Republicans and marijuana

[DiscoBiscuit]

You rudely responded to another post that wasn't directed at you, disco. You have a bad habit of that, and I don't appreciate you answering for a man that I spent lots of time responding to. Basically, you should mind your own fucking business a bit more, and let others tend to their. When I address you you will fucking well know it. Got it?

Yep, I watched you twist logic into bullshit and contributed to the context. If the poster wishes I not participate, they'll have to be far less of a hyp than you are. Rude doesn't register on your delivery, don't expect an easy go until you're willing to consider reciprocating.

Now, you shoot off at the mouth about W's oil war, yet you have no fucking evidence of it being so. You make shit up. Liar. Just like your leftist leadership. You are par for that course.

Obviously you don't remember....what was it, the carbon law...carbon legislation the Iraqis voted on? I just remember the word "carbon" and it was interesting that Iraqi sovereignty had anything to do with carbon but turns out it's their national wealth. The news reported it up to a year before the vote took place and was widely reported after the vote nationalized their oil. It was seen as defeat to us because we (western oil companies) didn't reap the benefits of oil contracts. I know the Bush family and Saddam didn't mix but I think it's even more of a stretch to suggest it was family animosity, not commerce that led their designs on Iraq. If there's a god in heaven, please tell me there are folks that think going to war over a vendetta is less probable than getting our share of peak oil. It might make a quaint Hollywood, B movie plot but please.

Also, all the reasons W claimed as evidence turned out to be false. That in itself doesn't constitute a lie but Dick's energy policy task force meeting discussed peak oil, Iraq's largest field and reps from the western oil companies were all in attendance. All this time, folks like Bill Crystal, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby, John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Richard Perle were advocating their preemption ideals, months before 9/11. Their ideals were published and (I think it was Bill Crystal) commented that public opinion over preemption wouldn't fly without a galvanizing event like Pearl Harbor.

Then 9/11 came and not much long afterward, Rumsfeld says our military strength would be better displayed somewhere other than the mountainous regions of Afghanistan. Next thing we know, we're going to attack a sovereign nation. Washington didn't get the galvanized effect they wanted and protesters forced the stories of WMDs, links to Al Qaeda, alumininum tubes for "nucular" purposes....Sorry you don't remember. It's when we were all being called traitors, lol for not supporting an invasion.

I remember when "Deepthroat" aka Mark Felt told Bob Woodward to "follow the money" when Watergate blew up. This is no different. We gambled the whole casino on the assumption we'd get our foot in Iraq's oil. Two trillion later, we didn't get it.

Those of you who feel we did the Iraqi's a favor remember this, contractors reaped billions in a country that was never restored after we wrecked it. If we're as concerned about Iraqis as we were the enemy after WWII, we'd have made damn sure we had a Marshall Plan caliber operation to restore the disaster we wrought.

And what you need to do is educate yourself of what the third jihad is.
I got nothing more for you.

If it's got anything to do with evangelicals slaying the infidel to hasten the return of an apparition, sending Christians to heaven and Jews and the rest of the entire ferkin' world to hell, I think the 57(?) Muslim virgins story is far less fantasy.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I don’t like how angry and bitter we can become when we’re trying to push our views on each other.

It's worse because it's largely from the same philosophical view point IMO. It reads much like factional infighting and bickering sometimes. What shackle size fits better?

Either way I look I'm asked to bow down to either God or Government. Neither suits the fancy of a free mind.

 

[xfargox]

Holy cow, what a long thread/debate! I'm a republican...and I smoke. I don't hate democrats or liberals...I don't really care what you believe. I'm glad you have an opposing opinion. It's healthy and good for society. I’m not angry nor bitter, nor without reason. I just want to be left alone and I don’t want the government telling me how to live my life. I hate paying so much in taxes…especially when I don’t use nearly any type of government service. I understand paying cops & fireman and the armed forces…but that’s about as far as it goes for me. I’m a “Bible thumper”…if this means I believe in Jesus and try to live in a righteous fashion. I’m okay if you don’t believe, no worries. I’m not an ignorant redneck, though I do live in the dirty south!
I don’t like how angry and bitter we can become when we’re trying to push our views on each other. It’s obvious that disco & hoosier are not going to agree with each other, but is it not great that we can have these discussions without fear of being beheaded or jailed?
I did not happen to see anyone say that both sides are against us. I don’t feel like either side truly cares about the people they are supposed to represent. I think that it is all about money and that most, if not all of the politicos have lots of money…and most of the rest of our society does not….and that is my two cents. Great thread!

I agree that the gov't should leave us alone. However, different things of big gov't annoy me more than money. I don't spend much in life, I make way more than I need. What bothers me are things like the Patriot Act, marijuana criminalization, infringement upon basic human rights (gay marriage, etc).

I would rather pay $20k/yr for those rights (ironic, huh?) than not have them.

