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. 

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. 

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

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

‎"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."