANYONE.
You may have forgotten that for someone as conservative as Pudge, anything that doesn't immediately ban all forms of abortion, across the board, no exceptions under any circumstances, is exactly the same as expanding abortion. To him, doing nothing at all (unless of course you have an R after your name) is also exactly the same as expanding abortion.
Re: (Score:2)
But in the current single axis projection of politics in the USA, Hitler would register as a republican.
Obviously, you are a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
"Because in reality, a left-right political continuum makes sense only economically. Control issues are orthogonal to economic policy and should not be shoehorned onto the same axis because they don't fit there."
I disagree. Distributism, for instance, is an economic system that is ENTIRELY about control issues (in that it fights against the centralizaiton that exists in either capitalism or communism).
Re: (Score:2)
You need to head on over to NPR's website, to Planet Money. The episodes on Spain's banking system would interest you greatly. They're called "cajas".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_bank_(Spain) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And just to throw this into the mix:
Apparently Jared's mother Amy and Congresswoman Giffords belong to the same synagogue [originaldissent.com] and Jared was raised Jewish- just claimed that Mein Kampf was part of his favorite reading list to piss off his mother!
Only the insane would endorse indeed!
Re: (Score:2)
Nazi Germany was jingoistic nationalism patriotism protectionist, and every other right-wing descriptor.
It respected the rule of law? It essentially believed in basic human dignity and liberty? It believed in an absence of government controls over the market?
Perhaps you didn't mean "every" other ... ?
Nazi Germany also attempted to kill all the gays, handicapped, and communists.
And also favored legal abortion for non-Germans.
Hitler was a reactionary (that means far right-wing)
Bzzzzzt. Incorrect. Try again! It's a common mistake made by those with less understanding (e.g., you) that the right-wing is about returning to some previous time, while the left is about advancement. In fact, currently, the left wing is about returning to a
Re: (Score:2)
Please recognize that Hitler's writings are the end of your political side
But they aren't. He was heavily socialist
You either don't know much about socialism, or you don't know much about Hitler and his policies. Just because his party's name translates to "national socialist" does not mean that they are actually socialists by any real means.
and opposed liberty, which means he is against THE ONLY things that motivate me to BE on the right AT ALL.
If the latter part of that statement refers to your feelings on "liberty", then at least those things that motivate you to be on the right are rooted slightly in reality, because indeed liberty was oppressed under that regime. If, however, you feel that you need to be extraordin
Re: (Score:2)
You either don't know much about socialism, or you don't know much about Hitler and his policies.
False on both counts. I am referring to the fact that Hitler exercised strong controls over business and the economy. This is socialism.
Just because his party's name translates to "national socialist" does not mean that they are actually socialists by any real means.
Correct. However, the fact that he exercised massive controls over the country -- its people, its economy, its industies -- does mean they were socialists.
If ... you feel that you need to be extraordinarily conservative because you fear naziism coming in under the guise of socialism
No. I "fear" socialism under the guise of the Democratic Party. But whatever labels you wish to use, I stand up as a right-winger to fight against the people -- of both parties, but mostly in the Democratic one -- wh
Re: (Score:2)
Just because his party's name translates to "national socialist" does not mean that they are actually socialists by any real means.
Correct. However, the fact that he exercised massive controls over the country -- its people
Socialism is not about controlling people. Any such notion of socialism being about controlling people is patently false.
its economy, its industies
And what controls did the Nazis place on the economy and is industries? I asked for examples and you gave empty statements.
If ... you feel that you need to be extraordinarily conservative because you fear naziism coming in under the guise of socialism
No. I "fear" socialism under the guise of the Democratic Party.
Well it is nice of you to be forthcoming about your paranoia, even if it has no basis in reality.
You don't have to like the Nazis (I certainly don't), and you don't have to like the socialists, but hating them both because you think they are interchangeable is just an act of historical ignorance.
I don't hate them because they are interchangable, and I never implied any such thing
Well thank you for clarifying that.
I was just pointing out the fact that Hitler implemented many leftwing socialist policies in regard to business and the economy
Please provide an example of those policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is not about controlling people.
False.
And what controls did the Nazis place on the economy and is industries?
Have you never heard of the Four Year Plan? As Wikipedia says, "Goering had complete control over the economy including the private sector."
One obvious, specific, example is Volkswagen, which was a company essentially founded by Nazi Germany under Hitler's specific direction.
No. I "fear" socialism under the guise of the Democratic Party.
Well it is nice of you to be forthcoming about your paranoia
You're a liar.
... even if it has no basis in reality.
You're a liar. Time and again I have demonstrated clear and irrefutable evidence that the modern Democratic Party is peddling nothing short of socialism, whether it is in the form of a literal takeover of a whole
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is not about controlling people.
False.
That is total bullshit. Just because you don't understand socialism, doesn't give you the ability to redefine it to whatever you want.
