Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Random thoughts and interesting tidbits. . .
. . .focused on current economical and political events.
"But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson
The Colonies
Oft Visited Websites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(524)
-
▼
July
(29)
- Ron Smith of the Baltimore Sun: "history tells us ...
- Ron Paul: What are they afraid of?
- Michelle Bachmann On Obama's Health-Care Plan
- Peter Schiff Money Bomb
- Obama's Tax Pledge
- Ayn Rand on Fascism
- Alan Grayson vs. Ben Bernanke
- Questioning the "Official Response"
- Ron Paul Questions Jim Carr from NCRC
- Ron Paul Questions Fed Governor Elizabeth Duke
- Russia Today: Ron Paul Puts The Fed Under Fire
- Southern Avenger: Ron Paul and Jim DeMint take on ...
- Alan Greenspan on Market Regulation
- Ron Paul on The Fed and Consumer Protection
- Bar Stool Economics
- Schiff Takes Talking Head To School
- Ron Paul 2012
- Dennis Kucinich Acting Like Bill O'Reilly
- Ron Paul: What if...?
- Garden Update
- The Fed Under Fire
- Ron Paul: Opening Statement at Fed Hearing
- Jim Demint Attempts To Add The Federal Reserve Sun...
- Pastor Steven Anderson
- We're backing out of the house...
- Obama Hypocrite on Science
- "Ron Paul Strikes Gold"
- The Great Global Warming Swindle
- US Hire Afghans To Attack US
-
▼
July
(29)
20 comments:
Twisted propaganda. She is arguing against health care for all based on an unrelated proposition, which is the type of illogical tripe one would expect from a propagandist.
Bottom line, people like Michelle Bachmann are immoral and showcase their immorality by directing attention to problematic statements BY ADVISERS, not Obama himself. She is immoral, she lies, she doesn't give a shit about health care for everyone.
Propaganda.
"She is arguing against health care for all based on an unrelated proposition"
She is arguing against the current plan. Health care for "all" does include the disabled, no?
Nope, she is using unrelated propositions that having nothing to do with whether the plan is a good thing. She is a dirty propagandist.
You do not think public statements of presidential advisors on a given bill should be considered when discussing whether or not to vote on a bill that not one member of congress will have the opportunity to read, or knowledge to fully understand?
"You do not think public statements of presidential advisors on a given bill should be considered when discussing whether or not to vote on a bill that not one member of congress will have the opportunity to read, or knowledge to fully understand?"
Obviously not. They are advisors, not Obama himself. They ADVISE HIM, which means they propose advice that Obama will reject or accept. This is what makes her such a pile of shit. PILE OF SHIT.
Ok. Fair point. But these are the people HE put around him. And, like any other president, he himself avoids providing indication of specific details he supports or rejects.
Such a political environment only leaves us with the public statements his most trusted advisers make. These are the people who help shape his judgement, after all.
For instance, Rham Emanuel, the cheif of staff, is for 2 years of enslavement for each youth after high school. Should we not judge Obama for putting in place a chief of staff in favour of slavery? I would think so. So in this similar instance, where it happens to be Emanuel's brother being quoted as to not provide the disabled with health care, I think it only fair to judge Obama for placing around him someone that values human life so little.
"Ok. Fair point. But these are the people HE put around him. And, like any other president, he himself avoids providing indication of specific details he supports or rejects.
Such a political environment only leaves us with the public statements his most trusted advisers make. These are the people who help shape his judgement, after all.
For instance, Rham Emanuel, the cheif of staff, is for 2 years of enslavement for each youth after high school. Should we not judge Obama for putting in place a chief of staff in favour of slavery? I would think so. So in this similar instance, where it happens to be Emanuel's brother being quoted as to not provide the disabled with health care, I think it only fair to judge Obama for placing around him someone that values human life so little."
I thought we were judging the health care bill? And, moreover AND AGAIN, his advisors are NOT HIM. This is the sort of twisted argument that is a staple of dirty propagandists.
"I thought we were judging the health care bill? And, moreover AND AGAIN, his advisors are NOT HIM. This is the sort of twisted argument that is a staple of dirty propagandists."
You're so quick to defend Obama for those he keeps as his closest advisors, and so quick to judge Paul for his apparent acquaintances from years ago...
"You're so quick to defend Obama for those he keeps as his closest advisors, and so quick to judge Paul for his apparent acquaintances from years ago..."
Years ago? I am talking about his association with the Republican party and his eggshell walking when he talks to the racists and homophobes in that party. THAT'S what I am talking about.
I also seem to understand the concept of an advisors, something you can't seem to nail down.
