Then they came for us...

[Photonic]

Or like you got off on the wrong floor, wandering aimlessly, imposing your will on everyone you meet without their consent. Sorry to be hard on you.

I look at Federalism as appropriately seeking the will of the Governed, from the ground up. Nationalism as dictating from the top down.

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

You went back and added the bolded parts after I read them. So it's more clear what you meant, and also more clear that you're attempting to make yourself appear superior. As if.

When talking about fascism, nationalism is another way of saying extreme national pride, to the point of bigotry. Not a way of governing.



Yeah, I've got such a lot of power. I'm in a war FOR liberty. Not against it.

You went back and added the bolded parts after I read them. So it's more clear what you meant, and also more clear that you're attempting to make yourself appear superior. As if.

Yep. I felt sorry for you, so I sprayed some Bactine in your Boo Boo.
I care nothing about superiority or inferiority. I'm just calling them as I see them. You have every right to be you, I have every right to be me. I am neither asking for or giving advice on posting style. Neither am I trying to manipulate conversation or placing myself above you. You are projecting.

Yeah, I've got such a lot of power. I'm in a war FOR liberty. Not against it.

Thought, Word, Action, Inaction, reflect Power. Taking Responsibility for Your own, is a start. Progressive Statism Sacrifices Individual Liberty to the Governing Authority, that is Fundamental. It is Required. Deal with it too, while you lecture about Superiority.

Modern Conservatism has more in common with Classic Liberalism, than Statist Progressiveness has in matters of Unalienable Rights, Faith, Speech, Property, Impartial Justice, Liberty.

Statist Progressives share the Traits of Socialists, Nazi's, Communists, Fascists, in matters of Power, Authority, Control, be it Life, Will, Belief, Property, Censorship, Arbitrary Rule. Statist Progressives live for Control over Human Life, 24/7, cradle to grave.

I don't expect you to get this.

I think something needs to be cleared up here. Sharing a trait is not the same thing as, and certainly not grounds for even comparing.

 

[Intense]

You went back and added the bolded parts after I read them. So it's more clear what you meant, and also more clear that you're attempting to make yourself appear superior. As if.

When talking about fascism, nationalism is another way of saying extreme national pride, to the point of bigotry. Not a way of governing.



Yeah, I've got such a lot of power. I'm in a war FOR liberty. Not against it.

Yep. I felt sorry for you, so I sprayed some Bactine in your Boo Boo.
I care nothing about superiority or inferiority. I'm just calling them as I see them. You have every right to be you, I have every right to be me. I am neither asking for or giving advice on posting style. Neither am I trying to manipulate conversation or placing myself above you. You are projecting.

Yeah, I've got such a lot of power. I'm in a war FOR liberty. Not against it.

Thought, Word, Action, Inaction, reflect Power. Taking Responsibility for Your own, is a start. Progressive Statism Sacrifices Individual Liberty to the Governing Authority, that is Fundamental. It is Required. Deal with it too, while you lecture about Superiority.

Modern Conservatism has more in common with Classic Liberalism, than Statist Progressiveness has in matters of Unalienable Rights, Faith, Speech, Property, Impartial Justice, Liberty.

Statist Progressives share the Traits of Socialists, Nazi's, Communists, Fascists, in matters of Power, Authority, Control, be it Life, Will, Belief, Property, Censorship, Arbitrary Rule. Statist Progressives live for Control over Human Life, 24/7, cradle to grave.

I don't expect you to get this.

I think something needs to be cleared up here. Sharing a trait is not the same thing as, and certainly not grounds for even comparing.

Every Brand of Totalitarian Control needs it's own day in court, huh. No mass grave is the same, either I guess. You nailed it.


Beam Me Up! Pretty Please.


The Authority Song - John Mellencamp

 

[Photonic]

Yep. I felt sorry for you, so I sprayed some Bactine in your Boo Boo.
I care nothing about superiority or inferiority. I'm just calling them as I see them. You have every right to be you, I have every right to be me. I am neither asking for or giving advice on posting style. Neither am I trying to manipulate conversation or placing myself above you. You are projecting.


