Saner Gun Laws?

rodbender said:

I only listen to one talk radio show. It's not for the news. It's for the entertainment.

OK, since you Einsteins can't figure it out, I get my news from about 36 different news websites. And yes they include the Puffington Host, MSNBC, and CNN and all the usual suspects. I also use the websites of some newspapers.

Click to expand...

And this whole time I was thinking that you are either being difficult, or where you get your information from is some sort of national security secret.

You should realize that not one of us on here (that I know of) can read your mind. So, unless you tell us where you get your information, we have no way of knowing where it comes from. And little words such as "listen" do not offer much insight as to what forms of media you are accessing. If you are watching television, you are listening...unless you are reading subtitles.

You seriously made this whole interaction much more difficult than it had to be.

Beretta92FSLady said:

And this whole time I was thinking that you are either being difficult, or where you get your information from is some sort of national security secret.

You should realize that not one of us on here (that I know of) can read your mind. So, unless you tell us where you get your information, we have no way of knowing where it comes from. And little words such as "listen" do not offer much insight as to what forms of media you are accessing. If you are watching television, you are listening...unless you are reading subtitles.

You seriously made this whole interaction much more difficult than it had to be.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. But it was a bit of fun for me.
I like screwing with lefties.

rodbender said:

Yeah, I know. But it was a bit of fun for me.
I like screwing with lefties.

Click to expand...

You should probably target someone else...I am not as far left as you think that I am....or maybe I am further left than I think I am.

Beretta92FSLady said:

You did everything short of outright calling Obama "Hitler." Since you are so well versed in Marxism, Totalitarianism, and realpolitik, could you please explain to us what each of them are, and give examples where President Obama is executing his 'isms'?

Also, the "dark age in US history" seems a bit general...could you please explain what you mean by this. Is the dark age a reference to the color of Obama's skin? Does it have to do with some sort of blackout of knowledge that has been imposed by Obama? Could you also elaborate on what his "contempt for Americans" is?

When I read your post, I see Glenn Beck tearing through your fingertips. Have you considered seeking out information regarding current politics in America in places other than FOX's Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'reilley...you know, something that is actually worthy of being considered real journalism, not the entertainment news those three, and nearly all of FOX entertains its viewers with.

These past couple of years, listening to the right-wing of America accuse Obama of being "Hitler" or his equal, drove me to purchase a copy of Mein Kampf, to see if Obama's policies, and ideological stance are similar to Hitler's. The interesting thing--it appears the right, ideologically, and politically has many more shared views that Hitler held, and even uses the same type of terminology.

Hitler refers to the Jews as "the chosen people." Hannity refers to Obama as "the chosen one." Hitler believed that the nation was becoming Jewified (my own little word), that there was a vast Jewish conspiracy to control the German people. The right believe that America is becoming Islamified (my own little word), that there is some vast Islamic conspiracy, Obama being questioned about whether he is really a Muslim, to control the American people, and the American way of life. Hitler was forming a nationalistic argument/justification for his ideological stance, and political policies. The right-wing are forming a nationalistic argument/justification, using that template of nationalism to impose their ideological and political policies.

You can see it by the right-wing abandoning affirmative action, pushing for the denial of equal protection under law for minorities (black, hispanic, gay). The right-wing will have us believe that America is being taken over by some gay-agenda. Hitler believed that the minority Jews were taking over Germany.

Really, people should read this book. Why???? Considering Glenn Beck, and Hannity, which a number of you right-wingers listen to, is professing that Obama is like Hitler, you should at least know what Hitler's policies were, what he was thinking. If I were you, I would not just take Beck's word for it...then again, maybe you should. This challenge would require you to actually read, and think for yourself, and come to an understanding of what is really going on.

The Glenn-becks of the world want us to believe that Hitler's activities had to do with Socialism...it was much deeper than that. It was building the ideal race, and that race of people being Germans..it was nationalistic, but it had a genetic purity component that was the bedrock of his ideological stance, and political policy. So, Hitler was first and foremost concerned with the purity of the German people (genetically), then he was a nationalist, and he pushed that agenda through a form of Socialism (yes, there are different type, and degrees of Socialism).

The right-wing are walking an ideological line that is dangerous. Hitler concluded that the Jew was not a German--That some American's, particularly the left, and minorities are not really American. The right believes that American is a race, and that race is made up of certain types of people...all other types do not have a place in America, and are deemed un-American.

Hitler believed that through Marxism he could bring the German people back to power, and purity of mind. Just like the right-wingers of this country believe that real Americans can be brought back to power, and purity of mind via Capitalism, and theology.

"But what was impossible to understand was the boundless hatred they expressed against their own fellow citizens, how they disparaged their own nation, mocked at its greatness, reviled its history and dragged the names of its most illustrious men in the gutter." ~Hitler (Mein Kampf)

The above sound eerily like the positions many right-wingers take on the critique the left make of America, regarding the terrible things that have been part of our American history. Critique of American policy that injures some Americans, either with direct intent or unintentioned is not mocking American; it's making America better by realizing, pointing out, and responding to the injurious nature of a particular policy and/or law.

"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accord with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord." ~Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Sound like a right-wing theological/political stance? Republicans believe that their conduct is the will of Almighty God...that they are defending the handiwork of the Lord. The company some people keep.

Click to expand...