I don't want to make this sound too dogmatic, but in my eyes, it's either whether you want more money or more freedom these days between the two parties.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Disco, you lie and make up shit to suit yourself. Spin it any way you please.

Yep, I watched you twist logic into bullshit and contributed to the context. If the poster wishes I not participate, they'll have to be far less of a hyp than you are. Rude doesn't register on your delivery, don't expect an easy go until you're willing to consider reciprocating.

Rude people such as yourself always seem to find justification for anything and everything they do.
Most see you quite clearly.

LOL...when will you losers ever get over Bush? (shakin head)

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Either way I look I'm asked to bow down to either God or Government. Neither suits the fancy of a free mind.

One does not have to bow down to God to be a conservative, but the progressive liberal is a slave to government.

 

[KolorBlind]

I whole heartily agree with dubwise. As soon as you cant respect that someone may have an opinion opposite yours, then your opinion is null & void in my book.

Opposition makes the world go around people, and its not going away so get used to it. Besides, for all you govt haters (not that Im not one), we are doing exactly what they want here. Arguing over the past, mindlessly bantering back & forth, and ignoring the important things. All the time spent arguing could be used to campaign for things you believe in, or writing to congressmen/women about things that you believe need changing.

Theres some totally cool people in here turning themselves into pricks over politics. Keep religion in the mix, add about 100 years and we'll be the next third world country.

I'll leave this discussion with a personal favorite of mine that seems to sum up our country's 100 year plan (and yes, I read it on a t-shirt): Nuke a godless communist gay baby seal for Christ! (not in any way a knock towards "bible thumpers", just the lack of open mindedness and awareness in this country)

Peace
KB

 

[SpasticGramps]

Rude people such as yourself

LOL...when will you losers ever get over Bush? (shakin head)

You need to get the program bro.

You are behaving no different from the "winner take all" progressive doctrine you say you so hate.

You should read up on Constitutional Conservatism and find out what you are supposed to be thinking if you claim conservatism. I've given you the basic premise. I can't learn it for you. If you want your country back you are going to have to do the work. You have blinders on right now bro. I'm not trying to be an ass.

You're talking in half truths to the political philosophy you claim to subscribe to. If God is part of your life, that's great. That's what the country is supposed to be all about. Freedom of belief.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Disco, you lie and make up shit to suit yourself. Spin it any way you please.

It's your stock in trade, why would you complain? Oh yeah, you're hypocritical.

Rude people such as yourself always seem to find justification for anything and everything they do. Most see you clearly.

Would you like a rehash of page-after-page of personal insults, sparsely interjected with your personal take on events? You forever call folks out on your basic style. The perch you sit on is between your ears.

Rude people such as yourself always seem to find justification for anything and everything they do.
Most see you quite clearly.

Word....you're looking at yourself when you describe faults of others. Fifty peeps have told you but you ignore it.

LOL...when will you losers ever get over Bush? (shakin head)

Well personally, I'm over it. Then some diddy comes along and blames a guy that's been around 1/8th the time your hero had and you blame everything on O.

Economically, it'll take a century or more. 5 Ts on the national debt.

Now, I agree to discuss the topic. How about you? I've even posted two pro-Republican pasties and comments in the thread because I was glad to learn something I didn't know. Can you afford a fraction of objectivity?

 

[SpasticGramps]

Can you afford a fraction of objectivity?

It's a shame. I think he's bringing in all that pent up energy in from the Climate Change thread. That's why political discussion is so hard and this thread will probably die eventually lol.

People become so encamped in their political ideology, but many don't understand the philosophical foundation from which it is derived. We rely on the mind numbing media culture to form our views so true academia is eventually lost.

Political wars generally become similar to religious wars in ferocity. Restricting speech by resorting to personal attacks.

It's the game we are given to play while the country's coffers are swindled by corporations and politicians.

 

[lost in a sea]

The separate parties are an illusion. There's one major party, the Big Government Party, and most Democrats and Republicans are members. They play good cop bad cop. For ex., the Republicans do nothing on abortion when they're in power, and pretend it's all the Democrats fault. Then the Democrats get into power and do nothing on pot.

^^^^this guy knows the score.....

the left and the right are the same snakes, from the same families, that can afford to currupt people with greed into following them......

everything always comes back to the same greed which started when a man ( or a devil) put a red hexagram up outside his shop in germany, he wasnt a german, and he wasnt a jew..... the lie was just beginning.....this mans surname started as bauer but was changed to rothschild stemming from 'rot' (red in german) 'shield' (sign)....

the US government is a corporation and your legal entities are all born slaves to her.....in law, your name is state property, same way you are your cars keeper not its owner the state owns it, you agree to the terms outlined to keep it on the road....

i am born into my own corporation and therefore my legal entity is subject to those laws....and my sovereign entity should only be tried under natural law not civil law...

however we still have to represent our 'staw-man' in civil law...

politics is used to divide us on trite issues, by creating a notion of the two sides, like so many issues that are spun into two convenient arguements... when you could sit down and create a dozen different political sides or spectrums by denouncing this disease that is this dualism....black or white (no such thing).....bad or good (no such thing)....man or woman (we are one entity--the human race)....right or left.......

