Screw it!

[texaspackerbacker]

Regarding Machiavelli, his whole philosophy was that government is justified in anything it does to perpetuate itself and increase its power. Can anybody honestly claim that isn't the perfect description of the present-day American left? Higher taxes on the people, more intrusion and regulation of people's lives, co-opting of the media, the educational establishment, and the entertainment community, those are INDISPUTABLY leftist principals--as well as Machiavellian tools.

Wiretapping, search without cause, indefinite imprisonment...

...of terrorists...and people surreptitiously communicating with terrorists.

How do you happen to miss that distinction? Why do you want to protect them and not us? Do you really loathe America that much?

Exactly, Swede.

To be even more precise, these seemingly Machiavellian things Ziggy refers to are NOT on The Prince's own citizens, but on our enemies--non-citizens to whom Habeus Corpus and OUR due process rights do NOT apply.

And Ziggy, you seem to be believing your side's bogus rhetoric. Bush didn't make the distinction between the terrorist enemy and American citizens? Blatantly FALSE!

[wist43]

Wist,

I could actually take you seriously, but when you start using Machiavelli as an example of a leftist....well, you just lose all credibility.

Wist got thrown out of the Alaska Independence Party for being too far out there. From where he's standing out in right field Machiavelli and Mao look pretty much identical.

Simply put, I agree with our Founding Fathers... I agree with what they wrote in the Constitution.

By todays standards, yes, the Constitution is a radical, right wing document. I don't have a problem standing by it.

You guys on the other hand, have no problem voting for a guy, who will swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, but whom everyone knows despises the very premise of the document, i.e. the limitation of government.

America used to be the beacon of freedom around the world b/c our government was neatly boxed in, and prevented from imposing the will of the majority, or the will of an oligarchy upon the people, upon anybody... Sadly, that is no longer the case.

What you, and the rest of my former fellow Americans, fail to realize, is that once we abandoned the principles of freedom, once we said the Constitution no longer mattered, freedom was dead. What we're seeing now are simply the death throes of our once free society.

That's what America is supposed to be about, if nothing else - freedom.

The election of a radical leftist like Obama is predictable. The citizenry has been conditioned - dumbed down - to accept the message, to accept the lie.

It's hard not to be emotional about seeing my country die, and my freedom with it - but, unlike the average Republican (I am not a member of the Republican Party) I've known for many years, so it's a bit easier for me to take than for some. For others, the election of a radical like Obama is opening their eyes, and they're angry about it, but really the battle was lost decades ago.

[mraynrand]

Wist,

I could actually take you seriously, but when you start using Machiavelli as an example of a leftist....well, you just lose all credibility.

Wist got thrown out of the Alaska Independence Party for being too far out there. From where he's standing out in right field Machiavelli and Mao look pretty much identical.

Simply put, I agree with our Founding Fathers... I agree with what they wrote in the Constitution.

By todays standards, yes, the Constitution is a radical, right wing document. I don't have a problem standing by it.

You guys on the other hand, have no problem voting for a guy, who will swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, but whom everyone knows despises the very premise of the document, i.e. the limitation of government.

America used to be the beacon of freedom around the world b/c our government was neatly boxed in, and prevented from imposing the will of the majority, or the will of an oligarchy upon the people, upon anybody... Sadly, that is no longer the case.

What you, and the rest of my former fellow Americans, fail to realize, is that once we abandoned the principles of freedom, once we said the Constitution no longer mattered, freedom was dead. What we're seeing now are simply the death throes of our once free society.

That's what America is supposed to be about, if nothing else - freedom.

The election of a radical leftist like Obama is predictable. The citizenry has been conditioned - dumbed down - to accept the message, to accept the lie.

It's hard not to be emotional about seeing my country die, and my freedom with it - but, unlike the average Republican (I am not a member of the Republican Party) I've known for many years, so it's a bit easier for me to take than for some. For others, the election of a radical like Obama is opening their eyes, and they're angry about it, but really the battle was lost decades ago.