I guess either you just don't read very well or are in love with reading the tripe you write to the exclusion of comprehension. If you don't understand terms, look them up in a dictionary. You may learn something--and you definitely need to. If you read Mein Kampf, and had the intelligence to understand it, you would know that hitler and obama share statism as a philosophy and imperative. As did Marx clearly in The Manifesto. You demonstrate your ignorance asking if I refer to obama's skin color--after I specifically said it didn't mean **** to me in my post. But then, your ilk sees what you want to see and lacks the intellect to question your own hackneyed," everyone but me is a racist!" Typical, leftwing drone: too stupid to make sense; too righteous to see the very ugly reflection in the mirror that everyone else observes. Why don't you go back watching MSNBC now. Talk about being brainwashed.

Gunslinger said:

I guess either you just don't read very well or are in love with reading the tripe you write to the exclusion of comprehension. If you don't understand terms, look them up in a dictionary. You may learn something--and you definitely need to. If you read Mein Kampf, and had the intelligence to understand it, you would know that hitler and obama share statism as a philosophy and imperative. As did Marx clearly in The Manifesto. You demonstrate your ignorance asking if I refer to obama's skin color--after I specifically said it didn't mean **** to me in my post. But then, your ilk sees what you want to see and lacks the intellect to question your own hackneyed," everyone but me is a racist!" Typical, leftwing drone: too stupid to make sense; too righteous to see the very ugly reflection in the mirror that everyone else observes. Why don't you go back watching MSNBC now. Talk about being brainwashed.

Click to expand...

Dismissing a post, by responding to it--what a concept. Then resorting to right-wing rhetoric. I see that you are not interested in refuting my comparing right-wingers to some of Hitler's political and theological views. It's probably more convenient for you.

Obama's skin color is a soft spot for you, isn't it. If I knew it was such a touchy subject, I would not have brought it up. Another diversion tactic: asserting that I am claiming everyone a racist but myself. "Righteousness," as if I would ever waste my time attempting to understand what the hell it would even mean in your world. Let me get this straight, what you see is not what I see...that's deep ogre--I am sure you have plenty more enlightening philosophical observations for me *on the edge of my seat*.

I was not going to respond to your Statism reference, but I will. You did not only describe Hitler and Obama, you also described most political leaders in the US that I am aware of and the nature of the Federal Government. Statism, does not equal Socialism, Communism, Totalitarianism, Capitalism. It is a political philosophy which asserts that power is exerted by the Government, not the people. I am not sure if you actually live in a American, but power is not exerted from the people, it is exerted from the top. The machine sways the mind of the voters through its two-party political machine (the same coin). You are living in a fantasy world if you think for one second you actually have much power in your vote, when your vote is for the lesser of two evils. The State has its own agenda, not the peoples. That agenda is to use you, the slave as a workhorse (tax payer, consumer) to further its agenda, world dominance. It has always been about power.

For heavens sake, if you are going to use a term like "Statism,"--which is actually a pretty broad term, and takes many different forms--and apply it to one politician, you better damn well make sure that there are no other politicians, nor the Federal Government (which is made up of politicians/elected officials) practicing Statism. Seriously, don't spout off some term as if it specifically and exclusively leads to Marxist Socialism, and is only held by the likes of Hitler and Obama. No, Marxism and Socialism are not the same thing.

Beretta92FSLady said:

One of two things are possible, either the Founding Fathers screwed up, or they did not actually believe all rights are derived from property rights, and it is a misinterpretation off the intent of the Founding Fathers. The state can also take your property if they find someone who will create more revenue.

Whether it is anti American or 'very' anti Founding Principles is debatable.

Figures you would try and dump Bush on the left. He was voted in by the right-wing of America, deal with it! But, if you are right about all of this, then as I stated before, Socialism is inevitable...whether it is of the tyrannical variety, well, debatable.

Click to expand...

Sorry Sarah missed my points on all accounts, the founding fathers didn't screw it up, and they can only "take" your property if they duly compensate you it's written right there in the constitution. Which they have decided to ignore and have got the backing of the supreme court which in many ways have decided to legislate from the bench. Really they have gotten rid of many of the checks and balances.

I didn't try to dump "Bush" on the left, notice how you ignored my total point that Republican/Democrats are both pretty much the same with minor differences, and how both parties have moved toward the fake "left" compared to Kennedy? Read those quotes, would that make him a far right winger? But he is a supposed hero of the "left"?

The only way socialism is inevitable is by control which makes it tyrannical in nature there is no way around it because there will always be those of us who don't want it, and prefer freedom and free will. Let those who push socialistic and communistic ideas be very aware that some will fight tooth and nail. Me thinks this is why many "progressives" are also anti gun.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Dismissing a post, by responding to it--what a concept. Then resorting to right-wing rhetoric. I see that you are not interested in refuting my comparing right-wingers to some of Hitler's political and theological views. It's probably more convenient for you.

Obama's skin color is a soft spot for you, isn't it. If I knew it was such a touchy subject, I would not have brought it up. Another diversion tactic: asserting that I am claiming everyone a racist but myself. "Righteousness," as if I would ever waste my time attempting to understand what the hell it would even mean in your world. Let me get this straight, what you see is not what I see...that's deep ogre--I am sure you have plenty more enlightening philosophical observations for me *on the edge of my seat*.

I was not going to respond to your Statism reference, but I will. You did not only describe Hitler and Obama, you also described most political leaders in the US that I am aware of and the nature of the Federal Government. Statism, does not equal Socialism, Communism, Totalitarianism, Capitalism. It is a political philosophy which asserts that power is exerted by the Government, not the people. I am not sure if you actually live in a American, but power is not exerted from the people, it is exerted from the top. The machine sways the mind of the voters through its two-party political machine (the same coin). You are living in a fantasy world if you think for one second you actually have much power in your vote, when your vote is for the lesser of two evils. The State has its own agenda, not the peoples. That agenda is to use you, the slave as a workhorse (tax payer, consumer) to further its agenda, world dominance. It has always been about power.