Finally, you seem to think I am an Obama supporter.
"Years ago? I am talking about his association with the Republican party and his eggshell walking when he talks to the racists and homophobes in that party. THAT'S what I am talking about."
Lol, please reference. Ron Paul isn't one to walk on egg shells. He is a man of politeness to everyone though; you wouldn't see him rudely yelling at, talking over, and interrupting someone he disagrees with much as Kucinich did in the posted video.
"Finally, you seem to think I am an Obama supporter."
Only because you are so quick to defend to him at every turn.
"Lol, please reference. Ron Paul isn't one to walk on egg shells. He is a man of politeness to everyone though; you wouldn't see him rudely yelling at, talking over, and interrupting someone he disagrees with much as Kucinich did in the posted video."
Kucinich did that as a political maneuver you dimwit.
Sorry, if Ron Paul thinks it is right to gain the favor of men who contradict his political outlook, then that makes him complicit, because he has lent them his credibility. Politeness to a racist is DEFINITELY NOT proper, just like being polite to a murder is NOT PROPER>
"Lol, please reference. Ron Paul isn't one to walk on egg shells."
The audio of him talking about homosexuality with the homophobe Bible thumper.
"Only because you are so quick to defend to him at every turn."
Nah, you are just ignorant.
"Kucinich did that as a political maneuver you dimwit."
Politics is an excuse to set aside principle far more than it ever should be.
Political maneuvering is not a legitimate excuse for anything.
The end never justifies the means.
"just like being polite to a murder is NOT PROPER"
I disagree. Being rude to a murderer or racist serves no productive purpose to any party involved. Being polite though, might provide an opportunity to enlighten the less enlightened.
Ron Paul is on very friendly terms with Kucinich and Bernie Sanders, and vice versa. Do you condemn Kucinich and Sanders for gaining favor of a man that contradicts their political outlook?
"The audio of him talking about homosexuality with the homophobe Bible thumper."
If he was walking on eggshells for anyone it is the his homosexual supporters, but even that I doubt. I don't think an 78 year old christian is generally a big fan of homosexuals; he just knows its not his business nor is it the business of the government. So what you mistake for walking on eggshells is really just him being careful to not allow his personal judgement of others' lifestyles to get confused for what role he believes government has in lifestyle of individuals.
Its the same with drugs. Paul isn't about to smoke marijuana, and most likely looks down on those who use it for recreational purposes; but when he speaks publicly about it, you can tell he's being careful to now allow his personal judgement to be confused with the role he believes government has in regulating drugs.
"Politics is an excuse to set aside principle far more than it ever should be.
Political maneuvering is not a legitimate excuse for anything.
The end never justifies the means."
I disagree. Sometimes the end (killing of NAZIS scum) justifies the end (freeing of Jews). You just dont get this because you haven't thought beyond your ideology.
"I disagree. Being rude to a murderer or racist serves no productive purpose to any party involved."
Being in opposition keeps their power at bay, bonehead. If there are no firebrand supporters, then the backbone of any movement will lead to the death of the movement.
"Being polite though, might provide an opportunity to enlighten the less enlightened."
If it is done from an oppositional platform. If it is done from the same platform it lends credibility to the indefensible.
"Ron Paul is on very friendly terms with Kucinich and Bernie Sanders, and vice versa. Do you condemn Kucinich and Sanders for gaining favor of a man that contradicts their political outlook?"
Yes, yes I do.
"If he was walking on eggshells for anyone it is the his homosexual supporters, but even that I doubt. I don't think an 78 year old christian is generally a big fan of homosexuals; he just knows its not his business nor is it the business of the government. So what you mistake for walking on eggshells is really just him being careful to not allow his personal judgement of others' lifestyles to get confused for what role he believes government has in lifestyle of individuals.
Its the same with drugs. Paul isn't about to smoke marijuana, and most likely looks down on those who use it for recreational purposes; but when he speaks publicly about it, you can tell he's being careful to now allow his personal judgement to be confused with the role he believes government has in regulating drugs."
Nah, sorry, politeness here is wrong, but not surprising since Ron Paul has choosen to associate himself with the racist, homophobic, and anti-woman part of the ruling class.
"I disagree. Sometimes the end (killing of NAZIS scum) justifies the end (freeing of Jews). You just dont get this because you haven't thought beyond your ideology."
From a US perspective, the means, not notifying military personnel in Hawaii of an imminent attack from Japan when its now been confirmed FDR was fully aware, in order to sway public opinion to support going to war in europe, does not justify the ends.
