Will you partcipate in an armed rebellion against the federal government?

[PixieStix]

The government has messed with the American dream, and from working with people of all stripes, I can tell you that; people:::: ALL), people have had it.

I didn't vote by the way, that would be breaking fightclub rules, shees

 

[Avatar4321]

The present administration has yet to prove itself incompetant, and unlike the prior one, I see nothing that they have done that could possibly be classed as treason.

Then youre blind.

 

[Sinatra]

I am still a strong advocate of the ballot over the bullet.

A more informed and involved electorate must be the way.

That being said...

 

[Modbert]

we are not in "LIBERAL LAND?"....boy they got you fooled....

Tell me what's so Liberal about America now a days across the board social policy wise?

Boy does the Right Wing got you fooled if you actually sit there and believe Obama is a Liberal. As I stated before, both parties have become more Conservative over time.

 

[PixieStix]

The present administration has yet to prove itself incompetant, and unlike the prior one, I see nothing that they have done that could possibly be classed as treason.

Then your blind.

Or just living under "Old Rocks"

 

[tyronemcclurkin]

this question has "enemy of the state" written all over it>

 

[Avatar4321]

"All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

That's not Liberal or anything right?

Are people treated equal when they get promoted or hired because of their race?

Is the right to life being protected when an infant is killed in his mothers womb?

Is the right to liberty being protected when people arent allowed to debate global warming? When they are attacked for not being "PC" in their speech? When their faith is attacked because they dont line up with cultural gutter politics?

Is the right to the pursuit of happiness being protected when the government steals 70% of a mans money simply because he has worked hard? is it being protected when an entrapenuer loses his shop because the local government decided to give his property to the new "green" enterprise? Is it being protected when he cant build on his own property without millions of permits and variances?

Yeah, sure, liberalism is everything summed up in the Declaration. Not.

 

[Modbert]

Are people treated equal when they get promoted or hired because of their race?

Is the right to life being protected when an infant is killed in his mothers womb?

Is the right to liberty being protected when people arent allowed to debate global warming? When they are attacked for not being "PC" in their speech? When their faith is attacked because they dont line up with cultural gutter politics?

Is the right to the pursuit of happiness being protected when the government steals 70% of a mans money simply because he has worked hard? is it being protected when an entrapenuer loses his shop because the local government decided to give his property to the new "green" enterprise? Is it being protected when he cant build on his own property without millions of permits and variances?

Yeah, sure, liberalism is everything summed up in the Declaration. Not.

1.) Affirmative Action was put in place in a time when the game board so to speak was tilted, it untilted it. I think it should exist today but there should be no quota because then it becomes racist against Whites.

2.) Oh goody, the Abortion debate! I know how this will go, I will say life doesn't start in the womb and you'll call me a evil baby killer or something like that. Face it, we'll only agree to disagree on that one. Though it's this kind of bullshit that makes rape victims fear to get an abortion.

3.) People are certainly allowed to debate Global Warming, happens on this board daily. Just because one opinion outweighs another doesn't mean you don't get your opinion. Now for your two things, #1 are you referring to the fact people get upset when you say words like "******, Fag and ****"? Well guess what, just like you have the RIGHT to say such words, others have the RIGHT to say you're a racist, homophobic, or sexist. Do go into more detail by what you mean by "gutter politics" though please.

4.) The tax rate for the rich is 39%. The same level it was at during the years Clinton was in office when Bush had it lowered down to 35%. Reagan had lowered it down from upper 70% to lower 20%. I would love for you to show me an example of a person losing their shop because the local gov't gives the person's property for "green" enterprise. Because until I see such a thing, I consider it BS on your part. Furthermore, people should have to get permits and such on their property because it may go against sound laws, building laws, etc. I'll give you an example, my former neighbors built a deck in their backyard and we're probably a stone's throw away from each other. So before when I lived there, I could always their conversations or partying on the deck because it was on the same level as my bedroom window. This was done ILLEGALLY.

Everybody has the rights to make new additions to their home but not at the expense of their neighbor's rights. I figured as a right winger you'd be all about the rights of the individual but that's just a myth as I suppose.

 

[Avatar4321]

1.) Affirmative Action was put in place in a time when the game board so to speak was tilted, it untilted it. I think it should exist today but there should be no quota because then it becomes racist against Whites.

2.) Oh goody, the Abortion debate! I know how this will go, I will say life doesn't start in the womb and you'll call me a evil baby killer or something like that. Face it, we'll only agree to disagree on that one. Though it's this kind of bullshit that makes rape victims fear to get an abortion.

3.) People are certainly allowed to debate Global Warming, happens on this board daily. Just because one opinion outweighs another doesn't mean you don't get your opinion. Now for your two things, #1 are you referring to the fact people get upset when you say words like "******, Fag and ****"? Well guess what, just like you have the RIGHT to say such words, others have the RIGHT to say you're a racist, homophobic, or sexist. Do go into more detail by what you mean by "gutter politics" though please.