For heavens sake, if you are going to use a term like "Statism,"--which is actually a pretty broad term, and takes many different forms--and apply it to one politician, you better damn well make sure that there are no other politicians, nor the Federal Government (which is made up of politicians/elected officials) practicing Statism. Seriously, don't spout off some term as if it specifically and exclusively leads to Marxist Socialism, and is only held by the likes of Hitler and Obama. No, Marxism and Socialism are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

It is amazing to me that you rewrite what is said to suit your purpose to the complete disregard of logic or intellect. I never equated statism with anything other than statism. Nor did I say marxism = socialism. You are fixated with 'racism.' No one else has even touched on it with respect to the marxist oboma. But then your avatar pretty much sums up your rhetoric now, doesn't it? Anything you don't fit into your limited, self contradicting mind set is "right wing rhetoric." You are incapable of constructive debate on an issue. Insult and holding your ears going "nah, nah nah" is your forte. Typical and what is expected of your ilk. The right wing is like Hitler; your leftwing heroes--especially if you can throw racism into it, are as pure as the driven snow. If someone disagrees, then they're racists or nazis. Like I said, same old leftwing, NOW ********. Now, I dismiss it as not worth continuing with. You can go back to watching your michael moore DVDs. Too bad your Gloria Steinem VCR tapes wore out.

A 'right winger' perspective

I consider myself a conservative. I dunno if I'm officially a 'right winger' or not. I don't have a secret decoder ring or anything, but after reading Beretta92FSLady's post I just wanted to address what I consider to be some misconceptions about how conservatives think.

Beretta92FSLady said:

You did everything short of outright calling Obama "Hitler." Since you are so well versed in Marxism, Totalitarianism, and realpolitik, could you please explain to us what each of them are, and give examples where President Obama is executing his 'isms'?

Click to expand...

I don't know about all the rest of that junk, but yes, I do think that President Obama and the majority of Democrats in the senate have moved toward a socialist ideal of government. I see this present in the 'Obamacare' health care bill, which has been aptly described-- just as the British health care system has-- as 'socialized medicine'.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Also, the "dark age in US history" seems a bit general...could you please explain what you mean by this. Is the dark age a reference to the color of Obama's skin? Does it have to do with some sort of blackout of knowledge that has been imposed by Obama? Could you also elaborate on what his "contempt for Americans" is?

Click to expand...

I can't speak for the poster who originally invoked the 'dark ages' in their post, however I think I can speak for most conservative people when I say that President Obama's skin color has absolutely NOTHING to do with our dislike of his policies. I also dislike Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, and a rogues gallery of other representatives who have supported policies and ideas that I don't agree with. Don't worry, it's not just Democrats. I was actually quite fond of Robert C. Byrd before he passed away, and on the republican end of the spectrum I'm not a huge fan of Mitt Romney, and (although I respect his service to this nation) I don't like McCain's policies on a myriad of topics.

As far as President Obama's "contempt for Americans" I think that was a direct reference to the 'cling to guns and religion' comment that Obama made. Also during the healthcare debate Obama often stated that the American people didn't like the healthcare bill becasue we didn't understand it, just like we didn't understand the stimulus package, and we just couldn't grasp the effects of the Bank Bailout. Whether he meant it as a slight or not, often when he speaks he comes off as condescending, and I-- along with many others-- don't like being talked down to or told that Big Brother knows better how to take care of me than I do.

Beretta92FSLady said:

When I read your post, I see Glenn Beck tearing through your fingertips. Have you considered seeking out information regarding current politics in America in places other than FOX's Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'reilley...you know, something that is actually worthy of being considered real journalism, not the entertainment news those three, and nearly all of FOX entertains its viewers with.

Click to expand...

It is completely possible to dislike the current president and the majority of the current senate without any help from Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, or the rest of the folks at Fox, just as I'm sure it's possible to be a left wing Bush hater with absolutely no help from Colmes and the folks at MSNBC. As I said, I consider myself a conservative. Maybe I'm a right wing nut. I'll let you decide. And yes, I do watch O'Reilly for entertainment purposes, and occassionally I tune in to Beck (usually on founder's friday because he does a pretty good job with history) and some days Beck is raving like a maniac, and some days O'Reilly is boring as sin. On those days I change the channel.

For political news I usually prefer to just watch the speeches live, and yes-- I do tune into CSPAN when they have a vote or debate scheduled that I am interested in. Other than that I watch Foxnews, CNN, and read newspapers just like everyone else. You 'Free thinkers" do not have the monopoly on multiple sources of information.

Beretta92FSLady said:

These past couple of years, listening to the right-wing of America accuse Obama of being "Hitler" or his equal, drove me to purchase a copy of Mein Kampf, to see if Obama's policies, and ideological stance are similar to Hitler's. The interesting thing--it appears the right, ideologically, and politically has many more shared views that Hitler held, and even uses the same type of terminology.

Click to expand...

Personally I have never considered President Obama to be Hitler's equal, nor do I consider him to be the Anti-Christ or any other such thing. I DO think that he's a poor president, and as I stated above, I DO think that he has very socialistic ideas of government. Those facts do not in any way equate him to Adolph Hitler. Hitler killed millions of human beings, Obama cost us trillions of dollars. There's a pretty big gap between human lives and money.

