by Pops » Wed 13 Oct 2010, 14:48:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')he liberals (i.e. the funny little jewish guys on 47th street in New York) are forming up as we speak. ... important cultural centers like Branston MI.
LOL, that's pretty funny P, but what's in Branston Minnesota?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')loud9 wrote:
Gold confiscation under Roosevelt.
Eric Holder's stated position on firearms.
Clinton’s assault on Waco and Ruby Ridge
A general discussion on the rolling state and private pension funds into social security.
That's really what you worry about, really? Or are you just being - I don't know - a party
booster?
Here is a general rant about people who say the things you say cloud, if it doesn't apply then ignore it or tell me to kiss off or whatever:
Small arms are so irrelevant in the modern world it's laughable - except to the corporations selling them, of course. Guns give you no security from the government and little from someone else with guns. Thanks to our recent compassionate conservative leadership, the homeland secret service can know everything there is to know about you with a few taps on a keyboard - including the number of times you've mentioned the buzzwords Waco and Ruby in the same sentence, your guns mean nothing.
Since you brought up Attorneys General, Alberto Gonzales actually argued there is no inherent right to habeas corpus in the constitution and supported domestic warrant-less wiretapping - and you are worried about Holders views about your assault rifle?
The funny thing is, "conservatives" rail about government intrusion and the loss of freedom and yet vote for the authoritarian party that gave us the never-ending wars terror and on drugs and that go berserk at the thought of people doing things against "their" beliefs; whether it's burning the flag, going to a dance with someone of the wrong color or deciding who you want to visit you in the hospital. I just can't reconcile the freedom/patriot/constitution sloganeering of the right with the crusade to impose their personal views on my personal life.
Yet conservatives seem to feel very comfortable with this idea the government knows who is good and who is bad (except when it comes to illegal guns) and should listen in to our conversations any time they like to keep us
safe. It really is a conundrum for me that the folks who yell the loudest about
freedom are the very same one's who go right along with whatever scheme the authoritarians cook up to keep us
safe - perusing my reading preferences at the library? Who actually thought that was a good thing?
It just seems so stinkingly hypocritical to me to label liberals as encouraging the "Nanny State" when by whatever measure I can come up with, the conservatives favor a "Wicked Step-Mother State"
Oh, yea, back when Roosevelt bought up gold (forcibly) the people who mattered simply shipped their gold somewhere else. Nixon on the other hand (a republican, right?) unilaterally (and I mean by himself - alone) made gold just another commodity to be traded and played but more importantly he virtually created the whole unregulated derivative/hedge game that seems to have caused some problems recently. Which act do you think caused the more damage, buying up the gold to change the peg or making currencies "float" without a peg? But really, your gold is so infinitesimal small in the scheme of things that matter to corporations as to be non-existent. Just like guns, they'll let you cling to your gold because it just doesn't matter.
And where did you hear that Obama is going to nationalize pensions? That is a good one! Did that come from the idea about IRAs? What is scary about requiring employers to provide automatic IRA savings programs to employees? Is it the same thing that's frightening about making credit card disclosures uniform and understandable?
It just seems so ass backwards that the people who will be most hurt by handing over unlimited rights to the same corporations and overclass (who already have virtually unlimited control), are the very people who most most ardently - and blindly, support them and oppose any consumer protections.
What am I missing?
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)