Also, for a government to go to war to defend a group of people who are not represented by the same government is an immoral act. This is why the Canadian government should not be in Afghanistan, and should otherwise feel no responsibility to steal wealth from its citizens to provide aide (which is typically filtered through corrupt government) to the impoverished of other countries.
Of course, you do not understand this because you haven't thought through the implications and unintended consequences of your own ideology.
"Yes, yes I do."
That's a rather narrow perspective.
"Ron Paul has choosen to associate himself with the racist, homophobic, and anti-woman part of the ruling class."
I'm not sure if Ron Paul is really associated with any part of the ruling class. Also, I was under the understanding you did not believe we CHOOSE to associate ourselves with anyone, that its all simply cause and affect, right? Isn't choosing to associated yourself with any part of the ruling class choosing to associate with those who's principles and morality may not align with your own? You shouldn't through a stone while living in a glass house. To assume the left has the moral upper hand in the world is not an argument I think you want to start, considering the actions of Obama over his first 6 months with legitimacy provided to him by the leaders of the left. Being homophobic pales in comparison to supporting indefinite detention and torture.
"From a US perspective, the means, not notifying military personnel in Hawaii of an imminent attack from Japan when its now been confirmed FDR was fully aware, in order to sway public opinion to support going to war in europe, does not justify the ends."
Actually, considering that Hitler had taken over most of Europe, killed millions, yes, yes it was justified. Course, conspiracy theories are never proven.
"Also, for a government to go to war to defend a group of people who are not represented by the same government is an immoral act. This is why the Canadian government should not be in Afghanistan, and should otherwise feel no responsibility to steal wealth from its citizens to provide aide (which is typically filtered through corrupt government) to the impoverished of other countries. "
LOL.
"That's a rather narrow perspective."
Actually, I think the word is "radical".
"I'm not sure if Ron Paul is really associated with any part of the ruling class."
Of course he is. He is a representative of small business and big business that agrees with the constitution. This class rules over the workers. HELLO!
"Also, I was under the understanding you did not believe we CHOOSE to associate ourselves with anyone, that its all simply cause and affect, right?"
Choose is the word that is usually used, yes. And, yes, I used it to include the causes that make us act in one way and not another.
"Isn't choosing to associated yourself with any part of the ruling class choosing to associate with those who's principles and morality may not align with your own? You shouldn't through a stone while living in a glass house. To assume the left has the moral upper hand in the world is not an argument I think you want to start, considering the actions of Obama over his first 6 months with legitimacy provided to him by the leaders of the left. Being homophobic pales in comparison to supporting indefinite detention and torture."
1. Obama is left? lol.
2. Obama being constitutional. He is working with Congress. Therefore, his promises are based on the compromise of Congress.
3. Do you know what "left" even means, Josh? Obama is definitely not left.
"He is a representative of small business and big business that agrees with the constitution. This class rules over the workers."
Big business agrees with the constitution? Which big business?
"Obama is definitely not left."
Unfortunately the left thinks he is, and they provide his legitimacy.
"Big business agrees with the constitution? Which big business?"
They did when they wanted to make sure communism didnt take root. And still do, to an extent. That is why the Republicans have such pro-constitution language.
"Unfortunately the left thinks he is, and they provide his legitimacy."
LOLOOLOLOLOLOOL! This is another example of you not reading.. The left DOESNT THINK OBAMA IS LEFTWING, JOSH. No one I talk to thinks Obama is left. They think he is a liberal lackey of the capitalist class. LOL. Jesus, can you even get enough strength together to poke some eye holes for the box around your head?
Liberals voted for Obama to guarantee there would not be another Bush. Pure and simple.
"Liberals voted for Obama to guarantee there would not be another Bush. Pure and simple."
Well, that didn't work out so well, did it? Not only that, but their vote has provided Obama with legitimacy. He is an icon of the left, whether the left like it or not.
"Well, that didn't work out so well, did it? Not only that, but their vote has provided Obama with legitimacy. He is an icon of the left, whether the left like it or not."
Well, we shall see.. There might be an even more radical shift to the left if Obama is consistently on the right on every single issue. Again, time will tell.. Nader might be vindicated..
I get frustrated with this narrow perspective on politics. Its as if there's this 2 dimensional line going from right to left, and no matter what you're defined by what side of center you're on.
I don't buy it.
I'd like to think there is a left and right as there is east and west. But I also think there's anarchism vs. statism, as there is north to south. And I believe this because anarchy shares some left and right principles, and statism also shares some left and right principles, but anarchy is the opposite of statism.
What flaws does this argument have?
Post a Comment