The false left/right paradigm

[ChesusRice]

Doesn't it piss you off when a politician knows the public will like something and yet they still oppose it?

I am just pointing out that
history is repeating itself

the Ironic thing is The Republican plan they came up as an alternative to Clintons plan of medicare for everyone with back then is something we call
obamacare now

 

[InCognition]

One of the most common complaints against Obama from Ron Paul supporters and libertarians in general, is that he is a socialist. I wonder if anyone actually has looked at the socialist party's platform or any far leftist party's platform (Green Party, Democratic Socialists, etc). If you do, you'll find that Socialists and Libertarians actually agree on 85% of the issues. On the other hand, compare Libertarians to Republicans or Democrats and you'll find they agree less than 50% of the time.

In general, most of these lefty political groups don't support all of our foreign occupations, invasions, and interference. They don't support invading our privacy through laws like the Patriotic Act. They don't support fucking with the internet through some kind of anti piracy act. They don't support fondling our testicles through the TSA. They don't support our phony drug war. They don't support the FED. Even the ones that like tossing money around, prefer that the Federal Reserve not be the one doing it. As far as I can tell, Obama and Romney are both in favor of these things.

The biggest areas of disagreement seem to be in government entitlement programs and regulating industry. If these are the most important issues to you, then I suppose I can see the disdain for socialists, but if some of that other crap I mentioned means anything to you, than you would be crazy not to choose a real socialist (like Bernie Sanders or Jil Stien) over Obama.

Though I do not like to label thought processes under a category, the health-care mandate surely is what's classified as a "socialist" theory. I personally just like to call it fucking stupid... that's how I make labels for political theories. Fucking dumb, ignorant, reasonable, common sense, intelligent... that type of labeling.

Most of what they call "socialist" ideas, are typically created off a foundation of complete ignorance & hypocrisy. If some of these "socialist" ideas, that are accredited to making "socialism", "socialism", weren't a complete fucking contradiction, based off a foundation of ignorance, then maybe I would embrace the theories of that specific political category, a bit more.

I understand the "good" in what "socialistic" theory tries to accomplish, but when it contradicts itself at the very same time, this is why such a political theory is outright ignorant, on a general basis.

Personally I think our government would run much better if the two major parties were Libertarians and Socialists instead of Democrats and Republicans.

You have to realize that if the two major parties were libertarians and socialists within US government, the socialists wouldn't be alive, to be a party to begin with. Most of them would be strung up and executed for treason, on the premise of rights-violations, regarding rights of both the constitution, and natural human-rights.

You'll find that most anytime the constitution is violated, a natural human right has been violated in the process, which invalidates the logic behind "socialism" on a broad basis. It's funny how the constitution works, regarding it's relevance to human-rights. "Socialism" tends to ignore these principles, which again, is a complete contradiction regarding some of the fundamentals, of "socialism" itself.

 

[bedspirit]

Though I do not like to label thought processes under a category, the health-care mandate surely is what's classified as a "socialist" theory. I personally just like to call it fucking stupid... that's how I make labels for political theories. Fucking dumb, ignorant, reasonable, common sense, intelligent... that type of labeling.

Most of what they call "socialist" ideas, are typically created off a foundation of complete ignorance & hypocrisy. If some of these "socialist" ideas, that are accredited to making "socialism", "socialism", weren't a complete fucking contradiction, based off a foundation of ignorance, then maybe I would embrace the theories of that specific political category, a bit more.

I understand the "good" in what "socialistic" theory tries to accomplish, but when it contradicts itself at the very same time, this is why such a political theory is outright ignorant, on a general basis.



You have to realize that if the two major parties were libertarians and socialists within US government, the socialists wouldn't be alive, to be a party to begin with. Most of them would be strung up and executed for treason, on the premise of rights-violations, regarding rights of both the constitution, and natural human-rights.

You'll find that most anytime the constitution is violated, a natural human right has been violated in the process, which invalidates the logic behind "socialism" on a broad basis. It's funny how the constitution works, regarding it's relevance to human-rights. "Socialism" tends to ignore these principles, which again, is a complete contradiction regarding some of the fundamentals, of "socialism" itself.

Obamacare is not a socialist system. As was pointed out in this thread, it originated from a conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation. You can find a link to it in this thread. The socialist healthcare system is single payer.

I suspect that you are confusing socialism with something else. Perhaps like beenthere, you're mixing it up with communism because I'm not sure which parts of the constitution socialism would violate. Remember that the French Constitution is based off of ours and they're socialist. The idea that the socialists would be strung up is ridiculous. You do realize that our progressive income tax, public schools, social security, medicare, medicaid, and most labor laws are all socialist, right? You're already living in a socialist country. It's just less socialist than the European and Scandinavian countries.