People on the left are so stupid, they don't even realize that Dubya is a big government liberal, close in many ways to JFK, except that Bush looks like he will win in Iraq while JFK (with the help of many others) flubbed up Viet Nam.

[MadScientist]

Simply put, I agree with our Founding Fathers... I agree with what they wrote in the Constitution.

By todays standards, yes, the Constitution is a radical, right wing document. I don't have a problem standing by it.

What you, and the rest of my former fellow Americans, fail to realize, is that once we abandoned the principles of freedom, once we said the Constitution no longer mattered, freedom was dead. What we're seeing now are simply the death throes of our once free society.

That's what America is supposed to be about, if nothing else - freedom.

It's hard not to be emotional about seeing my country die, and my freedom with it - but, unlike the average Republican (I am not a member of the Republican Party) I've known for many years, so it's a bit easier for me to take than for some. For others, the election of a radical like Obama is opening their eyes, and they're angry about it, but really the battle was lost decades ago.

People on the left are so stupid, they don't even realize that Dubya is a big government liberal, close in many ways to JFK, except that Bush looks like he will win in Iraq while JFK (with the help of many others) flubbed up Viet Nam.

No moron, W is a big government right-winger. More in line with the classic definition of fascism. However that term has become synonymous with nazism, which I'm not accusing the Bush admin of being.

The constitution is very liberal in terms of personal liberties (assuming you include the bill of rights, which puts many of the handcuffs on government that you seem to like). The changes away from the minimal government really picked up with Lincoln (certainly a socialist by today's standards), although there are some earlier threads.

Weather you agree with the changes or the philosophies behind them, what would America be like without them. I suspect that at some point there would have been another revolution, and the power and influence of America would be far less.

[bobblehead]

In a democracy, no one is safe and everyones property is up for grabs. He who promises the most goodies, usually wins.

Is it any surprise then, that a filthy piece of garbage like Barack Obama can come along and simply spew platitudes from the Communist Manifesto, spit on the Constitution itself, and surf his way to the oval office on a tidal wave of ignorance???

Of course in America, under our Constitution, we are not supposed to be a democracy, and not one syllabal of what either McCain or Obama utters is Constitutional, but what does that matter??? The Constitution was abandoned decades ago.

Does anyone remember that crap about the Constitution being a "living document" being taught in high school??? All that means is that the Constitution as a restrictive document, a document that restricts government, a document that acts as bell weather against the encroachments of government on our freedoms, no longer exists.

The Constitution was designed to restrict government, not people... that principle has been turned on its head by the liberal elite - the liberal elite that direct both parties.

Absent legal restraint, absent understanding on the part of the governed about the proper role of government - governments become nothing more than vast robberies.

Our freedoms will not likely survive another generation here in the U.S... Our founders predicted it all - warning that should we allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking we were a democracy, that we deserve neither freedom nor prosperity.

Debate at this point between socialist party A, and socialist party B, is little more than debate over how to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's just a matter of time.

I had hoped to be able to live out my days w/o seeing our country implode, but at 45, and the prospect of a left wing nut like Obama being elected, the writing is on the wall.

The building blocks of tyranny from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Barack Obama should be easy to see - it's obvious to anyone who is educated about the principles of freedom. Sadly, there are so few of us.

Good job of telling it like it is, wist. The fact that you made it perfectly clear in an earlier post that you see the filthy piece of garbage as by far, the worst alternative, though, gives you credibility that people intending to waste their vote on Bob Barr just don't have.

Tyrone, your analogy of Obama bin Biden with Reagan/Bush the Elder is wrong. Obama and Biden are extremely like-minded--the first and third worst liberal voting records in the Senate. Bush the Elder was philosopically, a completely different kind of Republican than Reagan.

Aside from the fact that Bush's "conversion" would be much better characterized as "stepping into the light" than "selling his soul", you have the question that nobody can really answer except the man himself: Was Bush the Elder merely recognizing political reality and giving lip service to Reaganomics and other conservative principals? Or was he really won over to the wisdom of that viewpoint by the great success of the Reagan presidency?