4.) The tax rate for the rich is 39%. The same level it was at during the years Clinton was in office when Bush had it lowered down to 35%. Reagan had lowered it down from upper 70% to lower 20%. I would love for you to show me an example of a person losing their shop because the local gov't gives the person's property for "green" enterprise. Because until I see such a thing, I consider it BS on your part. Furthermore, people should have to get permits and such on their property because it may go against sound laws, building laws, etc. I'll give you an example, my former neighbors built a deck in their backyard and we're probably a stone's throw away from each other. So before when I lived there, I could always their conversations or partying on the deck because it was on the same level as my bedroom window. This was done ILLEGALLY.

Everybody has the rights to make new additions to their home but not at the expense of their neighbor's rights. I figured as a right winger you'd be all about the rights of the individual but that's just a myth as I suppose.

Thank you for making my point. You arent in line with the Declaration. You are for treating people unequally. You are for taking life because of inconvenience. You are for taking people's property to give to others. That is liberalism. And it will never be inline with what the Founders taught.

 

[Modbert]

Thank you for making my point. You arent in line with the Declaration. You are for treating people unequally. You are for taking life because of inconvenience. You are for taking people's property to give to others. That is liberalism. And it will never be inline with what the Founders taught.

You proved nothing, I'm not for treating people unequally at all, taking people's property to give to others, etc.

By the way, you call rape an inconvenience? Wow, you must feel so good about yourself on that huh?

Thanks for not answering any of my questions you partisan hack after I answered all of yours.

P.S: Stop mis presenting my positions and being dishonest.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thank you for making my point. You arent in line with the Declaration. You are for treating people unequally. You are for taking life because of inconvenience. You are for taking people's property to give to others. That is liberalism. And it will never be inline with what the Founders taught.

You proved nothing, I'm not for treating people unequally at all, taking people's property to give to others, etc.

By the way, you call rape an inconvenience? Wow, you must feel so good about yourself on that huh?

Thanks for not answering any of my questions you partisan hack after I answered all of yours.

P.S: Stop mis presenting my positions and being dishonest.

You are a Liar. You support the right to murder unborn children because it might inconvenience the mother. You do not care enough to realize the Supreme Court ruled that any Government, town, county, state , federal, can seize anyone's land and give it to someone else for the sole purpose of tax revenue or potential tax revenue. You support affirmative action which is simply a form of racism. Hey but thanks for reminding us of your ignorant positions.

 

[Modbert]

You are a Liar. You support the right to murder unborn children because it might inconvenience the mother. You do not care enough to realize the Supreme Court ruled that any Government, town, county, state , federal, can seize anyone's land and give it to someone else for the sole purpose of tax revenue or potential tax revenue. You support affirmative action which is simply a form of racism. Hey but thanks for reminding us of your ignorant positions.

So rape and incest are just inconveniences huh? Because that's what I'm drawing from your statement right there. Oh, and don't forget if her life happens to be in danger. That's just an inconvenience too huh?

The Supreme Court did that, the court isn't exactly Liberal last I checked with quite a few Reagan and Dubya picks on the bench.

I don't support affirmative action (especially the quota system), I support the idea that it's wrong to not hire somebody because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, and things like that.

Which is why I support just getting rid of all such questions on applications which would make Affirmative Action obsolete in many if not all ways.

 

[jreeves]

The nut cases who advocate armed rebellion are too scared to ever do it.

There are bigger nut cases who reads the big chickens advocating aremed rebellion.They are more likely to do it.

That's probably what the British said before the American Revolution....

I wonder if anyone will be ready to rebel against the government when Social security goes under?

 

[necritan]

You are a Liar. You support the right to murder unborn children because it might inconvenience the mother. You do not care enough to realize the Supreme Court ruled that any Government, town, county, state , federal, can seize anyone's land and give it to someone else for the sole purpose of tax revenue or potential tax revenue. You support affirmative action which is simply a form of racism. Hey but thanks for reminding us of your ignorant positions.

So rape and incest are just inconveniences huh? Because that's what I'm drawing from your statement right there. Oh, and don't forget if her life happens to be in danger. That's just an inconvenience too huh?

The Supreme Court did that, the court isn't exactly Liberal last I checked with quite a few Reagan and Dubya picks on the bench.

I don't support affirmative action (especially the quota system), I support the idea that it's wrong to not hire somebody because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, and things like that.

Which is why I support just getting rid of all such questions on applications which would make Affirmative Action obsolete in many if not all ways.

What percentage of Abortions would you say fall into your "Rape , incest , endangerment" category???

 

[Modbert]

That's probably what the British said before the American Revolution....

I wonder if anyone will be ready to rebel against the government when Social goes under?

With all the gun sales these days, I'm willing to bet there'd be quite a few people at the very least who'd be ready to rebel tomorrow for example.

 

[jreeves]

"Americans... still believe in an America where anything's possible - they just don't think their leaders do."

President Barack Obama​

Americans are believing they can survive a Congress and a President who is throwing away our Treasury to build turtle tunnels and giving away money to dead people.

 

[Agnapostate]

^^^ Still making this shit up as he goes along.

Don't be such a fucking moron, Dud. Try and come up with an original response. Of course, I can understand how the fact that you're not any different from the standard rightist idiot with a thousand clones who regurgitates the latest talking point might inhibit such a development.