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I'll leave this discussion with a personal favorite of mine that seems to sum up our country's 100 year plan (and yes, I read it on a t-shirt): Nuke a godless communist gay baby seal for Christ! (not in any way a knock towards "bible thumpers", just the lack of open mindedness and awareness in this country)

Peace
KB

Well, I have a hard time with you spelling it out, and then propping up a leftist propaganda tee shirt, and claim it one of you favorites that attests to the lack of open mindedness.
You were starting out pleading for a middle of the road discussion describing how we can do so much better, then throw the leftist propaganda out there. That tee is supposed to signify the lack of open mindedness of whom? The person who thought it up to use as leftist propaganda?
I see where you are coming from, but don't you see that you are simply throwing salt in a wound when you try to make sense, then throw out something that I'm sure the leftist finds funny, and funny at the expense of a conservative person.
Another attempt at forming the unwarranted perception that the left (and the non-political) have of conservatives.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Where do you get all the rage against religion that you hold, gramps? And there is no doubt that it is the issue that is sticking in your crawl, since you seem to throw rocks at religion at every turn and post.

And I got news for you, it is your interpretation of conservatism that has it's own personal flavor, and not the classic definition. You can wax about isolationism, and how the conservative concept left us 100 years ago...but it has nothing to do with today.
Not until now have you actually clarified your position to say "constitutional conservatism".

Until you get over you loathe for religion, you are going to be upset with just about every form of conservatism there is or has been, because all the flavors of conservatism includes thought on the rights of the religious.

You stated you gave me a textbook definition of conservatism awhile back...I think you should show us that book. I highly doubt that we will see it, because you have done what you blame others for doing, and that is shaping conservatism out to be what you want out of it.
You find the book that describes what you have given us in here as the "classic conservative" and I will excuse myself and say I am wrong. But I aint wrong.

What conservatism of today is, an adherence to the Constitution, limited government powers that are spelled out clearly in the Constitution, no taxation without representation, the belief in personal responsibility and morality, that government is here to serve the people not the people to serve the government, and a strong national defense.

My "pent up anger" as you put it, comes not from some other fucking ridiculous thread, but my disdain for what is happening in our society today. Happening at the hands of liars and cheats, that have very limited experience in the governing of peoples lives in a responsible manner in accordance to the Constitution.
These folks, particularly the Obama administration and it's left wing enablers, are trying to change our nation for the worse. And without the clear mandate of the majority of the people.
That is why I am really angry.

Now, I suggest YOU get with the program. Or perhaps you enjoy what is happening today?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

America and it's Constitution, as well as our other founding documents, are the antithesis of progressive liberalism.

Progressive liberalism does not champion the hard work and personal freedoms of man, but rather works against it, under the guise of "good for all". Progressive liberal doctrine works against personal success, and puts the dregs of society on an undeserved pedestal.

One doctrine champions the exceptional spirit and hard work ethic of the American, while the other fights to take our freedoms away for the good of the government cause, and champions the dregs of society.
Exceptional spirited and free hard workers are what made this and other nations great. Th dregs of society have never made anything great or brought about anything good to any society.

Pot smoking is about a personal freedom...you tell me what side is going to see the light first?

 

[~fvk~]

At the top of my head, I’m going to go all out on this shit; this is kind of my thing. Most people don’t really have a grasp on the concepts of Anarchism/Socialism/Communism by philosophical definition, so I’m going to try to clarify on some things. For those of you who read all of this, I commend the hell out of you.


The US Libertarian party is hardly a reflection of true Libertarianism. The term “libertaire” or “libertarian” was first used to describe Libertarian Socialists/Individualists otherwise known as Anarchists, which were at one time indistinguishable from each other. Classic Libertarians reject all forms of Centralized authority and coercion, and seek to abolish the hierarchical structure imposed on the masses by Capitalism and State Socialism. Unlike Libertarian Capitalists, Classic Libertarians reject Austrian economic theory, along with privatized monopolization of both natural and vital resources (think Blackwater, Monsanto, DEA, FBI, ATF, NSA, GOD, ETC, E.T.2). Throw in private property beyond means of current use, production, and social/environmental consideration/impact, privatized defense firms and law enforcement agencies to enforce “property rights” and business contracts, and much, much more. Libertarian Capitalism exchanges the presence of the State for the unrestricted Centralization of privatized law enforcement/Corporate Jurisdiction, therefore contradicting any claim of Libertarianism (by philosophical definition), let alone any real form of improvement/crossover of the status quo.