Tex...if one guy is gonna cut off your pecker and the other guy is gonna cut off your nuts which one do you vote for?? I mean, your tied up and those are your choices...oh yea, there is a 75 pound woman who is going to untie you if she wins the fight...she won't win, but I bet you cheer like hell for her.

[MJZiggy]

So Bush is allowed to make an 8-year power grab, but the left are the ones wanting more power for the government? Interesting.

Yes, interesting and true - except for the 8 year power grab. If Bush had simply want to consolidate republican power, he could have done tons of things differently. Zig, it's not an insult, but the truth is that you're just naive about a great many things. For example, ask yourself whether the State Department and CIA are in line with what most think of as Bush policies (the so-called 'Bush Doctrine' which includes unilateralism, the right to attack nations harboring terrorists, and the policy of attacking before being attacked, if attack is considered eminent, and the policy of supporting democracies, by forcefully removing corrupt governments if necessary). Do you know the answer? Has Condi Rice been promoting the 'Bush Doctrine?'

So you're saying Bush wrote a whole doctrine and everyone's ignoring it?

[swede]

Is that a serious question? The term "Bush Doctrine" was an invention of the punditocracy, not a position paper written by the administration.

It is a vaporous term with little utility to the grown ups who actually conduct the foreign policy of the nation. Media talking heads swing the term like the apes from 2001: A Space Odyssey, hoping to hit somebody with it.

I know why the enraged bird sings.

[MJZiggy]

Is that a serious question? The term "Bush Doctrine" was an invention of the punditocracy, not a position paper written by the administration.

It is a vaporous term with little utility to the grown ups who actually conduct the foreign policy of the nation. Media talking heads swing the term like the apes from 2001: A Space Odyssey, hoping to hit somebody with it.

I know why the enraged bird sings.

And yet forms some basics of Bush policy...

[wist43]

Simply put, I agree with our Founding Fathers... I agree with what they wrote in the Constitution.

By todays standards, yes, the Constitution is a radical, right wing document. I don't have a problem standing by it.

What you, and the rest of my former fellow Americans, fail to realize, is that once we abandoned the principles of freedom, once we said the Constitution no longer mattered, freedom was dead. What we're seeing now are simply the death throes of our once free society.

That's what America is supposed to be about, if nothing else - freedom.

It's hard not to be emotional about seeing my country die, and my freedom with it - but, unlike the average Republican (I am not a member of the Republican Party) I've known for many years, so it's a bit easier for me to take than for some. For others, the election of a radical like Obama is opening their eyes, and they're angry about it, but really the battle was lost decades ago.

People on the left are so stupid, they don't even realize that Dubya is a big government liberal, close in many ways to JFK, except that Bush looks like he will win in Iraq while JFK (with the help of many others) flubbed up Viet Nam.

No moron, W is a big government right-winger. More in line with the classic definition of fascism. However that term has become synonymous with nazism, which I'm not accusing the Bush admin of being.

The constitution is very liberal in terms of personal liberties (assuming you include the bill of rights, which puts many of the handcuffs on government that you seem to like). The changes away from the minimal government really picked up with Lincoln (certainly a socialist by today's standards), although there are some earlier threads.

Weather you agree with the changes or the philosophies behind them, what would America be like without them. I suspect that at some point there would have been another revolution, and the power and influence of America would be far less.

I tend to agree about Lincoln... not a good president given that he stomped all over the Constitution. No need to comment futher, as it is just a useless can of worms.

That notwithstanding...

It always gets my attention when anyone tries to associate "right wing" with "big government" and then proclaim it to be fascist or nazi.

Any "ism", be it Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, Communism, or any other ism... is left wing. They teach that circular political spectrum crap in the schools... nonsense, enough to make you dizzy.

Anyway... the political spectrum is linear. Left-to-Right:

Monarachy - Oligarchy - Democracy - Republican - Anarchy

Since Monarchy/Dictatorship (Rule by one) really doesn't exist it can be thrown out. They don't exist b/c what they are, are really oligarchies, and the ruling group has simply put a front man up. It is the oligarchy that rules.