But the merits of socialism isn't the point. The point is the Democrats and Republicans have both become more authoritarian than most of the third parties in this country. As a result, if civil liberties are important to you, you'll find yourself agreeing with Libertarians, the Green Party, and the Democratic Socialists more than you would the Democrats and Republicans.

I point to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. There was a rumor that if Paul got the nomination, he might have picked Dennis as his running mate. That would have been pretty close to a Libertarian/Socialist ticket.

 

[Mr Neutron]

The main point is this: if your biggest issue is ending social security, ending medicare and medicaid, then you might prefer a republican or a democrat to a socialist. Ron Paul certainly wouldn't feel that way because he has stated time and time again that cutting the military budget is far more important to him than ending the social programs. Moving away from the police state is more important to him then ending welfare. Socialists would agree with him 100% on that front.

I want some of what you are smoking.

 

[Mr Neutron]

and Clinton was definitely right of center

Nevermind, whatever you'r e smoking, keep it.

 

[Mr Neutron]

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol
privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol
writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the
Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its
passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and
revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will
unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and
the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and
becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The
timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans
that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest.
Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely
shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn
in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton
plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993,
blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of
what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

The only problem with all of that is, William Kristol(nacht) is NOT a conservative, he is in fact a neo-conservative.

 

[Mr Neutron]

I am just pointing out that
history is repeating itself

the Ironic thing is The Republican plan they came up as an alternative to Clintons plan of medicare for everyone with back then is something we call
obamacare now

That only shows they are BOTH wrong.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Obamacare is not a socialist system. As was pointed out in this thread, it originated from a conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation. You can find a link to it in this thread. The socialist healthcare system is single payer.

Today's conservatives are not above supporting socialist programs. Bush signed the biggest increase in Medicare.
Thus, there is no real difference between R's and D's.

 

[bedspirit]

This thread has shown me that pundits, pr people and spin doctors have thoroughly fucked our understandings of political science in this county. Frank Luntz can go to hell.

Vote for this guy:

[video=youtube;4x9bkXVccAs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x9bkXVccAs[/video]

 

[bedspirit]

Or this one:

[video=youtube;tEbQEIs6fE4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEbQEIs6fE4&list=PL7377043BE5AF7D31&index= 1&feature=plpp_video[/video]

 

[mccumcumber]

I can vote for whomever I want, Obama is still gonna win my state. Presidential elections are bs. More people should vote for a better congress if you actually want to see change.

 

[InCognition]

I can vote for whomever I want, Obama is still gonna win my state. Presidential elections are bs. More people should vote for a better congress if you actually want to see change.

Presidential elections are BS. They are irrefutably prone to, and affiliated with election fraud. This has been clearly seen in the past.

The company, "Black Box Voting" irrefutably exposed that the voting machines the USA uses, use techniques that are severely susceptible to fraud, and picked up quite a bit of fraud on those machine's behalf, when they were in use during various political events, especially in a past Florida election.

Anyone who thinks presidential elections in the USA are not fraudulent in some aspect or another, that person is simply on another fucking planet.

 

[canndo]

Presidential elections are BS. They are irrefutably prone to, and affiliated with election fraud. This has been clearly seen in the past.

The company, "Black Box Voting" irrefutably exposed that the voting machines the USA uses, use techniques that are severely susceptible to fraud, and picked up quite a bit of fraud on those machine's behalf, when they were in use during various political events, especially in a past Florida election.

Anyone who thinks presidential elections in the USA are not fraudulent in some aspect or another, that person is simply on another fucking planet.

Unfortunately, the black box incidents are not irrefutable, and people have been "refuting" them since they happened.

 

[InCognition]

Obamacare is not a socialist system. As was pointed out in this thread, it originated from a conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation. You can find a link to it in this thread. The socialist healthcare system is single payer.

I suspect that you are confusing socialism with something else. Perhaps like beenthere, you're mixing it up with communism because I'm not sure which parts of the constitution socialism would violate. Remember that the French Constitution is based off of ours and they're socialist. The idea that the socialists would be strung up is ridiculous. You do realize that our progressive income tax, public schools, social security, medicare, medicaid, and most labor laws are all socialist, right? You're already living in a socialist country. It's just less socialist than the European and Scandinavian countries.

But the merits of socialism isn't the point. The point is the Democrats and Republicans have both become more authoritarian than most of the third parties in this country. As a result, if civil liberties are important to you, you'll find yourself agreeing with Libertarians, the Green Party, and the Democratic Socialists more than you would the Democrats and Republicans.

I point to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. There was a rumor that if Paul got the nomination, he might have picked Dennis as his running mate. That would have been pretty close to a Libertarian/Socialist ticket.

