"You didn't get there on your own"

[The T]

I was in under Carter and Renauldus Magnus. Served in Special OPS.

And ALL YOU need to know s0n. I don't give details.

what bullshit

jesus, this place is hysterical

Hey blowhard. How about you tell us of yours ass lips..........

We can own you at will.

The guy has no honor. All there is to it.

 

[Full-Auto]

what bullshit

jesus, this place is hysterical

Hey blowhard. How about you tell us of yours ass lips..........

We can own you at will.

The guy has no honor. All there is to it.

I always laugh at these simpletons that never served anything but fries

 

[Uncensored2008]

The guy has no honor. All there is to it.

Conz is a troll, nothing more or less. Best to just ignore him. All he wants is attention. Deny him what he seeks.

 

[Foxfyre]

The end product of Marxism is unattainable and so polly-annishly unrealistic as to be laughable, but it is at least noble.

But Marixism has no such notion of government being the servant of the people. The purpose of government is to obtain absolute control and that requires destroying religion and any semblance of self worth or individualism from the people, requires confiscating the wealth of the wealthy, requires dismantling of the existing social sructures, and requires absolishment of all private property. Once accomplished then all the wealth will be distributed evenly through the population who, without interference of a class mentality, will then enjoy utopia as they work together harmoniously and selflessly.

Unfortunately, no government employing Marxism ever seems to get past the total power part and move on the the Utopian part.

So how Marxist is it to suggest that the property owner/business owner does not merit credit for his/her success but that we all share in it?

 

[saveliberty]

Marxist followers are in it for Utopia. Marxist leaders are in it for power.

 

[Murf76]

The end product of Marxism is unattainable and so polly-annishly unrealistic as to be laughable, but it is at least noble.

But Marixism has no such notion of government being the servant of the people. The purpose of government is to obtain absolute control and that requires destroying religion and any semblance of self worth or individualism from the people, requires confiscating the wealth of the wealthy, requires dismantling of the existing social sructures, and requires absolishment of all private property. Once accomplished then all the wealth will be distributed evenly through the population who, without interference of a class mentality, will then enjoy utopia as they work together harmoniously and selflessly.

Unfortunately, no government employing Marxism ever seems to get past the total power part and move on the the Utopian part.

So how Marxist is it to suggest that the property owner/business owner does not merit credit for his/her success but that we all share in it?

You can't macromanage a society without micromanaging it's people.
You can't have a negative Bill of Rights and a positive Second Bill of Rights. One cancels the other.
You can't make collectivism the number one objective and still protect the Liberty of the individual.

What these people WANT can't happen without destroying what they've become accustomed to, and for some reason they just can't wrap their minds around that sad fact. I honestly think that most liberals, if they truly understood the either/or nature of the choice before them, would choose Liberty. The rest are in actuality statists, afraid as they are of the chaotic nature of freedom and the uncertain outcome associated with it, whose choice would be subjugation.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
---Benjamin Franklin

 

[The T]

The end product of Marxism is unattainable and so polly-annishly unrealistic as to be laughable, but it is at least noble.

But Marixism has no such notion of government being the servant of the people. The purpose of government is to obtain absolute control and that requires destroying religion and any semblance of self worth or individualism from the people, requires confiscating the wealth of the wealthy, requires dismantling of the existing social sructures, and requires absolishment of all private property. Once accomplished then all the wealth will be distributed evenly through the population who, without interference of a class mentality, will then enjoy utopia as they work together harmoniously and selflessly.

Unfortunately, no government employing Marxism ever seems to get past the total power part and move on the the Utopian part.

So how Marxist is it to suggest that the property owner/business owner does not merit credit for his/her success but that we all share in it?

You can't macromanage a society without micromanaging it's people.
You can't have a negative Bill of Rights and a positive Second Bill of Rights. One cancels the other.
You can't make collectivism the number one objective and still protect the Liberty of the individual.

What these people WANT can't happen without destroying what they've become accustomed to, and for some reason they just can't wrap their minds around that sad fact. I honestly think that most liberals, if they truly understood the either/or nature of the choice before them, would choose Liberty. The rest are in actuality statists, afraid as they are of the chaotic nature of freedom and the uncertain outcome associated with it, whose choice would be subjugation.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
---Benjamin Franklin

Indeed.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs"]Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Murf76]

The end product of Marxism is unattainable and so polly-annishly unrealistic as to be laughable, but it is at least noble.

But Marixism has no such notion of government being the servant of the people. The purpose of government is to obtain absolute control and that requires destroying religion and any semblance of self worth or individualism from the people, requires confiscating the wealth of the wealthy, requires dismantling of the existing social sructures, and requires absolishment of all private property. Once accomplished then all the wealth will be distributed evenly through the population who, without interference of a class mentality, will then enjoy utopia as they work together harmoniously and selflessly.

Unfortunately, no government employing Marxism ever seems to get past the total power part and move on the the Utopian part.

So how Marxist is it to suggest that the property owner/business owner does not merit credit for his/her success but that we all share in it?

You can't macromanage a society without micromanaging it's people.
You can't have a negative Bill of Rights and a positive Second Bill of Rights. One cancels the other.
You can't make collectivism the number one objective and still protect the Liberty of the individual.