Throw out too, Anarachy (no government), simply b/c it doesn't exist either... in a vacuum, order will be restored and some group with struggle their way to the top and some form of the middle three governments will emerge.

Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, and Communism, are all variaties of the same fruit - totalitarianism. And all are oligarchies, all are left wing.

Doesn't matter what the party line is, who the victim group is, who the vilified group is, what the cause is (social justice, racial purity, national pride, improved working conditions), they don't matter. What they all have in common, is that they are governmental control systems. All use government to control the population, i.e. totalitarian - just pick a flavor.

There is no such thing as a "big government right winger". By definition, right wing means less government, limited government, republican government. The Republican Party and the people they put forward don't stand for any of those things. You get some lip service along those lines, but at the end of the day, the Republican Party is committed to big government. Certainly not as zealously as the Dems... the Republicans do have to deal with a more conservative, much better informed base than do the dems; but, nonetheless, they continue to build government at all levels at an alarming rate.

Yes, there are people in the Republican party that stand for the principles of constitutionally limited government, but they are a minorty in the party, and they are never allowed any standing - witness Ron Paul.

The full explaination would be much more entailed and complex of course, but suffice it say that any group that seeks to weild the power of government to its own ends, is left wing.

Futhermore, given that Democracy is nothing more than a transitional form of government, one that usually goes the way of anarachy, and out of anarchy rises some form of totalitariansim, you can throw democracy out as a viable form too - Madison's Federalist Paper #10 talks about this (I believe it is number 10 - don't quote me, but i'm sure if you read #10, Madison will open your eyes to what is happening today)

Actually, come to think of it... the Federalist Papers might be a pretty good read right about now, as we watch our nation struggle in its death throes. Haven't read them in a while... think maybe I'll dig my copy out, and read them again

[texaspackerbacker]

In a democracy, no one is safe and everyones property is up for grabs. He who promises the most goodies, usually wins.

Is it any surprise then, that a filthy piece of garbage like Barack Obama can come along and simply spew platitudes from the Communist Manifesto, spit on the Constitution itself, and surf his way to the oval office on a tidal wave of ignorance???

Of course in America, under our Constitution, we are not supposed to be a democracy, and not one syllabal of what either McCain or Obama utters is Constitutional, but what does that matter??? The Constitution was abandoned decades ago.

Does anyone remember that crap about the Constitution being a "living document" being taught in high school??? All that means is that the Constitution as a restrictive document, a document that restricts government, a document that acts as bell weather against the encroachments of government on our freedoms, no longer exists.

The Constitution was designed to restrict government, not people... that principle has been turned on its head by the liberal elite - the liberal elite that direct both parties.

Absent legal restraint, absent understanding on the part of the governed about the proper role of government - governments become nothing more than vast robberies.

Our freedoms will not likely survive another generation here in the U.S... Our founders predicted it all - warning that should we allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking we were a democracy, that we deserve neither freedom nor prosperity.

Debate at this point between socialist party A, and socialist party B, is little more than debate over how to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's just a matter of time.

I had hoped to be able to live out my days w/o seeing our country implode, but at 45, and the prospect of a left wing nut like Obama being elected, the writing is on the wall.

The building blocks of tyranny from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Barack Obama should be easy to see - it's obvious to anyone who is educated about the principles of freedom. Sadly, there are so few of us.

Good job of telling it like it is, wist. The fact that you made it perfectly clear in an earlier post that you see the filthy piece of garbage as by far, the worst alternative, though, gives you credibility that people intending to waste their vote on Bob Barr just don't have.

Tyrone, your analogy of Obama bin Biden with Reagan/Bush the Elder is wrong. Obama and Biden are extremely like-minded--the first and third worst liberal voting records in the Senate. Bush the Elder was philosopically, a completely different kind of Republican than Reagan.

Aside from the fact that Bush's "conversion" would be much better characterized as "stepping into the light" than "selling his soul", you have the question that nobody can really answer except the man himself: Was Bush the Elder merely recognizing political reality and giving lip service to Reaganomics and other conservative principals? Or was he really won over to the wisdom of that viewpoint by the great success of the Reagan presidency?