Thought, Word, Action, Inaction, reflect Power. Taking Responsibility for Your own, is a start. Progressive Statism Sacrifices Individual Liberty to the Governing Authority, that is Fundamental. It is Required. Deal with it too, while you lecture about Superiority.

Modern Conservatism has more in common with Classic Liberalism, than Statist Progressiveness has in matters of Unalienable Rights, Faith, Speech, Property, Impartial Justice, Liberty.

Statist Progressives share the Traits of Socialists, Nazi's, Communists, Fascists, in matters of Power, Authority, Control, be it Life, Will, Belief, Property, Censorship, Arbitrary Rule. Statist Progressives live for Control over Human Life, 24/7, cradle to grave.

I don't expect you to get this.

I think something needs to be cleared up here. Sharing a trait is not the same thing as, and certainly not grounds for even comparing.

Every Brand of Totalitarian Control needs it's own day in court, huh. No mass grave is the same, either I guess. You nailed it.


Beam Me Up! Pretty Please.


The Authority Song - John Mellencamp

Honestly? Authoritarianism is human nature. The problem with it is also human nature. It's all a bit mad really.

 

[SAT2]

Yep. I felt sorry for you, so I sprayed some Bactine in your Boo Boo.

No, you went back and made sure to be patronizing so I wouldn't miss seeing how highly you think of yourself. No worries. I get it.

Thought, Word, Action, Inaction, reflect Power. Taking Responsibility for Your own, is a start. Progressive Statism Sacrifices Individual Liberty to the Governing Authority, that is Fundamental. It is Required. Deal with it too, while you lecture about Superiority.

Modern Conservatism has more in common with Classic Liberalism, than Statist Progressiveness has in matters of Unalienable Rights, Faith, Speech, Property, Impartial Justice, Liberty.

Statist Progressives share the Traits of Socialists, Nazi's, Communists, Fascists, in matters of Power, Authority, Control, be it Life, Will, Belief, Property, Censorship, Arbitrary Rule. Statist Progressives live for Control over Human Life, 24/7, cradle to grave.

I don't expect you to get this.

I seldom "get" word salad.

Let's go with reality. Libertarians always operate from a point of privilege-they'd be the last to advocate for the ideals they express today if the shoe was on the other foot. What's more, I might take you more seriously if you weren't so hung up on the principle of inheritance-it kind of blows up your entire thesis when you look at Paris Hilton, for example.

 

[Intense]

I think something needs to be cleared up here. Sharing a trait is not the same thing as, and certainly not grounds for even comparing.

Every Brand of Totalitarian Control needs it's own day in court, huh. No mass grave is the same, either I guess. You nailed it.


Beam Me Up! Pretty Please.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1m4MGZ1ebU]The Authority Song - John Mellencamp - YouTube[/ame]
The Authority Song - John Mellencamp

Honestly? Authoritarianism is human nature. The problem with it is also human nature. It's all a bit mad really.

Hey, here is an Idea. Let's create a Federal Government with enumerated Powers..... no wait.... That was the point, wasn't it???

 

[Intense]

Yep. I felt sorry for you, so I sprayed some Bactine in your Boo Boo.

No, you went back and made sure to be patronizing so I wouldn't miss seeing how highly you think of yourself. No worries. I get it.

Thought, Word, Action, Inaction, reflect Power. Taking Responsibility for Your own, is a start. Progressive Statism Sacrifices Individual Liberty to the Governing Authority, that is Fundamental. It is Required. Deal with it too, while you lecture about Superiority.

Modern Conservatism has more in common with Classic Liberalism, than Statist Progressiveness has in matters of Unalienable Rights, Faith, Speech, Property, Impartial Justice, Liberty.

Statist Progressives share the Traits of Socialists, Nazi's, Communists, Fascists, in matters of Power, Authority, Control, be it Life, Will, Belief, Property, Censorship, Arbitrary Rule. Statist Progressives live for Control over Human Life, 24/7, cradle to grave.