Libertarian Capitalism adopts “the right of the individual/minority over all social constructs and restraints within reason” ideology from Libertarian Individualism, but differs from Individualism in economic theory, with Individualism embracing participatory economics and the equal labor theory of value through the trading of goods/services and/for currency/credit. This economic model is otherwise known as Mutualism, and in a Mutualist society value of the product of labor and services would be regulated by the demand, complexity, and the amount of labor directly correlating to the production of goods and services. In a Libertarian society that embraces Mutualist economics; private property exists by means of either individual/collective production and use/occupancy within reason, with larger and more vital resources detrimental to the sustenance of both society and the individual being collectively owned by those who would choose to utilize them.


For an example of Mutualism, picture a small home near a natural lake. The individual/collective presiding near the lake own the home in which they reside in based on either occupancy or production, but they do not own the land itself or the lake and the resources that it provides, nor do they have the right in any form to attempt tax, extort, or deprive any other individual or collective from the use of its resources. On the other hand, any one individual or collective that decides to extract or utilize a reasonable amount of resources produced by the lake is entitled to ownership of the resources by product of labor; and is of the liberty to barter or sell the products of his/her/their labor for other goods, services, and representations of credit to that of an equal value. Alright, now picture the lake as a reasonably sized, unobtrusive, and individually/collectively constructed pond stocked with fish. The pond itself and the resources it contains is owned solely by the individual/collective as a result of being a product of their labor, but again the land in which it took to accommodate the pond is not. If the individual should decide to vacate the premises for an unreasonable amount of time, and is unable to transfer the theoretical pond and home to where they are inclined to relocate, any claim of ownership over said home and pond would be void due to extended vacation and ownership being defined by use/occupancy, along with the fact that the land itself is not a product of human intervention. The premises would then be open for use to anyone that should choose to utilize it, although the original individual/collective may first exchange the home and pond to another party for goods, services, or currency before vacating.


The capability to transfer personal property such as an above-ground swimming pool in comparison to a landlocked pond makes the distinction between personal and private property, and also to the extent of which the concept of ownership exists in a Classic Libertarian society. Long story short, no individual or collective is justified in the monopolization on the means to and of production and prosperity. Mutualism generates the stimulation of social equality and productivity, along with the means to prosper either individually, socially, or both. This is in complete contrast to Capitalism, which needs a perpetual form of authority to enforce private property rights and other forms of fabricated hierarchical structure. Although Mutualist economics are often associated with Libertarian Individualism, Mutualism is of the Free Market Socialist nature, and was the original Libertarian Socialism. Examples of Libertarian Capitalists or Conservative Libertarians would be Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Jefferson, and all the Neo-Conservatives who saw through the facade of Representative Democracy. Some examples of Libertarian Individualists would be Pierre Proudhon (the original Libertarian Socialist), Benjamin Tucker, and Herbert Spencer. An example of a mother fucker and theoretically potential tyrant would be Max Stirner, who was of an inspiration to Rand. Libertarian Capitalists have the general right idea but adopt a double edged sword as an economic approach, at least if they think they’re going to expand beyond their own means without conflict with Classic Libertarians. Despite the differences between Libertarian Capitalists and Classic Libertarians, it is currently of more importance for the two to acknowledge the very few similarities between them.


This seems to be the reoccurring symbolism for Libertarian Capitalists:





I won’t tread on you, just don’t aim for me


While most Anarchists oppose Capitalism, laissez faire or not, not one sect of Social Anarchists are Socialists as defined by Karl Marx. Marxists/State Socialists seek to utilize the working/lower class to coup the State and replace it with an aggressive Authoritarian dictatorship. The “New State” would then take over the means to/of production, and distribute resources socially on both the basis of need and production contribution. After social and economical stabilization, the “New State” would slowly dissolve to a Direct Democracy, also known as true Communism. Communism is Socialism without the presence of a State, with the public owning both the means to/of (land, water, minerals, machinery, etc) production and the product thereof (healthcare, energy, commodities, services, etc), and distributing them on an as needed basis. The motive for individuals to voluntarily participate collectively in the production of goods/services would be primarily at the best interest of the individual, to help maintain a stable and flourishing classless society in which the individual is a beneficiary. Therefore, Communism as envisioned by Marx is actually Libertarian Socialism. While Libertarian Socialism and Communism are one in the same, both stand on the far left political spectrum of the leftist State Socialist/Marxist ideology, which Libertarian Socialism and Communism are basically the ironic anti-thesis of. Both Social Anarchists and State Socialists have the same overall goal of creating an equal and direct democratic society, but not once has this happened through the animation of Marxist philosophy, due to the “New State” adopting totalitarian policies in order to prosper amongst itself, while minimally sustaining the new proletariat. This essentially creates a new class and does not in any way break the cycle of social inequality.