Also, although slightly off topic, I do recall the liberals declaring President Bush a tyrant and comparing him with Hitler during his presidency. There are still Youtube videos up that depict him standing in front of swastikas.

Personally I find the Hitler comparison distasteful no matter who is involved.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Hitler refers to the Jews as "the chosen people." Hannity refers to Obama as "the chosen one." Hitler believed that the nation was becoming Jewified (my own little word), that there was a vast Jewish conspiracy to control the German people. The right believe that America is becoming Islamified (my own little word), that there is some vast Islamic conspiracy, Obama being questioned about whether he is really a Muslim, to control the American people, and the American way of life. Hitler was forming a nationalistic argument/justification for his ideological stance, and political policies. The right-wing are forming a nationalistic argument/justification, using that template of nationalism to impose their ideological and political policies.

Click to expand...

Wow. I have no idea who you've been listening to, or what jungle-juice they're drinking, but this does not resemble-- in any way, shape, or form-- ANYTHING that could be considered part of my own values or goals as a holder of conservative views. Personally I don't care if Hannity said something that was kinda-sorta similar to Hitler. That's a farce and it doesn't mean anything.

I think it is laughable that you would compare conservative views to Hitler's views and try to draw parallels. Can it be done? Sure. But most conservatives (in my opinion) hold Biblical beliefs. At least the ones I know. Hitler, although he did have a belief in God (of sorts) based most of his ideology on Darwinism, Evolution, and Eugenics. As a matter of fact, his 'final solution' and plans of creating a 'master race' hinged on the idea of Eugenics. That's the scariest thing about Hitler, he thought he was doing God's work by purifying the gene pool. Could go on about Hitler for days (I'm a big history fan) but I'll drop it for now and move on.

The whole "Islamified" conspiracy is not something that I or anyone I know has ever discussed or is particularly worried about. That might be something geographical, I dunno, but calling it a Republican view or a conservative view is disingenuous IMO. I think this is really a strawman argument that liberals came up with and are trying to stick to the Republicans. I dunno. Like I said, it sounds crazy to me.

Beretta92FSLady said:

You can see it by the right-wing abandoning affirmative action, pushing for the denial of equal protection under law for minorities (black, hispanic, gay). The right-wing will have us believe that America is being taken over by some gay-agenda. Hitler believed that the minority Jews were taking over Germany..

Click to expand...

No, I don't agree with affirmative action the way the law is currently written. No, I'm not a racist and I don't have anything against minorities, and I wouldn't deny then equal protection under law. By the same token I dont support 'special treatment' of any group of people, and equal means EQUAL in my book.

And maybe I'm in the minority of republicans here, but personally I don't particularly care about homosexuals one way or the other. What a person does in their own bedroom is their own business. Personally I'm tired of hearing about it. If you're gay, fine. I really don't care about your personal persuasions, and no matter how flaming gay you are, I still think you should have the same rights and protections under law as everyone else does.

Maybe next year I'll get a t-shirt that says "Straight is Great" and see if they'll let me march in the parade....LOL

I'm skipping through all the rest of the Hitler stuff you had posted as I don't have any comment for it other than what I already posted above.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Sound like a right-wing theological/political stance? Republicans believe that their conduct is the will of Almighty God...that they are defending the handiwork of the Lord. The company some people keep.

Click to expand...

I don't know any Republican who believes that their conduct is the will of Almighty God. I know a few who found their conservative beliefs on a religious foundation (ie they are fundamentally opposed to homosexuality due to Christian beliefs, or opposed to social programs due to a firm belief in individual liberties and free will) but I can honestly say I don't know ANYONE who walks around all day long thinking that they're the personification of Gods will.

As a matter of fact most Christians hold to the teaching that all human beings are fundamentally flawed. That we are all sinners, and there is truly no righteous person among us who is deserving of heaven, which is why acceptance of Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins (as we are all sinners) becomes so important.

SO, those are my .02

It was long, I know, but I thought it was important to clear up some of those matters. Understanding one another and where we're coming from, and where you are coming from is the first step in any positive relationship.

Peace

I'm going to recommend some deep breaths here.

Some observations:

Pretty much every socialist I've met means this by socialism: that it is not appropriate for private individuals to monopolize the means of production. They say this in reaction to the kind of corporatism that increasingly defines our society. The position in favor of socialism says nothing about whether they believe you ought to have a right to free speech, or a right to keep and bear arms, or the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure. In most cases, self-described socialists (in the United States) are motivated not by a desire to control the lives of others, but by a desire to break up the monopolization of capital which has resulted in, among other things, an uneven influence on Washington by corporate influences.

Individualists tend to focus on the state as the primary force which oppresses us, exploits us, or otherwise deprives us of liberty and/or dignity. Socialists believe this is true of centralized capital and are generally thinking of corporations - the kinds of banks which took all that bailout money, or corporations which profit from endless war, or the Drug War (pharmaceutical and alcohol industries) and so on. Consider how you feel about the state. Understand that socialists feel the same about large corporations, and those who profit from their (often illegal) activities.

But the important thing is, for all of the fantastical insinuations and explicit claims to the contrary by their critics, your average socialist or fellow-traveler progressive is not making a case for Soviet Authoritarianism. Nor are they thinking (although he'd get caught up in any kind of socialist scheme) of Joe who owns Joe's hardware down the street. They're thinking of Wall Street. Defense Companies. Blackwater or Xe or whatever they're called now. And a whole host of other unaccountable, arguably corrupt agglomerations of capital.