I don't expect you to get this.

I seldom "get" word salad.

Let's go with reality. Libertarians always operate from a point of privilege-they'd be the last to advocate for the ideals they express today if the shoe was on the other foot. What's more, I might take you more seriously if you weren't so hung up on the principle of inheritance-it kind of blows up your entire thesis when you look at Paris Hilton, for example.

I seldom "get" word salad.

Ask Mommy, when you get stuck.

Let's go with reality.

That would leave you without any ammunition or direction.

Libertarians always operate from a point of privilege-they'd be the last to advocate for the ideals they express today if the shoe was on the other foot.

I'm not Libertarian, nor do I speak for them. Talk about mixed salad. .... Pass the salt... pretty please..... speaking of shoes and feet, who's foot, who's shoe?

What's more, I might take you more seriously if you weren't so hung up on the principle of inheritance-it kind of blows up your entire thesis when you look at Paris Hilton, for example.

WTF, you think Inheritance is theft, now? Campaign on that, please. Seriously.... you can't take me serious because of a presumption you made about me that I did not even Post on! If I did not agree with your presumption you would really be in the shitter now. I bet you spend allot of time there.

Seriously, unless you are in a position where your Deceased leave you nothing, or have Nothing to leave you, your position has no foundation. In truth, in a Free Society, it has no merit or foundation anyway. You, being willing to throw property rights under the bus, out of Envy, Jealousy, Greed, is Hostile to respecting Others. It is a Pathetic fail. I'm not speaking of You Personally, but, the Concept that was instilled in you. To Take from Another without consent, is Theft. There really is no way around it. To legislate such, to support such legislation, is a perfect of arbitrary rule, Tyranny of the Majority. To take from another what you have not earned or labored for, because in your mind the Society has more right to Private Property than the Benefactor, just because? Talk about Bullshit reasoning. You think those in Power feeding you this shit don't protect themselves? The crowd that will never have enough, never control enough, think Inheritance is injustice? I have a Bridge I want to sell you.

 

[SAT2]

WTF, you think Inheritance is theft, now? Campaign on that, please. Seriously.... you can't take me serious because of a presumption you made about me that I did not even Post on! If I did not agree with your presumption you would really be in the shitter now. I bet you spend allot of time there.

Seriously, unless you are in a position where your Deceased leave you nothing, or have Nothing to leave you, your position has no foundation. In truth, in a Free Society, it has no merit or foundation anyway. You, being willing to throw property rights under the bus, out of Envy, Jealousy, Greed, is Hostile to respecting Others. It is a Pathetic fail. I'm not speaking of You Personally, but, the Concept that was instilled in you. To Take from Another without consent, is Theft. There really is no way around it. To legislate such, to support such legislation, is a perfect of arbitrary rule, Tyranny of the Majority. To take from another what you have not earned or labored for, because in your mind the Society has more right to Private Property than the Benefactor, just because? Talk about Bullshit reasoning. You think those in Power feeding you this shit don't protect themselves? The crowd that will never have enough, never control enough, think Inheritance is injustice? I have a Bridge I want to sell you.

No, I don't think that inheritance is theft. I think that to be consistent, you guys would have to support that. After all, aren't you all about individual merit?

What you're really about is the preservation of established power. Which makes it difficult for those not in power to move upward. I'm not asking you to give up inheritance. I'm asking you to see the rationale behind social justice, without clutching your pearls and collapsing on the fainting couch.

 

[bripat9643]

The devolved into tyranny from the "social democracy", you ignoramus....Try reading posts for comprehension sometime.

Now, what evidence would you accept?...Be specific, dodgasaurus rex.

No, they didn't. Don't be silly. It's like someone saying that Hitler was a socialist. Tyrants misuse political terminology as part of their strategy of disinformation.

So Democrats are tyrants?

