2aHawaii
General Topics => Off Topic => Topic started by: Dregs on November 29, 2011, 08:01:27 AM
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195889-sens-paul-mccain-clash-over-terrorist-detainee-amendment-?page=1#comments (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195889-sens-paul-mccain-clash-over-terrorist-detainee-amendment-?page=1#comments)
This shit is just getting scarier and scarier. What was Department of Homeland Security's definition of terrorists and extremist groups again? Right wing parties, people who have guns, etc.
-
oh nooo there's a censor now =O(
-
How "funny"
The extreme left wants to lock all the potentially dangerous weapons away
The extreme right wants to lock all the potentially dangerous people away
D.C. is such a black hole.
-
^ Why's the hole gotta be black?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380143,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380143,00.html)
:rofl:
-
^ Why's the hole gotta be black?
:rofl:
:shaka: thanks for the laugh today.
-
Wow I see this as a huge gray area for the government to do as they please.
-
I wonder how Ruby Ridge and Waco would play out under these new rules. Instead of a big, staged attack, just send in a couple snipers?
-
How "funny"
The extreme left wants to lock all the potentially dangerous weapons away
The extreme right left(McCain) wants to lock all the potentially dangerous people away
D.C. is such a black hole.
Fixed it for you.
I think that old Victor Charles beat McCain so badly they turned him into a communist. The guy's the very definition of a RINO, and his war record be damned. Congrats, John, you got a plane shot out from under you, then failed to escape and evade capture. Once you got home, you ditched the formerly smokin-hot wife who faithfully awaited your return for five or six years, because she had been involved in an auto accident fairly shortly before your sorry ass got out of your cage and wasn't hot any more. You're a dirt bag, turncoat, pussy, John, and it's a sad state of affairs that we ever nominated your geriatric candy ass to be President.
Not really a fan of the "distinguished" "gentleman" from Arizona. (Gentleman and distinguished used very, very loosely)
-
I honestly don't give a flying tit ass **** **** cock motherfucker bitch which side he's on or representing or pretending to represent.
*sorry was testing the censorship mode lol*
-
I don't know if you guys have seen this vid. A different view of Left & Right.
The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE#ws)
-
Thanks for posting that, Jay.
-
Great video, Jaydawg. Does anybody else feel like they're watching the fall of Rome every time they watch the news or read a paper? I sure do.
-
Im kinda over watching Hawaii news. You can watch the 5,6 and 10 o clock news and they all show the same thing. They don't even discuss world news or us news. I usually just watch one local news station then watch world news as well to learn whats going on in the world. But yea, it does seem to be falling apart.
-
Wow thanks for posting that. I might use that.
-
"... and the the Republic for which is stands..."
Right in front of our noses the whole time, yet we're still taught that we have a democracy.
We DO have a democratic republic, though. Democracy is how we elect our representatives. At the local level many things are decided more or less democratically. In this case it is a method of decision making more than it is a style of government. What the video doesn't neatly account for is that the laws of a republic don't write themselves. Were it not for the democratic elections we would have yet another oligarchy.
Very useful way of looking at Left and Right. Much better than the common one. Thanks.
-
I found this a while back: Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test) Does a good job clarifying why the left and right are known as they are, but adds more dimensions. Specifically, they are conservative/liberal and libertarian/totalitarian. Check it out, you can take the quiz and figure out precisely what your political bent is, and even compare it to notable world leaders.
-
Interesting. I knew I leaned right, but I didn't expect to be as far as I turned out. I'm not as surprised that I didn't skew even lower toward anarchy. I describe myself as a libertarian who supports motorcycle helmet laws. :)
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=5.62&soc=-4.51)
-
Upon further reading, I'm going to have to retract my commentary above. Left/Right in this graph doesn't mean at all what we think of as Left/Right, liberal/conservative in this country.
It's an informative site, and frankly, a much more useful and nuanced way to think about political beliefs than the mish-mashed l/r l/c spectrum we're used to.
Thanks for the link, Cougar. :shaka:
-
To continue arguing in terms of left and right is foolish. It's the way our corporate oligarchy keeps us divided so we are easier to control. You're falling for an advertising campaign.