I am not defending the position but for those of us who have studied this, it gets tiresome hearing points of view misrepresented and motivations smeared. If you want to go on the far left and find so-called Marxist-Leninists who are fanatical authoritarians, you'll find them. But most socialists are not motivated by a desire to control you. They're motivated by, principally, the way homelessness and poverty tug at their heartstrings while the CEOs of corrupt corporations buy another yacht. Or by the way corporations buy influence in Washington through campaign contributions.

That the policies they advocate may lead - unwittingly - to the kind of statist nightmare none of us wants, is fair game for argument, but rarely do I see this soberly questioned - rather, critics of socialism instead choose vicious and alienating attacks on their character which does not serve any positive purpose whatsoever. All it does it close minds.

SECONDLY, there are an increasing number of socialists and progressives who, having seen the state and business in bed together, have come to understand the danger of leaving a monopoly of firearms in the hands of the very wealthy (who will always have them, whether in the traditional sense or in "licensed" security forces), and the government. And I have to say the number of pro-gun progressives and self-described socialists who support the right to bear arms is surprising. I keep encountering them daily on the Internet. You might not want to join their political party, and you might not even want to hang out with them, but we could use their influence on the left-wing of American politics as regards the RKBA.

I am sure many people here have been described as knuckle-dragging, bigoted religious nuts by the Left. Most of you have heard what the Left has said of you, and more importantly your motivations (as if you're all a bunch of mustache-twisting villains). That's wrong, but many of the same victims of character assassination attempt to smear the opposition using the same tactics. All this does is close minds and alienate. It brings us no closer to freedom, nor any identification of common ground from which we can work together (presumably most of you opposed the bailouts of the banks, right? So did the socialists.), or even make more sober political arguments from to win them over.

It is tiresome to listen to each side attack strawmen (you're all a bunch of Christian fundamentalists wanting to force your religion on everyone, right? And they're a bunch of goose-stepping commies who want to make the US like North Korea, right?), and moreover, it is tiresome to hear each make insinuations about the character of the other.

Most people with strong political opinions - not all, but most - are motivated by what they consider to be right, against what they consider to be evil. And if I have learned one thing, it is this - there are nuggets of truth about the injustices and shortcomings of our current system to be found in the critique of our current system from nearly any perspective. I certainly oppose many of the proposed remedies, but the critiques have at least some merit, or do you all honestly believe that everyone who is ludicrously wealthy earned their money the fair way and deserve their unequal influence in our political system? Even the ones who benefitted from government perks, handouts, or government regulations which stifled the competition? My own company sends out e-mail urging its employees to contact the government every time some politician seeks to meddle in business affairs in a way which benefits my company's bottom line.

Marx himself predicted the current situation. He predicted the increasing centralization of capital into the hands of the few, and that the discontent of workers would lead to increasing calls for socialism. In fact, he believed this was a historical inevitability.

The centralization of wealth has basically put Washington up for sale to the highest bidder in the form of campaign contributions, outright bribery and payoffs of government officials, or what have you.

That you may oppose the remedies proposed by socialists (I do, unreservedly) is fair game. But they insist that there is a direct link between monopolization of capital and corruption, and they've got a lot of examples to point to to prove it.

But all of this is beside the point anyway. You can blame the people who try to pull people in Washington to their side (hell, we do), or you can blame the whores in government who will adopt the ideologies, agendas, and positions, of the highest bidders.

The Muslims, I have heard, face east when they pray. Well I live West of DC, as do, statistically speaking, most of you (probably). My advice is to point your guns (metaphorically speaking; no one get their panties in a wad) in that direction if you have any objective sense of who your enemy is.

People have told me that I'm naive or something because I give the socialists some room in their motivations. But there is a difference between me and the people who consider themselves the adults in a roomful of children whenever any political topic arises, and who are also critical of the motivations of self-described socialists: I've had them as friends, as roommates, and I've seen their character when there was a principle to stand up for, and in my experience, they're no more or likely to be hypocrites or degenerates than any conservative or individualist or libertarian I've met. They are honest in their critique, genuine in their outrage at moral wrongs, but hopelessly naive when it comes to the solutions (always government, except for the anarchists) that they advocate. Some of them take moral shortcuts in their arguments too, but this is certainly true of the Right - especially those who support Capital Punishment, and don't seem overly concerned that this means sometimes innocent people get killed by the state. I'm not here to start a debate on this subject except to say each side takes shortcuts and glosses over the full consequences of the system they advocate.

The dehumanization they engage in - and that their critics engage in - is bread and circuses, while Washington continues to run amok - or worse, because while there are definitely unbridgeable chasms between individualists and collectivists, constant warfare between the two only means that we remain divided even on issues where we agree. And yes, we agree on some things because sometimes, what is sometimes bad for "the people" or "the proletariat" is also bad for individuals, the most obvious example being what we're all here for: gun control, which is simply an assertion that one caste of people has the right to own arms, and another does not.

As an individualist, anti-Communist, and as someone opposed to socialism in the traditional sense because it requires a robust state (and with it, compulsion and force), I say without reservation that within the context we are stuck with - which is living in the shadow of a runaway government, I welcome the pro-gun Left to the table to blunt any and all attempts to deprive individuals (or classes) of the right of self-defense. It doesn't mean we share a worldview or or that our differences are minor. It means that, in the tradition of Tocqueville, we can and should form a faction to combat gun control.