At no time did the USSR, or Mao's China, or Nazi Germany, function like a social democracy.

Neither have Sweden, France, Germany or Italy.

 

[bripat9643]

Translation: There is no evidence that you will accept....You prefer to obstinately live in the dream world where socialistic mob rule is a viable option, if only we can find the right tyrants to lord over the hoi polloy.

No. What I won't accept is false evidence. False evidence is what you've presented.

At no time did the USSR, or Nazi Germany, or Mao's China function like a social democracy. Not in the beginning, not in the middle, and not at the end. To hold them up as proof of anything about a social democracy is ridiculous.

Modern Germany, Norway, and Finland are social democracies. They have not descended into tyranny, they show no signs of doing so. They have not collapsed under the weight of their bureaucracy. This is the reality that you have ignored for posts and for pages.

The Wiemar Republic was a so-called "social democracy" when Hitler took over. Furthermore, what you call "social democracies" are largely capitalist. About the only feature the USA doesn't share with these countries is a totally nationalized healthcare sector. So it appears that capitalism is the essential feature that prevents tyranny

 

[SAT2]

Translation: There is no evidence that you will accept....You prefer to obstinately live in the dream world where socialistic mob rule is a viable option, if only we can find the right tyrants to lord over the hoi polloy.

No. What I won't accept is false evidence. False evidence is what you've presented.

At no time did the USSR, or Nazi Germany, or Mao's China function like a social democracy. Not in the beginning, not in the middle, and not at the end. To hold them up as proof of anything about a social democracy is ridiculous.

Modern Germany, Norway, and Finland are social democracies. They have not descended into tyranny, they show no signs of doing so. They have not collapsed under the weight of their bureaucracy. This is the reality that you have ignored for posts and for pages.

The Wiemar Republic was a so-called "social democracy" when Hitler took over. Furthermore, what you call "social democracies" are largely capitalist. About the only feature the USA doesn't share with these countries is a totally nationalized healthcare sector. So it appears that capitalism is the essential feature that prevents tyranny

And that nationalized health care is good for democracies.

 

[rdean]

Republicans held millions of American hostage. The reason they can get away with this is because the Republican leadership doesn't give a flying fuck about America or the American people. For a dime, they would royally screw them over. Even most right wingers have to know that. Obama can't do it. He's been on food stamps. He's paid off student loans. He knows what it's like.

Every time you guys make these charges, I go and read up on it and find out you fuckers are lying your asses off once again. Win elections through good policy. Not by lying.

Hmmm not really sure who 'you guys' refers to, but I ain't a Republican. They're every bit as much lying slimeballs as your Democrats.

Obama signed PPACA. It's his flagship "accomplishment". He's got no one to blame but himself for that. In fact, if he'd refused to sign it - if he'd sent the fucking thing back to Congress and said "Get it right!", I might be supporting him in a second term. But he didn't. And I'm not.

Send it back to congress and get it right?

That's just plain stupid.

For one, the Democratic Party is a coalition. It's not 90% white like the Republicans. To dislike the entire party is to dislike American diversity.

Second, Obama can't work with Republicans because they want the black guy humiliated. Don't pretend you would support him "IF". Either that's just a flat out lie or you've been getting your news from Fox, which would make it a flat out lie.

 

[bripat9643]

And that nationalized health care is good for democracies.

It's a form of fascism. Being dependent on government for anything makes government stronger and freedom weaker.

 

[dblack]

Send it back to congress and get it right?

That's just plain stupid.

For one, the Democratic Party is a coalition. It's not 90% white like the Republicans. To dislike the entire party is to dislike American diversity.

Second, Obama can't work with Republicans because they want the black guy humiliated. Don't pretend you would support him "IF". Either that's just a flat out lie or you've been getting your news from Fox, which would make it a flat out lie.

Not really sure what point you're trying to make. I'm not lying, and I don't watch Fox news. If Obama had shown some courage and stuck to his guns on the mandate, if he said 'no' to the lobbyists and corporatist Republicans (instead of giving them a 'seat at the table'), I'd definitely vote for him - especially when you consider the likely Republican candidates.