And what controls did the Nazis place on the economy and is industries?
Goering had complete control over the economy including the private sector."
One obvious, specific, example is Volkswagen, which was a company essentially founded by Nazi Germany under Hitler's specific direction.
You just tried to claim that two people both had control over one company. Nevermind that VW had far more direction from outside than from any Nazis - the original Beetle that is so often erroneously tagged as the "Hitler-mobile" was actually designed by Porsche.
No. I "fear" socialism under the guise of the Democratic Party.
Well it is nice of you to be forthcoming about your paranoia
You're a liar.
Are you trying to phone this one in or something? You just said you fear socialism coming in from the democra
Re: (Score:2)
you don't understand socialism
But I do, as demonstrated.
doesn't give you the ability to redefine it to whatever you want.
Using a definition that has been in use for a century and a half is "redefining it"? You realize you're a moron, right?
You just tried to claim that two people both had control over one company.
Wow. OK, um ... you know Goering was controlled by Hitler, right?
Nevermind that VW had far more direction from outside than from any Nazis - the original Beetle that is so often erroneously tagged as the "Hitler-mobile" was actually designed by Porsche.
Um. I never made the case that Hitler literally designed the car. He directed major portions of its design TO Porsche. Porsche wasn't on the "outside," he was working for Hitler TO create the "People's Car."
Jeez, you're an idiot.
I have to stop reading you now. My brain can't take your utter inan
Re: (Score:2)
you don't understand socialism
But I do, as demonstrated.
No, you did exactly the opposite. You demonstrated that you do not understand socialism. You demonstrated this by repeatedly attaching incorrect terms and policies to it. Just because you don't like socialism, or Nazis, doesn't mean you can automatically call the two as equivalent. And just because you fear the remote possibility of certain things you don't like happening, does not mean that they are automatically "socialist" either.
For example, I don't like most "conservative" politics. I also don'
Re: (Score:1)
Please recognize that the end of my political side would be anarchists, if any really existed. That is, zero authoritarianism -- complete and total social and economic freedom for individuals. A totally laissez-faire free market, and a completely unplanned and unregulated society. That's the Right-wing extreme, as I see it today. Historical and/or European definitions notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Please recognize that the end of my political side would be anarchists, if any really existed. That is, zero authoritarianism -- complete and total social and economic freedom for individuals. A totally laissez-faire free market, and a completely unplanned and unregulated society. That's the Right-wing extreme, as I see it today. Historical and/or European definitions notwithstanding.
I am aware that your end of the political arm is anarchy, we've discussed it enough, that I think I know that well enough.
However, your libertarian views are not the mainstream conservative leadership and representation of this nation... if it WERE, then I'd actually have trouble making votes sometimes.
The Founding Fathers were Leftist then? (Score:2)
It's Leftist canon that to overthrow a current system of unjustness due to the existence of inequities, the underclasses must be provoked into rioting in the streets et al. So for those who deem violence a critical aspect of politics, it's not a shocker then that politics could be deemed a critical aspect of violence.
So, a group of landed independent men that provoke a number of colonies to revolt, and establish as a fundamental right the right of the people to retain arms to overthrow their government... So, these people would all be leftist?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. At least from my point of view, having started with with the politicial philosophy of Gerald Ford, then moved on to Karl Marx, then moved on to Ross Perot, Ayn Rand, and finally Pope Pius IX. The last of which was near-contemporary with the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers- and who considered them to be free mason and modernist heretics whose American Revolution sparked the bloody chaos in France and finally the unification of Italy and the loss of his own Papal States to make him "The pr
Re: (Score:1)
To me, our founders were liberals (lower-case ell) -- they sought to replace a system with a *less* restrictive one. Liberals (upper-case ell) seek to replace our system with a *more* restrictive one.
Tomorrow, I'll have to look into the (morphing, over time) definitions of Reactionary Right, and the Nazi party platform and Hitler's writings. For example, I characterize the American Left as being strongly anti-semitic. But that's under a newer definition [wikipedia.org], that you might not necessarily accept. My perception
Re: (Score:1)
First, a regret: I didn't mean for the Mein Kampf reference in my JE to erupt into comparisons of modern-day American Left and Right with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. My thinking was only that those who are inclined to favor social and economic controls, would be more interested in the thoughts of one of history's more famed implementers of such, than those who are generally disdainful of such.
Secondly, a retraction: Only specific to my presented example of a morphing definition, I reject the definition o
The problem with revolutions (Score:2)
"It also makes sense in regards to how I think many (but definitely not all) of today's Left, at least in America, prolly have largely abandoned the original dream of violent overthrow of capitalism, the glorious revolution as essentially a single, pivotal moment in time, in favor of a slow erosion or slide, death-by-a-thousand-cuts type methodology. It only seems natural that former radicals who believed in politics-motivated violence, would then simply adopt the tactic, in trying to convey the message of
Nutjobs (Score:2)
You sure get a lot of them here, Bill Dog.