In my experience, if you let someone drink at your table, sometimes they loosen up a bit to the point that you can get through to them, or at least make yourself understood so they know you're not a complete bastard, but rather someone with principles they don't fully understand.

If you believe your enemy is Internet socialists or liberals, you really ought to rethink that. Your enemies are in Washington. We can have the fight with other citizens with differing points of view later.

For now, we ought to focus on the people whose corrupt interests are served by leaving citizens divided on *everything* because those citizens believe that your only choice is to burn all bridges with people you disagree with.

To the people in power, we're all just rabble who vote. Don't delude yourselves otherwise.

sudden valley gunner said:

com·mu·nism   
[kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.
( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

We have in most states aspects of 1st definition of communism in place already, I know I get taxed yearly on all property I own within my state. If I don't pay they take the property. So do I truly own it?

Click to expand...

Would everyone stop referring to Communism please? First of all a true communism has never occured in the history of mankind that I am aware of. Communism is contrary to human nature(Why strive to be the best if EVERYONE gets the same?). Although in its truest sense Communism is almost utopian it will not come to pass atleast in my lifetime. All these "Communist" countries are not communist at all. they have upper classes and ruling powers that live well beyond what everyone else does. This is contrary to Communism based on the definition supplied from Suddenvalley.

RE: Mr. Obama
You should support your(and mine as well) president not matter if you disagree with some of his ideals. THe fact of the matter is whether he is a left or right wing he has to make decisions everyday that most would have issues living with(for one reason or another). Not to mention how stressful do you think it is to run the greatest nation(currently until China takes over the world:cuss

But hey I am sure someone is going to tell me I am naive or some such... but just wanted to put in my two cents

No we will never have a true definition of communism, but we do have many aspects and moving more toward something similar to it every day. Like the example I provided with property/land. Of course the elite will not be subjective to the rules in any form of government.

Laissez-faire is the only economic system compatible with liberty. While many Keynesians or socialists do not intend to curb "political freedoms", by hindering "economic freedoms", the former will necessarily follow. A true socialist has a perverse moral code that preaches sacrifice as moral and condemns rational selfishness as immoral, with death as its ultimate fulfillment. A capitalist has a rational moral code that preaches rational selfishness as the moral life and sacrifice as immoral, with a prosperous, fulfilling life as its ultimate end. Keynesians, or those who advocate some sort of mix of socialism and capitalism, have conflicting moral values. Sometimes they praise those who work and earn a living, sometimes they condemn them. They usually admire hard work, but if someone works really hard and becomes wealthy, he should sacrifice for the benefit of those who don't work. They praise both sacrifice and rational selfishness, even though the two are polar opposites.
Socialism is truly evil. It turns everyone into slaves. A slave is a man who's labor is not his own. By denying a man the products of his labor, you have made him your slave. By accepting the products of someones labor that are taken by force, you are a slave driver. By denying property rights, you are denying the right to life. People need the products of their labor in order to live. Living has become a mere privilege granted by "society", or more specifically whoever has power. Ultimately, because ability is punished and ineptitude rewarded, society decays and crumbles as everyone avoids producing wealth to avoid showing ability and tries to appear the most incapable by producing nothing so he has the most to consume. Everyone tries to avoid being a slave while trying to become a slave driver. Death is the ultimate end.
Capitalism is truly good. Everyone is a free man. Nobody is a slave, but acts according to his own rational self interest to voluntarily cooperate with other free men to the benefit of both of them. People are free to produce wealth for their own benefit. Only in this system do men have rights. An individual has the right to do whatever he wishes, so long as he causes no actual harm to another. If everyone were capable of acting purely rationally, no government would be needed, because nobody would cause harm to another. Since this is not the case, government is needed to punish those who do not act rationally with the intention of encouraging rationality.
Mixed systems have characteristics of both. Sometimes men cooperate as free men, sometimes coercion is involved. Some men are forced to be slaves, at least some times. Some men make themselves slave drivers, at least some times. There should be no compromise between good and evil.
The nature of the problem between money and politics is not that money corrupts politics, but that politics corrupts money. Money is great, it is a wonderful tool that encourages men to interact with each other voluntarily, as opposed to one person having a gun on the other. Politics is the evil. The solution is to limit the powers of government as much as possible. I can't pay someone to pass a law that (I think) benefits me over others if he is unable to pass such a law. Government should be limited to using force only against those who initiate it, but to never initiate force itself. Laws against murder and theft, laws that make contracts binding and enforce property rights as good. Laws that introduce coercion into voluntary exchange are never acceptable or rational and hinder prosperity.

To relate this argument to gun rights. Socialists specifically oppose firearms rights because a firearm is the ultimate tool to defend one's life. Defending one's life is the ultimate rejection of sacrifice and embrace of selfishness. The socialist moral code dictates that one should sacrifice his life for his fellow man; he should give his life to the first man who asks it. It is immoral to defend one's life, because this is selfish. Really, this moral code rejects all individual rights because they are selfish. The capitalist moral code embraces gun rights for the same reason socialists reject them. Having a gun shows your rejection of sacrifice and embrace of selfishness. One should not just give away one's life, but should defend it vigorously. He should do whatever he can to better his life, this includes preventing others from destroying it. It is actually a moral duty to defend one's life and ensure that only the person who initiates force is destroyed.

The problem is that what many mistake for capitalism in this country is really crony capitalism. We need laissez-faire capitalism. The government at the State and federal levels needs to stop helping/hindering individual businesses. Capital follows opportunity in a truly free economy. It does not collect in oppressive places.