So overall, the differentiating factor between Libertarian Socialists and Marxists/State Socialists is the argument against/for an authoritative establishment after the coup/negation of the State. Libertarians are a threat to State Socialists in the sense that Libertarians will seek to dispose of them, and is why they are often persecuted by the State through means of coercion and propaganda. Note that Anarchists are also usually amongst the first to join in the fight against Fascism. All Social Anarchists will argue that while all organisms are genetically predispositioned to self preservation over social, that even under the status quo do humans already interact socially; when at their own discretion, decide that it is in their best interest to do so. Furthermore, all Libertarians will argue that individuals adhere to laws and social standards (murder, rape, hate crimes) not because they are imposed upon the individual; but because the individual is able to discern between Darwinism and the concepts of both right and wrong. Those who would considerably disrupt order in a Libertarian society would also do so under the status quo, and depending of the severity of their antics, may be declared a tyrant and be subjected to either exile or disposition. Therefore, Anarchy is ORDER with the lack of despotism. Anarchy does not translate to “chaos”, it literally means “without a ruling class.” A few of the many examples of Libertarian societies would be Ancient Athens, the Paris Commune, the Spanish Anarchists (C.N.T., F.A.I.), the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, and the 150+ year strong Greek Anarchist movement (Hell yeah to angry farmers throwing vegetables at police. We need to organize in the same fashion and throw fresh stacked pallets of 5 gallon nutrients at ours, while smiling and telling them to add that on to our weight).


Even further on Libertarian Socialism, not all Social Anarchists identify themselves as Communists. Libertarian Collectivists incorporate Mutualist economics and Individualist principles into Communism, essentially creating a Free Market Communist society. Libertarian Collectivists recognize and embrace the right to autonomy of the individual against the tyranny of the majority in a Communist society, both socially and economically. The difference between Communism and Libertarian Collectivism/Individualism is that Communists state that Direct Democracy as the will of society is a reflection of the liberty granted to the individual by social equality, whereas Individualists state being subjected to the representation of any percentage of external influence being nothing other than tyranny, and emphasize on the liberty of the individual. Libertarian Collectivism sees the flaws in an absolute Direct Democracy, primarily the act of the inevitable subjugation of minorities to the will of the majority, as well as the flaws in Libertarian Individualism, such as the potential of an eventual unequal distribution to/of the means of production. Anarchists are a minority that assume the responsibility of justifiably revolting against the State through various methods of direct action, as well as attempting to stimulate social consciousness in the masses, all in order to initiate the liberation of the majority from the minority and the minority from the majority. Why would we want to have to do it all over again? I’ve come to identify myself as a Libertarian Collectivist, as I feel that it is the point of equilibrium between both liberty and equality. Those wary may feel that this model of society is of the same nature of Corporatism, but keep in mind that Mutualism is its own economic theory and in no way related to Stalin’s model of Democracy that is currently devouring the world around us. A few brief examples of Libertarian Collectivists would be Noam Chomsky, Mikhail Bakunin, and the Spanish Libertarian Collectivist sects.


Speaking of Social Democracy, that brings me to the U!S!A! Corporatism is characterized by a fusion of State Socialism into a Capitalist Republic, essentially creating a one party state that enforces the privatization/profiteering from the means to and of production. It will not limit itself to the products of labor, politics; financial, physical and mental health institutions, the media, and law enforcement, all while socializing the debt that is accumulated due to production costs, import tariffs, lack of demand, and lack of supply. In other words, Dictatorship of the Corporate Elite. The lack of the supply of public sector jobs in the Corporate Republic of America right now is due to privatization, and the exploitation of 3rd World Countries by the outsourcing of virtually all economically contributory domestic production, in order for corporations such as Wal-Mart to capitalize on both Americans and the 3rd World to the fullest extent. Funnily enough, our Federal Secretary of State served for 6 years on the Board of Directors at Wal-Mart. Who better than her to orchestrate the exploitation of societies oppressed by Totalitarians/Fascists, while pretending to fight “terrorism” in Afghanistan, right? Third way or Bi-Partisan politics is the combination of two parties into one Centralized party, something that has just now started being publicly advocated by World Leaders. This model of government is just one step after a successful Marxist/Pseudo-Marxist based revolution/reform, and currently at the stage of the domestic economical failure, leading to the adoption of even more aggressive Authoritarian policies, both domestically and globally (we’re a bunch of big, bad ass mother fucking ‘Mericans). Don’t believe me? Ebay had to quit selling High Times, what happened to freedom of press or association (I wrote this before even reading the thread)? It’s not like a magazine is a “Schedule I Drug” and please, for me, define "paraphernalia" and then define "Fuck off." What the hell, US Constitution, where are you to protect us? How about the Patriot Act? Will it save us from our demise? Lol, apparently as Americans we have no reasonable expectations to our own individual privacy in any way, as a matter of our own safety, so I'm sure everything will be just peachy. Eventually, every aspect of our lives will be open to scrutiny by the State, is this what The People really want? Is anyone feeling why I'm an Anarchist yet? The State is an illegitimate form of oppression, Libertarianism is liberty AND equality. All usury and TYRANTS aside, one more step in “advancement” will just bring the world around us to full blown Mussolini Fascism, Kung Fu Fighting style. We’re already at the favoring of certain religious groups/nations over others stage, not even taking into consideration of the many, many non-adherents. We also have a habit of fear-mongering insecure individuals into what I call "Terrorphobia," which in turn generates a certain amount of Pseudo-Nationalist mentality within society.