But he didn't. And at this point, I'm not sure if he ever intended to do anything other than use health care as a way to push constitutional limits on federal power, and to further the corporate/government "partnership".

 

[Big Fitz]

Translation: There is no evidence that you will accept....You prefer to obstinately live in the dream world where socialistic mob rule is a viable option, if only we can find the right tyrants to lord over the hoi polloy.

No. What I won't accept is false evidence. False evidence is what you've presented.

At no time did the USSR, or Nazi Germany, or Mao's China function like a social democracy. Not in the beginning, not in the middle, and not at the end. To hold them up as proof of anything about a social democracy is ridiculous.

Modern Germany, Norway, and Finland are social democracies. They have not descended into tyranny, they show no signs of doing so. They have not collapsed under the weight of their bureaucracy. This is the reality that you have ignored for posts and for pages.

Well there we go. The "No True Scotsman" defense. The last refuge of the deluded scoundrel and fool.

Game Set Match, Oddball.

 

[SAT2]

And that nationalized health care is good for democracies.

It's a form of fascism. Being dependent on government for anything makes government stronger and freedom weaker.

Translation: There is no evidence that you will accept....You prefer to obstinately live in the dream world where socialistic mob rule is a viable option, if only we can find the right tyrants to lord over the hoi polloy.

No. What I won't accept is false evidence. False evidence is what you've presented.

At no time did the USSR, or Nazi Germany, or Mao's China function like a social democracy. Not in the beginning, not in the middle, and not at the end. To hold them up as proof of anything about a social democracy is ridiculous.

Modern Germany, Norway, and Finland are social democracies. They have not descended into tyranny, they show no signs of doing so. They have not collapsed under the weight of their bureaucracy. This is the reality that you have ignored for posts and for pages.

Well there we go. The "No True Scotsman" defense. The last refuge of the deluded scoundrel and fool.

Game Set Match, Oddball.

I do not think that term means what you think it means. I realize it's convenient for you to drag it out, but please think for five minutes about this.

A social democracy achieves its goals through DEMOCRACY-voting, demonstrations, peaceful marches, peaceful occupations, petition drives, etc, etc, etc. Not through violent revolution.

Oddball has listed violent revolutions. Nazi Germany. The USSR. Mao's China. Three social upheavals accomplished by violence and the threat of violence. Through terror tactics, not through voting.

Therefore, Oddball has not listed social democracies. Oddball claimed that they started as social democracies and devolved into tyranny. He is totally, completely, factually, mistaken. Both you and he should admit that you were mistaken in calling these three governments social democracies, and move on to another point.

 

[JDzBrain]

Oddball has listed violent revolutions. Nazi Germany. The USSR. Mao's China. Three social upheavals accomplished by violence and the threat of violence. Through terror tactics, not through voting.

Dude...in 1933, Hitler was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED to the parliament in Germany. Goebbels, Himmler, and a nearly a dozen other Nazi (National Socialist) party members were DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED to the parliament at the same time. Hitler and his Nazi party members formed a NEW collation government with him as it's chancellor. They quickly LEGALLY began to centralize power and when the president that appointed him Chancellor died in 34, he and his cronies declared him Führer and started killing off the competition.

The Nazi's came to power through the use of the democratic process. And so did the others Oddball listed...as do MOST despots and tyrants!

The lack of historical reference to make these ridiculous claims of rebuttal is stunning!

But I guess it's to be expected from folks who look to comics whose only claim to fame is an ability to read from a teleprompter, the rantings of a bunch of coked up writers siting in the basement of a studio somewhere to get there insight into the world!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Honestly? Authoritarianism is human nature. The problem with it is also human nature. It's all a bit mad really.

Are you saying that if applied properly, authoritarianism is a good thing?

 

[Big Fitz]

And that nationalized health care is good for democracies.