When it attempts to pool, someone will invent a better mousetrap*, and the capital will start moving again.

______________________

* Actually, someone will invent a whole new technology that will open up as-yet unimagined applications--and the world will evolve. Possibly a rodent teleportation device?

Even better Anarcho-capitalism.

eye95 said:

There isn't much you need to know about socialism or communism to know that they are antithetical to our nation as it was founded and what made it great.

Under socialism and communism, the governmental system is responsible for ensuring whatever it defines as the welfare of the collective. This requires that primary power be vested in the government, with the required reduction in Liberty for individuals.

Click to expand...

Actually, Socialism is a techno-economic ideology and that's where most people, especially conservatives, become confused between Socialism and Communism. Socialism is based on providing all necessities to every individual through the use of technology so they are free from having to struggle to survive. Socialism recognizes all things which are necessary to live as being owned by the people, i.e. food, water, land, etc and providing those needs through machinery so as not to exploit the labor of individuals. Socialism doesn't redistribute wealth like Communism does, it negates the whole purpose of it and still leaves the possibility of amassing individual wealth, just not off of the necessities of others. Your best example of this are the new sky farms they're looking at building, essentially they're skyscrapers which are completely autonomous and can produce natural food year round while recycling what it uses to do so. Thus no need to provide food stamps or welfare checks because you can supply basic necessity without having to pay an exuberant amount of money because of market prices. Granted market prices are severely inflated in the raw food industry because the government buys excess food from farmers to inflate the value.

Socialism is the happy medium between Free Market Capitalism/Communism (they're both Anarchic economic systems prone to reverting to Natural Law of dog eat dog) and State Fascism (completely government controlled economy, e.g. the USSR). If you look at all forms of economic systems they all have the same logical conclusion of tyranny, save one. If you want to make the argument that we were founded on free market principles, you'd be wrong. This nation's first step into Socialism was the creation of the US constitution which regulated the creation of currency to the federal government and forced states to trade freely amongst each other so wealthier states couldn't make outrageous demands of less wealthier states through import/export taxes.

Freedom in this nation is as much about economic freedom as it is about physical freedom, i.e. the freedom of choice. There's no difference between holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to do something and inflating the cost of survival to the point that people have no other choice but use all of their time working just to survive. You eliminate choice and you eliminate freedom, socialism doesn't eliminate choice, it provides it, and that's why corporations hate it. They don't want you to have choice, they want to be able to monopolize the market and eliminate choice and competition, it's in their corporate purview to provide as much profit to their shareholders, to hell with everything else.

That's what you want with your free market unregulated economy, the elimination of protection for competition and the allowance of monopolization. Instead of arguing for big government, you're arguing for big business, the same tyrannical side of the coin, you just claim to have a bigger carrot for the People.

Hogwash.

Here's another bit of swinology: That pig that you just put lipstick on? It's still a pig.

Socialism is the goal of communism. These days, socialists don't try to establish the system by a worker's revolution. They seek its establishment by duping the masses into thinking wealth can be created by the government, as opposed to being created by the sweat and ingenuity of someone who sees creating the wealth as a benefit to himself.

So, wipe off the lipstick. You ain't fooling anyone.

eye95 said:

Hogwash.

Here's another bit of swinology: That pig that you just put lipstick on? It's still a pig.

Socialism is the goal of communism. These days, socialists don't try to establish the system by a worker's revolution. They seek its establishment by duping the masses into thinking wealth can be created by the government, as opposed to being created by the sweat and ingenuity of someone who sees creating the wealth as a benefit to himself.

So, wipe off the lipstick. You ain't fooling anyone.

Click to expand...

I must say, eye, you've nailed that one down pretty well.

Socialism sucks.

People will always have to "struggle" to survive. While money can now simply be made with a printing press, wealth cannot and never will be. A (mostly) capitalist economy has enabled Americans to reach living standards that were unimaginable to even the richest in the pre-Enlightenment era. The idea that there would be abundance of food or water if it were not for greedy capitalists is nonsense. If people could make abundant materials scarce, why isn't someone charging you for sunlight or oxygen? The idea that the rich are continually exploiting the poor under capitalism is utterly untrue. People have been continually working less and less and enjoying more and more in this country. Compare the present 40 hour work week to the 72 hour work week 100 years ago. Look at how people live now compared to back then. The accumulation of capital that has increased worker productivity has made this possible, not the government.

The United States was most definitely founded on free market principles. Free trade is a core tenant of capitalism. Nor does the currency power make the country not a free market. The slightest infringement does not mean the country is not capitalist.
Prices are determined by supply and demand. Socialists forget this and act as if one side has all the influence and the other none and that one person or a small group can effectively control this one side. This is completely wrong. The basics, food, water, are of course in high demand, but are also in high supply. No one person or group could have any significant affect on the prices of these goods. Monopolies do occasionally occur (actually frequently in the labor market, with unions). But the negative effects of them are often not that significant and they tend not to last that long anyway if they are left alone. Government involvement usually only prolongs the life of the monopoly. Of course, monopolies can also serve the legitimate interest of promoting innovation, hence patents.

Lastly, laissez-faire is not the same thing as pro-big business, not by a long shot. Government regulations frequently help big business, either directly with tax breaks, subsidies, or bailouts, or indirectly by insulating them from competition from small businesses. Costly and burdensome regulations are more easily handled by large, established corporations compared to new small, starting companies. Big business often lobbies for regulations that will put small companies out of business to increase their market share and get them closer to a monopoly. Laissez-faire is neutrality, no special favors for anyone.