It's only a matter of time before the internet gets regulated and we start getting tagged like dogs. You think I'm crazy? I think you're fucking ignorant for not broadening your perspective on the status quo, because you're too comfortable with your celebrity and reality television fixation, along with numerous other distractions and commodities to keep us content within our oppression. You think your way is the only way? Well it's not, and as a matter of fact it's not even really "your way" to begin with. You think we're more "privileged" and prosperous than other nations? That's because we LEACH OFF THE LIVELIHOOD of the 3rd World. By Social Darwinist logic, anyone with the capacity to enslave or profit from us has every natural right in which to do so, so quit fucking bitching about the State not just serving you, and think of the impact WE HAVE GLOBALLY. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Protectionist. I do not believe in fabrications of the bourgeois such as nations or borders to begin with. Nations and borders are a way in which to monopolize natural resources, something that no one person could be ever be in "ownership" of. That along with the fact that borders and nations enhance the convenience of the various forms of Statist oppression that are specifically applied to regions based on demographics.

Seriously though, I wonder how long it takes before the proposition of a Mega Super Power Rangers merge between China and the US is made public, due to the “massive debt” accumulated from the cannibalistic economic relationship that we have with each other. Then it would only a matter of time before we start trying to assimilate other nations into our elaborate scheme of Globalization (if we already haven't, which we already have), considering we have subjugated many other nations into accepting our policies and depending on our existence, while draining the life out of theirs. I mean, there's already been proposals of the North American Union (we fuck the hell out of Mexico, forget Canada), and keep in mind that all liberties and controversial regulations are gradually introduced into or eradicated from society, in order to attract as little attention as possible. By the time you actually hear about the shit, it's been snuck through the House of Vampires and currently being implemented as social policy.


It’s actually kind of funny, because while Neo-Liberals and Conservatives are distracted fighting amongst/voting against each other based on social stigmas, 8th grade mandatory political science, and petty bullshit, each and every individual that they sign their life over to in exchange for representation is the same State with a different face. For one, there's the issue of gun control. You see, I'm not too fond of guns but I am not in favor of a society who deems isolated groups of individuals to be of a higher social value in contrast to others, which has already taken place. Unfortunately, on a smaller scale of organization, guns are detrimental to the liberation from armed and vicious trigger happy tyrants. Two, the Cap and Trade that Neo-Liberals espouse is nothing other than Globlization (which most want to avoid?), and doesn't address the actual matter at hand. Three, the Free Market that Neo-Conservatives advocate is nothing other than the economic status quo. Four, in a Classic Libertarian society access to healthcare would be common. One. World. Order. THE REAL ENEMY IS THEM, NOT US AGAINST EACH OTHER.


If you've followed me to this point, you will easily conceive that when I say Ron Paul isn’t the answer, I speak the truth, even if you don't want to face it. I don’t think that any of his actions would be progressive or ring true enough in order to save the world from both us and ourselves, especially because of the fact that a Free Market combined with Capitalism more or less will eventually ALSO turn into the Social Democracy we currently have in place. Even without that as a factor, take into consideration of how the media didn't do shit to cover him during the Presidential Campaigns. Do you really think that the Corporate Elites would let Ron Paul get extensively publicized if they weren't lying in bed with him? You know, I truly feel that Cannabis is detrimental to true freedom, and that true freedom is detrimental to cannabis. The Million Man Smokeout is a great example of productive mass civil disobedience, our demand for autonomy, and the beginning of the Cannabis Manifesto. On the other hand, I think that it’s too centralized for being of a temporary nature. While in numbers we are great in strength, as individuals we are more vulnerable to tyrants. Also, take into consideration that in the progressively Orwellian status quo, we face the threat of martial law being used against us, as it goes at pretty much every Global Summit. While we should seek more peaceful solutions in the fight against tyranny, we need to be prepared to defend our livelihoods to the fullest extent in order to achieve liberty. Idleness and inaction only contribute to and encourage the status quo. In our movement, we need to fight for true liberty, rather than be selective about it. Don't want to continually be bothered with this hierarchical bullshit? ABOLISH CAPITALISM, ECRASER L' ETAT. FUCK LEGALIZATION, declare your right to autonomy based solely on the perpetual state of your individual existence, and start representing yourself. Stop following laws of which you find unjust within reason. Organize, black masks, demonstrate, boycott, and most importantly of all, FIGHT to defend yourself against anyone who should try to oppose you. If you must, acquire vacant property and start communities amongst yourselves, and defend them at all costs against all opposition. If you actually read this dude, don't go to court steppinRazor, hide within a community of people who will help take responsibility in the fight against Fascism. Rubber bullets don't mean shit against those who are in numbers, and if the BOURGEOIS LOWLIFE TYRANT PIGS were to foolishly use full on metal slugs, they would leave the numbers with no other choice but all out disposition. In all honestly, I'm surprised the State tries to keep reign over Cannabis any way, it turns people into such pacifists it isn't even funny. It's like win-win for the State, you know? They profit from the restrictions of your individual liberties, along with not having to forcibly pacify you.