What these people WANT can't happen without destroying what they've become accustomed to, and for some reason they just can't wrap their minds around that sad fact. I honestly think that most liberals, if they truly understood the either/or nature of the choice before them, would choose Liberty. The rest are in actuality statists, afraid as they are of the chaotic nature of freedom and the uncertain outcome associated with it, whose choice would be subjugation.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
---Benjamin Franklin

Indeed.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs"]Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv - YouTube[/ame]

I've got to "spread rep" T, but damn... what an opportune moment to remind us of what Barack Obama actually thinks about not only our Constitution, but "spreading the wealth".

 

[The T]

You can't macromanage a society without micromanaging it's people.
You can't have a negative Bill of Rights and a positive Second Bill of Rights. One cancels the other.
You can't make collectivism the number one objective and still protect the Liberty of the individual.

What these people WANT can't happen without destroying what they've become accustomed to, and for some reason they just can't wrap their minds around that sad fact. I honestly think that most liberals, if they truly understood the either/or nature of the choice before them, would choose Liberty. The rest are in actuality statists, afraid as they are of the chaotic nature of freedom and the uncertain outcome associated with it, whose choice would be subjugation.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
---Benjamin Franklin

Indeed.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs"]Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv - YouTube[/ame]

I've got to "spread rep" T, but damn... what an opportune moment to remind us of what Barack Obama actually thinks about not only our Constitution, but "spreading the wealth".

You actually get the REP for bringing it up. You were dead on. I just bolstered your argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

Damn you guys are putting out some excellent obserbvations and I can't rep you. As an old debate coach, I can give you some great marks for solid points made though.

 

[The T]

Damn you guys are putting out some excellent obserbvations and I can't rep you. As an old debate coach, I can give you some great marks for solid points made though.

That's nice, and thanks.

Some of us were paying attention before he ever got this far.

 

[PredFan]

I love that this thing still has legs. I hope it haunts obama all the way to the election.

 

[saveliberty]

I fully expect Obama to return to Chicago and declare himself king of Chicagistan.

 

[Foxfyre]

I love that this thing still has legs. I hope it haunts obama all the way to the election.

It will if we keep it alive, and we're all blooming idiots if we don't. The trolls and moles will do their damndest to derail the discussions and change the subject. It is up to us to keep our focus.

 

[The T]

I love that this thing still has legs. I hope it haunts obama all the way to the election.

They're panicked by the lashing out of the business folks that are trying to survive. The backpeddling by Obama and his minions is in full-tilt-boogie mode.

 

[saveliberty]

It seems to me that these roads and other benefits attributed to government have differing values according to who uses them. How can that be? I choose to go to college without government loans and I get more value from my education? What about the four years of work I gave up to get it? Seems like I paid twice. Once for the schooling and twice for the income I gave up while attending. Now Obama wants me to pay a THIRD time?

What all these benefits really are is OPPORTUNITY. I used mine and others did not. Simple as that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I fully expect Obama to return to Chicago and declare himself king of Chicagistan.

King Rahm might object...

 

[The T]

I fully expect Obama to return to Chicago and declare himself king of Chicagistan.

King Rahm might object...

 

[saveliberty]

The other message I'm seeing then is, if you gain too much benefit from opportunities the government has a hand in, you owe the government some of it back. The achievement tax penalty.

 

[Foxfyre]

I fully expect Obama to return to Chicago and declare himself king of Chicagistan.

King Rahm might object...

Somehow I suspect Rahm had a lot more to do with building Obama than Obama had with building Rahm. If it came down to a contest between the two, I don't see it as being much of a contest.

Maybe that's why Obama can't imagine a businessman or woman who imagined a concept, developed a business plan, invested in a business, and spent long hard hours making it prosper, all without somebody behind the scenes making it happen. Maybe that is a concept so foreign to him, he honestly doesn't know that such a things exists?

I don't think Obama has ever accomplished anything on his own initiative in his life. It wouldn't seem so prior to adulthood if you read his two books. He sure didn't get into Columbia or Harvard on merit if his track record as a mediocre student is accurate. He was named President of the Law Review almost immediately upon arrival at Harvard. How does that happen if somebody isn't pulling strings.

His time as a Community Organizer was obviously orchestrated by other powers; his time as a 'constitutional lawyer professor' seems especially suspect when he has such a strange and uncommon view of the U.S. Constitution and even holds some of it in contempt.

He was certainly hand picked, groomed, polished, and trotted out as a pawn of the Chicago machine to get into the legislature there and then into the U.S. Senate. He didn't do that on any of his own initiative. Most especiallly when he almost immediately started running for President.

He was handed a Nobel Prize without doing a single damn thing that would qualify him for such an 'honor'.

And more than a few of us have strong suspicions that it is not him who is governing as President but rather unseen powers behind the scenes.

He has emphatically demonstrated that he is a piss poor speaker and has no original or organized thoughts when he is deprived of his teleprompter.

There is no evidence that he has earned anything he has ever obtained or that he has distinguished himself in any position.

So yeah, maybe that's why he thinks none of the rest of us are achievers either and should be grateful and willing puppets of whatever powers wish to control us.