WhatTimeIsIt? said:

Socialism sucks.

People will always have to "struggle" to survive. While money can now simply be made with a printing press, wealth cannot and never will be. A (mostly) capitalist economy has enabled Americans to reach living standards that were unimaginable to even the richest in the pre-Enlightenment era. The idea that there would be abundance of food or water if it were not for greedy capitalists is nonsense. If people could make abundant materials scarce, why isn't someone charging you for sunlight or oxygen?

Click to expand...

They're charging you for water no? If not yet, they will be. Most of the world's fresh water supply is being bought up by French Water corporations to be sold in little plastic bottles. And we do have an abundance of food, we have so much food the government buys a large chunk of it to inflate the value of it so the average farmer can survive. How can you make something that's abundant, scarce? You control all of it and limit the flow of it. Diamonds aren't really worth the thousands that people pay for them because they're not rare, they literally have stock piles of them in Africa that they sit on to artificially inflate the value of them. That's where unregulated capitalism ends up, monopolization.

The idea that the rich are continually exploiting the poor under capitalism is utterly untrue. People have been continually working less and less and enjoying more and more in this country. Compare the present 40 hour work week to the 72 hour work week 100 years ago. Look at how people live now compared to back then. The accumulation of capital that has increased worker productivity has made this possible, not the government.

Click to expand...

Funny you brought that up. Who created the 40 hour work week? Who created the minimum wage? Who built the national infrastructure to include the power grid and the federal interstate highway system which allowed the creation of the suburbs? Who did that? Last I checked it was the government, something called the New Deal and Ike bringing the idea of the Autobahn to the states. In fact the conservatives of the day fought alllll of those ideas as being too costly and being a waste of time and yet as you say, look at how we live now in comparison to 80 years ago. I know those olden days quite well, my family benefited directly from the Rural Electrification Act which brought electricity from cities to the rural communities. Imagine how nice it was for great grandma to use a washing machine and dryer for the first time and not have to take all day scrubbing clothes on a wash rack. Heck, it even gave her the time to get some hair dryers and open her own beauty parlor in the house.

The Rural Electrification Act (technology) is the main reason we enjoy the lives we do today, because it opened whole entire markets for technology that would minimize time spent on menial tasks. It also allowed factories and manufacturers to move away from major cities. Add on the interstate system and you get a system which fosters the creation of mega corporations that can move goods from one side of the country to the other quickly and set up warehouses across the nation for even quicker delivery. What about what we're arguing on now? The internet was created by DARPA, a government agency, and look how different our lives are now just from 20 years ago because of it. Look how more efficient it's made business and communication. You can thank the government, and in particular my grandfather, for figuring out the algorithm to communicate with satellites in space making things like your cell phone, your GPS, your cable TV, live news, and the internet work.

The government didn't create anything? HA! The accumulation of wealth you referred to is thanks to government created infrastructure.

The United States was most definitely founded on free market principles. Free trade is a core tenant of capitalism. Nor does the currency power make the country not a free market. The slightest infringement does not mean the country is not capitalist.

Click to expand...

There's no "slight" infringement, the sole purpose of the constitution was to regulate the economy, and that most certainly does make it not a free market or "capitalist" (however loose you want to be with the term) economy. Free trade is not a core tenant of capitalism, because it's government interference of the market. The market is not free to decide the value of goods, and thus makes it most certainly not a free market.

Prices are determined by supply and demand. Socialists forget this and act as if one side has all the influence and the other none and that one person or a small group can effectively control this one side. This is completely wrong. The basics, food, water, are of course in high demand, but are also in high supply. No one person or group could have any significant affect on the prices of these goods.

Click to expand...

I've already demonstrated how they can and are. If you limit the supply you artificially increase the value of it. Back in 08 when gas prices were ridiculously high, they had oil tankers literally sitting off the coast of Louisiana to be processed, but the processing plant refused to take them which drove up the cost of gas. And here's what you fail to realize, there's no such thing as a free market. Just like there will never be a communist society, nor will there be a free market society, because they're both based on anarchy and the good will of other people to not abuse the system.

Monopolies do occasionally occur (actually frequently in the labor market, with unions). But the negative effects of them are often not that significant and they tend not to last that long anyway if they are left alone. Government involvement usually only prolongs the life of the monopoly.

Click to expand...

How do you figure? Teddy Roosevelt's anti-trust laws worked quickly and in a hurry. The government also continually has to break up the telephone and cable companies which allows for smaller companies to compete.

Of course, monopolies can also serve the legitimate interest of promoting innovation, hence patents.

Click to expand...

I thought competition promoted innovation? Which is it?

Lastly, laissez-faire is not the same thing as pro-big business, not by a long shot. Government regulations frequently help big business, either directly with tax breaks, subsidies, or bailouts, or indirectly by insulating them from competition from small businesses. Costly and burdensome regulations are more easily handled by large, established corporations compared to new small, starting companies. Big business often lobbies for regulations that will put small companies out of business to increase their market share and get them closer to a monopoly. Laissez-faire is neutrality, no special favors for anyone.

Click to expand...

Holy crap, we're going to agree, partly. On this, all I'll say is, and who is in control of the government when the majority of those policies which help big business are put into effect? Most of the current ones are rollovers from the last administration and extended by the current. I'm neither Republican or Democrat, but I'm pointing out that the majority of people who support your position, maybe even you, vote for the people who are more likely to give those big government incentives.