Universally, society has been conditioned to associate Anarchism and the Circle A with a stage of rebellious adolescence (Sex Pistols, "Steve Jones did a lot of real harm." - Steve Ignorant) or a Utopian pipe dream, but to many individuals and collectives, both of the past and present, it is the epitome of Social Evolution. This a picture taken of a female Anarchist revolutionary during the Spanish Civil War against the Fascists. To me, this picture accurately portrays both the meaning of Anarchism and what it means to be an Anarchist. In this photo, I find the beauty, strength, determination, pride, and the love of life and liberty that resonates from within Anarchism. C.N.T. F.A.I. is an alliance between two sects of Spanish Libertarians, but as I see it, I feel that the Libertarian Flag in that instance should truly read as "CNT FAIL," because failure of the Anarchist agenda for the overall prosperity of both the Earth and our future generations is not an option. We are the balance to this madness, idealistic or not, like it or not (because Anarchy is Evolution. Anarchy is inevitable. Dystopia will crumble).

[/url]


I hope you hated reading this as much as I enjoyed writing the partial by-product of years of studying Libertarianism. I started at the age of 15 actually, 15 was also the same age that I first tagged a giant A on a major Capitalist institution. But yeah, I just turned 22 not too long ago. I wont live past 30 if the state of society continues in this fashion, because I will not lie down like a dog and allow the State to poison my life, along with countless others'.

anarchy is the only thing that will save us!!!!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

My "pent up anger" as you put it, comes not from some other fucking ridiculous thread, but my disdain for what is happening in our society today. Happening at the hands of liars and cheats, that have very limited experience in the governing of peoples lives in a responsible manner

Sounds eerily familiar to the previous administration.

in accordance to the Constitution.

We'll leave that one for another day.

These folks, particularly the Obama administration and it's left wing enablers, are trying to change our nation for the worse.

You're welcome to your opinion. However, it's not like you think. Like Bush had, Obama has a team of economic advisers (including Paul Volker who worked in several administrations including W's.)

Here's an article that shows Wall Street elders backing up O's reforms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/17volcker.html

Here's the latest non-partisan CBO report that indicates the economic stimulus generated between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs. We we're losing as many as 700,00 jobs monthly when O took office and through much of his first year. It's not the end of bad times but a good indicator things could have been worse w/o the stimulus.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10682

I wasn't a fan of W's Wall Street bailouts and car maker rescues. But economists warned of worse problems if we didn't act. I have a right to disagree with corporate welfare but it would be stretch for me to declare that W's crew was trying to change the country for the worse as I'm not an economist. Even though Bush's bail out guy bailed out his former bank.

You're in the same seat I was in 18 months ago. I exercised my vote and fortunately (for me) we got a different direction. I think it's unrealistic to expect a new president to take us in the same direction the opposition would.

Like every president before him, O has the right to run the executive branch the way he sees fit. Obama may have campaigned from the left but he's a typical Democrat when it comes to governing from the center. He's pissing off the wings on a daily basis but you can't make the argument he's running a left-wing agenda. All the left-wing stuff he ran on didn't make it to the oval office. Remember, you and I aren't in the center and neither of us got what we wanted.

And without the clear mandate of the majority of the people.

I'm not challenging your emotions but here's the numbers:

Obama won almost 53% of the popular vote with 69,456,897.

McCain won almost 46% of the popular vote with 59,934,814.

That's an 8% difference in the popular vote.

But here's the evidence of an Electoral College landslide. You probably have to go back to Clinton vs Dole, maybe Reagan vs Carter to see disparity this large.

Obama won 365 electoral college votes

McCain won 173 electoral college votes.

It means that for every electoral vote McCain received, Obama received more than 2.1, more than double McCain's total.

Majorities in the Democratic House and Senate grew. I just don't see how you can rightfully assume the absence of a mandate. Besides, he won the election. He doesn't have to jump through additional, mandate-scrutiny hoops from the opposition

When W won reelection, he stated he earned a mandate and was going to spend it. He won with ~3 million votes (compared to almost 10m with Obama.) Some of us were a little upset over the shenanigans in Ohio and were still sore from the 2000 SCOTUS decision. When no investigation happened in Ohio, we had accept the outcome. We had no choice. It's the system. It ain't perfect but it works.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

America and it's Constitution, as well as our other founding documents, are the antithesis of progressive liberalism.

The OP is "Republicans and marijuana"

Progressive liberalism does not champion the hard work and personal freedoms of man, but rather works against it, under the guise of "good for all". Progressive liberal doctrine works against personal success, and puts the dregs of society on an undeserved pedestal.

Lets stick with the topic, please.