Maybe in the movies.....

More like in reality. But while we're focused on political economy, let me correct a little misconception of yours as it applies to this thread. The more "libertarian" founding fathers were classical liberals, but would likely be libertarian socialists (i.e. real libertarians) today.

Propertarians (those falsely known as "libertarians" in the U.S.) call themselves the descendants of classical liberals, but there is no legitimate comparison to be made between classical liberalism and this doctrine of propertarianism that falsely masquerades as libertarian in nature. Classical liberal philosophy offers a defense of property rights based on individual appropriation of the product of one's labor that many classical liberal theorists expected to result in relatively egalitarian conditions. No defense of vast corporate structure that modern propertarians defend as legitimate fixtures of fair market exchange and the massive concentration of wealth that they defend as the earned reward of entrepreneurial spirit can be drawn from that philosophy.

It's a frank reality that a defense of private property offered in an agrarian society based on simple markets of exchange between independent producers and artisans where egalitarian conditions were expected to prevail cannot be naturally extrapolated to a defense of private property in a corporate capitalist economy where market and wealth concentration are the prevailing conditions and economic democracy is almost entirely nonexistent. Modern propertarians have effectively co-opted classical liberal arguments just as effectively as they stole the "libertarian" label from European anarchists, thus committing what appear to be property violations more severe than any that they regularly decry. For example, as Robert Dahl (A Preface to Economic Democracy Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985) notes:

[A]n economic order that spontaneously produced inequality in the distribution of economic and political resources acquired legitimacy at least in part, by clothing itself in the recut garments of an outmoded ideology in which private property was justified on the ground that a wide diffusion of property would support political equality. As a result, Americans have never asked themselves steadily or in large numbers whether an alternative to corporate capitalism might be more consistent with their commitment to democracy.

Classical liberal arguments are not a sound basis for the alleged liberty-enhancing qualities of private property in the modern capitalist economy, but there are substantive arguments in legitimate libertarian philosophy against such a state of affairs. For example, you might gain from a brief overview in Section B.4 of An Anarchist FAQ, entitled How Does Capitalism Affect Liberty?

Nope...its Libertarian/Conservative. If it was Liberal it would say " ......endowed by a government of men certain rights ; that among these are blah blah blah.....*trails off*

Libertarianism is not a rightist political or economic theory, but originated as anarchist and socialist in nature. The term "libertarian" was first used in print in an 1857 letter by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque, who later published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social from 1858 to 1861. The later French anarchists Sebastian Faure and Louise Michel then founded Le Libertaire in 1895, which ought to illustrate the term's early usage by anarcho-socialists, largely in an attempt to circumvent anti-anarchist laws. Conversely, the U.S. "Libertarian" Party has only existed since 1971, which means that socialist usage of the term predates its misappropriation by American capitalists by more than a century. As noted by Murray Bookchin, the current American definition of "libertarianism" is merely "the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit."

However, even apart from the historical definition of the term, we can make an even more dramatic claim that capital and libertarianism are actually incompatible and that "libertarian socialism" is really the only variety of libertarianism (and socialism, to some extent) that can exist. For example, most libertarian socialists would posit that capitalism is necessarily inimical to the maximization of liberty because of the authoritarian elements inherent in wage labor, which include the hierarchical conditions of the workplace and the effectively oligopolistic seizure of the financial class over the means of production which serves as the basis for the nature of wage labor in capitalism. Such a state of affairs wherein a tiny elite control such expansive resources would rightfully be condemned as authoritarian in nature were it manifested through the vessel of a state. Hence, we'd argue that libertarian socialism is a redundant term because legitimate libertarianism cannot exist without socialism and legitimate socialism cannot exist without libertarianism. But because "libertarianism" is understood as a laissez-faire capitalist philosophy in this country, we have to use the term "libertarian socialism."

 

[Againsheila]

There are some on the board who are talking about an armed rebellion or civil war sometime down the road. That got me thinking, are you planning to participate in an armed insurrection against the federal government?

Frankly, I find this fascinating.

If I was, i certainly wouldn't admit it on a message board.

 

[Harry Dresden]

we are not in "LIBERAL LAND?"....boy they got you fooled....

Tell me what's so Liberal about America now a days across the board social policy wise?

Boy does the Right Wing got you fooled if you actually sit there and believe Obama is a Liberal. As I stated before, both parties have become more Conservative over time.

Robert....i said California....thats "Liberal land"....and out here the moderate Dems have let the very liberal ones totally take over this state....and WELLA....look what happened....

 

[Avatar4321]

You proved nothing, I'm not for treating people unequally at all, taking people's property to give to others, etc.

By the way, you call rape an inconvenience? Wow, you must feel so good about yourself on that huh?

Thanks for not answering any of my questions you partisan hack after I answered all of yours.

P.S: Stop mis presenting my positions and being dishonest.

I dont have to misrepresent your positions or be dishonest. You articulate it fine yourself. You support liberal policies. You said so yourself. You know those policies dont support the Founders ideals of equality. You know they dont support our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pretending that they do is dishonest. Attacking me for pointing that out isnt a very convincing argument.