-
^^^
That about sums it up. The oligarchy comes in the form of corporate influences in D.C. It is still a representative republic but the question is... WHO is being represented?
The political compass site is fun. I found out that I share political turf with the Dalai Lama and Ghandi. (1/2 left, 2/3 libertarian) I'm a little surprised at how far left I am but when it comes to economic policy (which is what this site is basing its left / right scale on) it makes sense.
-
To continue arguing in terms of left and right is foolish. It's the way our corporate oligarchy keeps us divided so we are easier to control. You're falling for an advertising campaign.
Absolutely. Though it is useful in that anyone who strongly identifies himself as one or the other reveals himself to have fallen for the con. :crazy: ::)
-
Though it is useful in that anyone who strongly identifies himself as one or the other reveals himself to have fallen for the con.
I disagree, but in the sense that some of us who are strongly promulgating a pro-2a "con" are not "conning" anyone, but are actually just pushing back on the successive compromises which led us (and apparently, Hawaii) to our present-day sorry situation in respect to the the Second Amendment.
Hence my sig line.
Terry, 230RN
-
I didn't mean being strongly left or right on any particular issue, but identifying yourself as strongly left or right. "Left" and "right" are pre-made packages of beliefs that, when you think about them, really don't have much to do with one another. Being "right" on one issue has absolutely no bearing on being "left" on others, unless you've bought the con, and feel you have to stand in unison with your tribe.
I'm "right" on gun ownership, but "left" on free speech (What exactly does it mean to be "right" on free speech? On second thought, strike that. Both the left and right hate free speech, but for different things.), and "right" on property, but "left" on drugs and abortions (I should clarify, I support rights to, I don't support or use drugs and abortions themselves.). If you stick with the "left" and "right" paradigm, you'd have to average them out and call me "center", but that implies I'm moderate, and I assure you, I am very strong on all those issues.
I hope this clears up what I meant.
-
I didn't mean being strongly left or right on any particular issue, but identifying yourself as strongly left or right. "Left" and "right" are pre-made packages of beliefs that, when you think about them, really don't have much to do with one another. Being "right" on one issue has absolutely no bearing on being "left" on others, unless you've bought the con, and feel you have to stand in unison with your tribe.
I'm "right" on gun ownership, but "left" on free speech (What exactly does it mean to be "right" on free speech? On second thought, strike that. Both the left and right hate free speech, but for different things.), and "right" on property, but "left" on drugs and abortions (I should clarify, I support rights to, I don't support or use drugs and abortions themselves.). If you stick with the "left" and "right" paradigm, you'd have to average them out and call me "center", but that implies I'm moderate, and I assure you, I am very strong on all those issues.
I hope this clears up what I meant.
I think you're thinking more along the lines of Republican or Democrat. Being "left" or "right" is more of a personal philosophy. My personal philosophy is that the government should exist only to protect its citizens from each other and foreign countries. Any law which serves only to protect the citizenry from themselves is, or should be, invalid. Seat belt laws are a prime example of a law which does nothing but protect people from themselves, and should be immediately and forever abolished.
-
My personal philosophy is that the government should exist only to protect its citizens from each other and foreign countries.
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lna52bqy9w1qh04zz.jpg)
Any law which serves only to protect the citizenry from themselves is, or should be, invalid. Seat belt laws are a prime example of a law which does nothing but protect people from themselves, and should be immediately and forever abolished.
You'll never see me marching in support of nanny laws, or even advocating voting for it. When I say "for seat belt laws," I am being tongue-in-cheek. Libertarians have a reputation for being self-destructively stubborn. One of the first things I ever read about them, way long ago, was a vitriolic piece against motorcycle helmet laws. To the average person, this is just insanity, and really is not the right stepping-in point for the philosophy of individual freedom.
I see small time nanny laws like seat belts and helmet laws as being far from the core, and I generally don't fight about it, because arguing about them is a distraction from the stuff that really matter.