One doctrine champions the exceptional spirit and hard work ethic of the American, while the other fights to take our freedoms away for the good of the government cause, and champions the dregs of society.

I watched the Tea Party Patriots leader on Hardball last night. (Sorry, don't recall his name.) When Mathews ask him to state where the feds have usurped the states, the TPP leader went back to the civil war. Mathews asked the TPP leader if he was directly blaming Abraham Lincoln (R) but the leader didn't respond. Then he went on to say it's ok for states to secede.

I'd like you to fill me in if you feel we've lost freedoms since then. I can think of one act that restricted our freedoms but you've already said those restrictions are justified. I'm not going to argue that point, I just feel your blanket "taking our freedoms away" is a baseless slogan. If you're talking about civil war era changes, I'm not sure I'm interested to debate that abyss.

Exceptional spirited and free hard workers are what made this and other nations great. Th dregs of society have never made anything great or brought about anything good to any society.

Can we stick to the topic and not debate political philosophy?

Pot smoking is about a personal freedom...you tell me what side is going to see the light first?

Hard to predict the future. However, there are many active groups that support and lobby for reform. The folks that sit on the sidelines and don't help don't really have a basis to take any credit when reform happens. They can enjoy the outcome though.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

You seem to have a hard time getting off the Bush thing...but might as well face facts. You can only ride that pony for so long. Actually, it is your lame leadership that is riding that pony, you are simply carrying that torch along with them.

Let's talk about now...
Obama is so full of it it's not funny. And what you consider the far left, is the loon fringe. And Obama is not a centrist, not in the least sense of the word. You only see him that way because you are so far to the left of the box.
Bill Clinton was the master of sidestepping to the center...and Obama couldn't carry slick willie's cigars.

What he is, is a liar. Not like you claim Bush lied, where he was only putting out the same info that the rest of the world also believed was true, including nearly the majority of the left leadership in America. But I will not continue to hash out those years. You and your ilk produced enough anger and venom to last the nation for many years. Unwarranted, and in many cases manufactured venom.

No, Obama lies right up front. And when he was called a liar in the Senate hall, he WAS lying. Look it up...take his words and....wait, I forgot that you are on the liberal tit, and you leftist tit suckers tend to be able to suqirm with words, your way out of just about anything. I'm sure that even if the evidence is in front of you that he actually was lying to us all...you would deny it.
But he was lying (and knows it) when Wilson called him on it.

And there have been many times since his campaign that he has broken his promises...promises that got him elected. Elected by folks that would not normally throw their vote to just anyone from the left. The true middle of the road folks of the US (of whom I personally don't have a whole lot of respect for their political savvy) are the ones that elected Obama, and for what he campaigned on.
Well, those folks and the millions of racist folks that voted for him for no more reason than because he has black in his bloodline. And there is NO denying the fact that the last election was slathered in racist shit.

Obama said he'd televise health reform negotiations on C-SPAN

Didn't, and aint, gonna happen. Lie x 8.

Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels

Are you fucking kidding me? His stimulus debacle is nothing but earmark porkbarrel of bullshit leftist spending. Now he wants to add on more debt.
What a fucking lying moron. He thinks we are as dumb as his constituency...but I got news for Obama.

Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

Hasn't happened yet, and aint gonna happen in this closed door socialist train wreck.

Double funding for afterschool programs

Sure not in the budget. (shrug)

Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit

"Will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government (to pay for a national service plan that will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented). This plan will be paid for in part by cancelling tax provisions that would otherwise help multinational corporations pay less in U.S. taxes starting in 2008 by reallocating tax deductions for interest expenses between income earned in the U.S. and income earned abroad. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with ending the war in Iraq."

More bullshit lies.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Lets stick with the topic, please.

Can we stick to the topic and not debate political philosophy?

Look, Jr. I suggest you do what you do and don't suggest shit to me.
Who made you a moderator? Don't fucking comment if you think I am off topic. Who do you think you are? Always answering posts that aren't directed to you...always trying to analyze everyone, when you yourself are but a douche...

Get a grip.

 

[BabyHuey]

Hoosier,

1st-Junior I have Grandkids so that BS don't fly.

You have proved nothing in this thread but that you are a hypocrite
and incapable of rational discussion.You attack others without provocation for their opinions and yet offer nothing more substantial
than your own opinions in rebuttal.Any opinion that does not echo
your sentiments is regarded by you as a personal attack
and you respond with vitriol.


Also it appears you are the one who needs to get a grip.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I'll admit my statement is based on my perceptions.

It was you that came in spouting off truths, that you had to admit were based on your perception of things. And you haven't backed up any of your claims yet.

I suggest you engage with more than just trying to wax eloquent. Show me where I attacked anyone without provocation. The evidence I gave of Obama being a liar is well documented fact. Are you claiming I can't back up these claims? Then come with something, grandpa(lol)...don't just sit there staring at the screen and getting mad at the mean old conservative asshole.
Bring something, big dick.