It's a form of fascism. Being dependent on government for anything makes government stronger and freedom weaker.

No. What I won't accept is false evidence. False evidence is what you've presented.

At no time did the USSR, or Nazi Germany, or Mao's China function like a social democracy. Not in the beginning, not in the middle, and not at the end. To hold them up as proof of anything about a social democracy is ridiculous.

Modern Germany, Norway, and Finland are social democracies. They have not descended into tyranny, they show no signs of doing so. They have not collapsed under the weight of their bureaucracy. This is the reality that you have ignored for posts and for pages.

Well there we go. The "No True Scotsman" defense. The last refuge of the deluded scoundrel and fool.

Game Set Match, Oddball.

I do not think that term means what you think it means. I realize it's convenient for you to drag it out, but please think for five minutes about this.

A social democracy achieves its goals through DEMOCRACY-voting, demonstrations, peaceful marches, peaceful occupations, petition drives, etc, etc, etc. Not through violent revolution.

Oddball has listed violent revolutions. Nazi Germany. The USSR. Mao's China. Three social upheavals accomplished by violence and the threat of violence. Through terror tactics, not through voting.

Therefore, Oddball has not listed social democracies. Oddball claimed that they started as social democracies and devolved into tyranny. He is totally, completely, factually, mistaken. Both you and he should admit that you were mistaken in calling these three governments social democracies, and move on to another point.

And yet, he's still not wrong, McEnroe. Screaming about the fact it's not what they intended does not change what they did. Not to mention JDz pwned you once again by reminding you Hitler WAS popularly elected, much like the fiend Chavez who is his ideological kith and kin.

Again.

Game, Set, Match to Oddball.

 

[Photonic]

Honestly? Authoritarianism is human nature. The problem with it is also human nature. It's all a bit mad really.

Are you saying that if applied properly, authoritarianism is a good thing?

Yea, because a king has never been a nice person ever.

 

[SAT2]

Dude...in 1933, Hitler was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED to the parliament in Germany. Goebbels, Himmler, and a nearly a dozen other Nazi (National Socialist) party members were DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED to the parliament at the same time. Hitler and his Nazi party members formed a NEW collation government with him as it's chancellor. They quickly LEGALLY began to centralize power and when the president that appointed him Chancellor died in 34, he and his cronies declared him Führer and started killing off the competition.

The Nazi's came to power through the use of the democratic process. And so did the others Oddball listed...as do MOST despots and tyrants!

The lack of historical reference to make these ridiculous claims of rebuttal is stunning!

But I guess it's to be expected from folks who look to comics whose only claim to fame is an ability to read from a teleprompter, the rantings of a bunch of coked up writers siting in the basement of a studio somewhere to get there insight into the world!

My God. No, Hitler did not come to lead Germany through the democratic process. The USSR was not a social democracy established through the democratic process. No, Mao did not come to power through the democratic process. Your claims are nonsense.

Hitler came to power legally, but not democratically. You both deny and admit that in your post. A single member of Parliament does not rule a nation, lead a nation to war, or establish concentration camps. Duh. Hitler obtained the Chancellorship through intimidation of those with power in Germany, through violence in the streets and threats of more violence. You've distorted history by leaving out all the inconvenient facts. I can elaborate if necessary, but honestly, do you really not know any better?

And yet, he's still not wrong, McEnroe. Screaming about the fact it's not what they intended does not change what they did. Not to mention JDz pwned you once again by reminding you Hitler WAS popularly elected, much like the fiend Chavez who is his ideological kith and kin.

Again.

Game, Set, Match to Oddball.

Again. Oddball started from an idiot's premise-that Nazi Germany, that the USSR, that Mao's China were initially social democracies that devolved into tyranny. Those nations were never social democracies. They were not established as social democracies.

Hitler was not elected to lead Germany "like Chavez". Hitler won an election to Parliament. Do you understand what that means, as opposed to being elected as a national LEADER?

Read something for yourself for a change instead of being led by the nose. Oddball is simply wrong.