-
Legally, there is a bunch of stuff on this saying the president can already do this.
http://volokh.com/2011/11/30/defense-bill-will-allow-president-to-indefinitely-detain-american-citizens/#comments (http://volokh.com/2011/11/30/defense-bill-will-allow-president-to-indefinitely-detain-american-citizens/#comments)
-
You'll never see me marching in support of nanny laws, or even advocating voting for it. When I say "for seat belt laws," I am being tongue-in-cheek. Libertarians have a reputation for being self-destructively stubborn. One of the first things I ever read about them, way long ago, was a vitriolic piece against motorcycle helmet laws. To the average person, this is just insanity, and really is not the right stepping-in point for the philosophy of individual freedom.
I see small time nanny laws like seat belts and helmet laws as being far from the core, and I generally don't fight about it, because arguing about them is a distraction from the stuff that really matter.
I hear you. I actually didn't mean to put a shot across your bow with the seatbelts; that's just my standard illustration of a law that exists to protect people from themselves. I don't get worked up about them, either. The problem, in this man's opinion, is that people want the government to do things like mandate that hospitals cover uninsured people at the emergency room. That sounds reasonable, right? I mean, hell, it can't hurt to maybe sidetrack the government from its main purpose just a teensy little bit in order to make sure that people aren't dying in the ER because they don't have their insurance cards, right? Nah, of course not. Well, now all these dummies are ending up in the ER racking up huge bills that the taxpayers have to foot the bill for because they won't wear helmets. We need to mandate helmets, not to protect motorcyclists from themselves, but to protect taxpayers from that other law we made to protect unisured indivdiuals at the ER. Obviously oversimplied, but there's the rub. Every time the government does something to help you, they gain a little more stock in your life. The way we're going, the federal government will be the majority shareholder for all of us, and in the very near future.
-
This story takes place in Australia, but it perfectly illustrates what we're talking about:
http://kotaku.com/5862945/mother-says-world-of-warcraft-turned-her-child-into-school+skipping-aggressive-hunchback (http://kotaku.com/5862945/mother-says-world-of-warcraft-turned-her-child-into-school+skipping-aggressive-hunchback)
"You are dealing with aggression, anger, swearing, pushing, punching," she writes. "We need support from the government to open up facilities around Australia, places for children to wean off it."
-
A friend had the greatest quote today.
"I'm only voting republican from now on. Democrats are ineffectual and it's a waste of time trying to get them to do their job. Better to let the Republicans destroy the country as quickly as possible while there's still something to rebuild with."
We live in a socialist state, but you'll never hear that on network news. It's because their parent companies are the ones benefiting from the socialism while the welfare mothers and people who can't afford health insurance get the crumbs (and all the blame). Oil subsidies, agribusiness subsidies, sugar subsidies, car company subsidies, foreign aid to puppet states, not to mention TOO BIG TO FAIL.... this country is one massive socialist nightmare keeping zombie corporations alive when the free market would have buried them and their bloated bonuses and expense accounts a long time ago.
The reason for all the draconian laws lately about freezing the internet, indefinite detention, wiretaps, and basically following the patterns of Nazi Germany is because the super rich know an insurrection is about to boil over with angry as hell people who realize the American Dream is a lie. Now the fat cats are paying big bucks to try and get their corrupt politician buddies to keep 'em safe from the unemployed starving hordes when the food stamps get run out. They would have been better off just paying their taxes and playing by the rules like the rest of us, but we're talking about a small group of deranged people who think a billion dollars isn't enough to live on and be happy. No, they had to have it ALL.
Socialism is a huge problem in this country, but for a lot different reasons than you've been led to believe. Might as well admit we have a problem and make the socialism more balanced for everybody before we follow in the tragic footsteps of every other civilization that has had the misfortune of creating this kind of wealth disparity.
-
I don't think I've heard that definition of socialism before. Not disagreeing at all with mess of problems you've described, though.
I'll have to chew on that on a bit. I'm used to thinking of socialism as government in control of corporations. What we have seems like the other way around.
-
I'll have to chew on that on a bit. I'm used to thinking of socialism as government in control of corporations. What we have seems like the other way around.
An interesting point and an interesting twist in the thread.
It brings up something I quoted recently just for its grinworthiness:
I think it was Judge Learned Hand who said, "The trouble with corporations is that they have neither a soul to damn nor an ass to kick."