Tex...if one guy is gonna cut off your pecker and the other guy is gonna cut off your nuts which one do you vote for?? I mean, your tied up and those are your choices...oh yea, there is a 75 pound woman who is going to untie you if she wins the fight...she won't win, but I bet you cheer like hell for her.

Gosh, I guess in that case, I'd have no choice except to .............. vote for Bob Barr!

Seriously, Bobblehead, your scenario is FLAWED. The only consequence of the policies, views, and positions of either McCain or Obama that would be tantamount for America to amputation of genitalia would be major terrorist hits on American soil--repeats of 9/11 or worse.

Government power grabs, redistribution of wealth schemes, left wing activist judicial appointments, economy dampening tax increases, etc.--all of which only apply to ONE of the candidates anyway--are all situations which America has endoured and survived to varying degrees before. Massive terrorist hits--the taking out of whole cities, stadiums full of people, etc., or even a series of lesser but continuing terrorist hits--bombings at malls, sports events, etc., each killing maybe dozens instead of thousands or millions--either of those prospects--would screw this country up beyond repair--not just the deaths, not just the terrible economic consequences, but the inevitable suspending of basic rights and freedom that would occur in the aftermath. And any intelligent person knows, that scenario is a helluva lot more likely with an Obama presidency--which is what you risk by wasting your vote on Bob Barr.

Granted, there are a lot of negatives about McCain, but those are literally NOTHING compared to the CHANGE that Obama would bring us.

[mraynrand]

Futhermore, given that Democracy is nothing more than a transitional form of government, one that usually goes the way of anarachy, and out of anarchy rises some form of totalitariansim, you can throw democracy out as a viable form too - Madison's Federalist Paper #10 talks about this (I believe it is number 10 - don't quote me, but i'm sure if you read #10, Madison will open your eyes to what is happening today)

Yep, that's in #10. Madison rejects pure Democracy. It's the 'faction' letter, and describes how a republic can disperse and dilute the effect of local loons - an argument in favor of a republic and in favor of the United States. But, like a democracy, a government and a people are only as good as their underlying morals. If all the representatives are corrupt and not those "whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations" as Madison wrote, then a republic will be as useless as a pure democracy.

[wist43]

Anyone else catch Judge Napolitano (spelling) on Fox News a while ago??? Speaking on the issue of Constitutionality??? I guess he wrote a piece in the WSJ about it, not sure if today or not??? Maybe somebody else saw it???

Anyway,

Talking about how the bailout and most of Congresses interventions into the marketplace are unConstitutional. It is truly rare for anyone to raise the Constitution as an issue - maybe Obama's egregious power grab rhetoric is waking people up???

Of course, the Constitution is our only defense, or at least an informed electorates proper understanding of the Constitution is... the dirty little secret.

Don't worry, I don't hold out any hope... just found it interesting

[wist43]

Futhermore, given that Democracy is nothing more than a transitional form of government, one that usually goes the way of anarachy, and out of anarchy rises some form of totalitariansim, you can throw democracy out as a viable form too - Madison's Federalist Paper #10 talks about this (I believe it is number 10 - don't quote me, but i'm sure if you read #10, Madison will open your eyes to what is happening today)

Yep, that's in #10. Madison rejects pure Democracy. It's the 'faction' letter, and describes how a republic can disperse and dilute the effect of local loons - an argument in favor of a republic and in favor of the United States. But, like a democracy, a government and a people are only as good as their underlying morals. If all the representatives are corrupt and not those "whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations" as Madison wrote, then a republic will be as useless as a pure democracy.

Yes, I dusted off my copy of the Federalist Papers last night and began reading thru them again... I've read them so many times, and have so many passages highlighted that I get thru them pretty quickly.

My favorite quote:

"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

Great stuff

The day is coming I fear, when possession of such inflamatory rhetoric might land me in the gulag.