One point on the name: they use the entire full name for all suspects of infamous crimes for practical reasons: it makes misidentification less likely. It's much more likely there's two Jared Loughners in Arizona than that there's two Jared Lee Loughners. And it would be very unfortunate to be misidentified as a murderer.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You sure get a lot of them here
But there are two kinds of nutjobs -- the verbally offensive, and the intellectually offensive.
The former don't even try to make arguments, they just berate and spew vileness, and I don't even see their posts, courtesy of Slashdot's option for negative modifiers for "Foe of Friend" and such categories. Thankfully (but unsuprisingly, I like to think) the people I've friended have some pretty good taste, and this has worked out quite well sparing me from the hostile juvenility t
To maintain authority (Score:1)
left and right work hand in hand. If you want liberty, you have to eliminate both. If you wish to support either, pick the one that provides the highest status and greatest privilege, and destroy the one that threatens either of those. Just remember it will condemn you to eternal slavery. It's a bargain with the devil. And the house always wins. Heads he wins, tails you lose. You're up a tree without a paddle. A dog always barks on a rainy day. Do words mean anything?
Daisy, Daisy
Give me. your. answer. do.
I'
Re: (Score:1)
I simply will not ever be joining you in your antiquated outlook on Left and Right. The days of the dominance of the Christian Coalition are long over -- the solid Right is now characterized by the Tea Party movement. If the average Tea Partier is like me, we've learned our lesson, upon the Left turning the tables on us and trying to enforce their morality on us, and now we're opposed to strong authority.
So go on and pretend that it's still the 1950's or something or America is some religious state and puri
Re: (Score:1)
...now we're opposed to strong authority.
Now you know your actions at the polls belied that statement.. The words mean nothing without the act :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Not to me they haven't -- the Tea Party movement fielded distinctly non- big govt. candidates AFAIK. And I didn't vote for either Obama or McCain, who are both big govt. Progressives. You seem to be stuck in another era on this as well.
Maybe that's a matter of opinion. For example, I will freely state that I'm strongly anti-abortion, but I don't go and protest in front of abortion clinics. Activism is one o
Re: (Score:1)
*sigh* How soon they forget...
But you still have no trouble leaving tens of thousands locked up for possession? And forcing many thousands more through the system in the future for want of a bureaucracy? Please!
Hell, I can't do this. You just have to see the ill logic on your own. All I can't say is that it is fatal for your credibility. Your actions and your statements are simply irreconcilable. It only says that you're no less authoritarian than the others. The only difference is the targets you choose.
Re: (Score:1)
We've talked about the subject of your obsessive single-issuedness before [jeez, you're like a Bible-thumper who always ends up bringing the topic back to abortion] -- IIRC I left it at my being open to the idea of moving certain prohibited substance(s) to the regulated column (as alcohol is), but that until you can get a law changed, you shouldn't break it.
Just because I'm not for lawlessness, and fall short of the extremist position on your pet issue [I try to fall short of the extremist position on every
Re: (Score:1)
Someday, if corrupt authority ever steps on your toes, you might understand, you know, walk a mile and all that.
Rubbish. It's the law breakers who prove the futility of the law, make it impossible to enforce without great collateral damage, to shame the authorities. It took bullets to free the slaves. I would hope we don't need the same to free the innocents. These laws have no right to exist. It is only by corruption, violence and the treats there
Re: (Score:1)
Taking the easier one first:
But please, don't try to tell me you're against authority...
I don't believe I've ever tried to tell you that I'm against authority. I said (and you even quoted me on) "...now we're opposed to strong authority." Maybe you overlooked the "strong" qualifier? I'm not an anarchist -- I believe in limited controls, not no controls -- I'm just a lot closer to being one, as it must look from where you guys stand (excepting your particular pet issue, of course).
It's the law breakers who p
Re: (Score:1)
Rather unfortunate that you can't comprehend the force of the ocean until you feel the waves. Hearing you people talk about freedom from your sheriff's office is like hearing a politician talk about "tough sacrifices" from his private spa. How can you possibly expect me to take you all seriously? Well, I do, sorta. I lament the utter waste. You both serve the same master.
Re: (Score:1)
On Soviet Slashdot, Leftists lecture libertarians on freedom!
Re: (Score:1)
Aw hell, now you just sound like that clown RG.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Democrats are supposed to be the party that looks out for the downtrodden and defends the social safety net.
I think the argument would go something like they can do more good by having even greater power. As Sally Field's politician character in Legally Blonde 2 said, "I can't do anyone any good if I'm no longer here". Right now the focus is on dealing death blows to the Right as a philosophy, in the hopes of killing off any credible opposition once and for all. Then the really big (and authentically Left,
Re: (Score:1)
We could blame the people that cut off funding to the institutions, but it would kinda look a little like this [millionface.com]..