[HowardRoark]

CAVEAT!!!!!!! I really hope what I am going to say now doesn’t happen, it would be a disaster.

I notice a whole lot of ingredients coming together at the same time that could create a very combustible time in our history. The economy is tanking. Unemployment is getting higher and will go much higher than most people think. There is an undercurrent of fear out there; people are not sure where they will live or how they will feed their kids. As we all remember from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, when people do not have a base level of comfort (food and shelter) they can get a little crazy. There is also a big undercurrent of class warfare too. And lastly, the whole race card. Take a look at the headlines you have been reading lately; more and more you hear about how cities are making plans for rioting if Obama does not win. And the worst case of them all……..if some nut case on the Right does something once Obama is elected. It will make the Rodney King Riots look like a walk in the park.

It’s all out there right now……right below the surface. I hope it does not happen.

Sorry for the crazy bump here (an interesting subject anyway), but....I told you. Better get the water and canned goods stored in the basement.

US recession, 1st black president, 'fuel extremism'

Apr 14 04:51 PM US/Eastern


Right-wing extremists in the United States are using economic worries and the election of the first black US president as recruiting tools, the US government warns in a new report.
Fears of possible new restrictions on firearms, as well as troubled veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violence attacks," warned the US Department of Homeland Security.

But DHS said in a secret April 7 advisory for local law-enforcement officials that threats so far had been "largely rhetorical" and had "not yet turned to attack planning."

The department said it "has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits" who could someday resort to attacks.

"The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers fo rightwing radicalization and recruitment," according to the report.

The document, clearly marked as not for release to the media, was obtained by the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy and made available on the organization's web site.

The report said one "primary concern" for law enforcement officials was the "high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists" who fear potential future restrictions on firearms.

The department did not name any active rightwing extremist groups, but did refer to the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that left 168 people dead at the hands of US Army veteran Timothy McVeigh, who was later executed.

Increased government scrutiny in the wake of what was the worst terrorist attack on US soil until the September 11, 2001 attacks as well as economic growth put rightwing extremist groups on the wane, according to the report.

But "despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years," according to the department.

Some extremist groups are using Obama's perceived support for reforming US immigration in a way that could lead to US citizenship for some undocumented immigrants, expansion of social programs for minorities, and firearms curbs, to recruit or radicalize members.

And the Internet access boom has boosted extremist access to bomb-making know-how, weapons training, and the ability to reach out to a broad audience of like-minded people, according to the report.

The Department of Homeland Security, created in direct response to the September 11 attacks, declined to comment on the report.

[HowardRoark]

Not what I meant.....but you go ahead and spin it however you need to....

I’m not spinning anything. If you can honestly say that you were advocating an escalation of the war in Afghanistan 5 years ago, more power to you. But that’s not what is happening here. Obama and his flock are running around saying Iraq is bad, and we need to be focused on Afghanistan….or should have been focused there.

I stand by my statement. It’s Bullshit. I see it clear as day. Show me some speeches where Obama was advocating ramping up the war effort in Afghanistan 5 or 6 years ago. I will gladly change my position.

The fact of the matter is that Obama said that his position on Iraq was basically the same as Bush’s position back then. His big epiphany came when he found it to be a wedge issue in the primaries. He knew that he could get all the dailykos and moveon.org crowd by saying he was always against the war and that we should immediately get out. He knew he could back Hillary into a corner. It worked. Even when all the evidence has shown that the Surge has worked, he has dug in his heels and sticks by his plan (not a very good characteristic of a leader by the way….digging in one’s heals in the face of changing data).

Now he has found a new little wrinkle that seems to be resonating with the masses…..”We needed to be focused on Afghanistan, not in Iraq!”

I’m happy for you Barack….that and a nickel will get you, um, I guess the Presidency of the United States of America.

The detail you're missing is that 5 years ago, they all thought things were pretty well under control in Afghanistan and it needed not much more than a peacekeeping force while the new government took hold. The problem is that since then, the Taliban has made a resurgence that Bush pretty much ignored (because he was busy with Iraq) until it became more of a serious issue.

(clearing throat)