Yes, I'm fully aware that there are socialistic practices present in the USA, that have existed throughout the history of this country, and yes I'm aware they have helped to aid in making this country great, depending on the specific program.

If you're not sure which parts of the constitution pure socialism would violate, there is not much to discuss with you on the subject, as socialism in it's purest form would irrefutably find an obligation in violating the constitution, for it's own sake of existence.

The health-care mandate does violate the constitution whether you want to acknowledge it or not. The funny thing is that the supreme court, and all the pro-socialists use the guise of taxation under the premise of "the state's welfare", to justify it's blatant violation of the constitution.

When you violate a constitutional law, and then place the validity of that violation under the false pretense of another law, you still have violated law. Simply said, the government can not force you to purchase a product, as clearly stated in the constitution. Yet the government and it's socialist supporters are agreeing with the fallacy, that they can force you to purchase a product under the pretense of a "tax". Breaking laws to establish laws, is absolute hypocrisy. Argue against this as you wish, but you're just advocating what ultimately amounts to ignorance and hypocrisy.


What's next? An indefinite, yearly taxation on firearms because they cause expensive hospital visits? They could easily slap such a tax under the same pretense of "the state's welfare". Guess what, it's a violation and infringement on the second amendment. Do you see how such "laws" are not really laws? They are illegal, and nothing more, thus they are not laws at all. As such they should be dismissed before ever entering the realm of a courtroom, to be decided on.


With the "socialists being strung up and and executed" comment, sure it was ridiculous because let's face it, treason is not something that's punished for anymore in this country. People think it's too harsh to execute someone for their mis-duties against their own citizens. The fact is, it's not harsh at all, society is just becoming softer to the reality of repercussions and their intended use.

Many socialist policies would, do, and will continue to violate constitutional law, as well as human-rights. When you violate humans-rights you should be executed, regardless of the constitution. Do you know anything about the UN and their disarmament policies they have set forth on, beginning in 1961? That is a socialist program, and it's foundation is built of a complete violation of human-rights. Not only is disarming the world's civilians of their firearms a human-rights violation, it's a constitutional violation as well if the policy were to be executed on this land (the USA).

Socialism in it's true essence, is a malignant, destructive force, cloaked through the facade of "doing good". Those who are unable to understand that, are simply the most blind form of human-beings on the planet, as they are essentially agreeing to destroy man, through the pretense of "taking care of one another". It's an absolute paradox.

 

[InCognition]

Unfortunately, the black box incidents are not irrefutable, and people have been "refuting" them since they happened.

I know, the black box incidents are not irrefutable... Black Box voting exposed blatant election fraud.

Not sure what you're trying to say...?

 

[canndo]

I know, the black box incidents are not irrefutable... Black Box voting exposed blatant election fraud.

Not sure what you're trying to say...?

I have not been able to convince others of the significance.

 

[ChesusRice]

The health-care mandate does violate the constitution whether you want to acknowledge it or not. The funny thing is that the supreme court, and all the pro-socialists use the guise of taxation under the premise of "the state's welfare", to justify it's blatant violation of the constitution.

The supreme court says you are wrong. So the rest of your post is irrelevant

 

[canndo]

The supreme court says you are wrong. So the rest of your post is irrelevant

Unfortunately, it is irrelevant. But SCOTUS has also ruled on voter ID and found it acceptable yet I continue to harp on it. I believe as well that it is not a tax and is unconstitutional and I like the law.

 

[bedspirit]

Yes, I'm fully aware that there are socialistic practices present in the USA, that have existed throughout the history of this country, and yes I'm aware they have helped to aid in making this country great, depending on the specific program.

If you're not sure which parts of the constitution pure socialism would violate, there is not much to discuss with you on the subject, as socialism in it's purest form would irrefutably find an obligation in violating the constitution, for it's own sake of existence.

The health-care mandate does violate the constitution whether you want to acknowledge it or not. The funny thing is that the supreme court, and all the pro-socialists use the guise of taxation under the premise of "the state's welfare", to justify it's blatant violation of the constitution.

When you violate a constitutional law, and then place the validity of that violation under the false pretense of another law, you still have violated law. Simply said, the government can not force you to purchase a product, as clearly stated in the constitution. Yet the government and it's socialist supporters are agreeing with the fallacy, that they can force you to purchase a product under the pretense of a "tax". Breaking laws to establish laws, is absolute hypocrisy. Argue against this as you wish, but you're just advocating what ultimately amounts to ignorance and hypocrisy.


What's next? An indefinite, yearly taxation on firearms because they cause expensive hospital visits? They could easily slap such a tax under the same pretense of "the state's welfare". Guess what, it's a violation and infringement on the second amendment. Do you see how such "laws" are not really laws? They are illegal, and nothing more, thus they are not laws at all. As such they should be dismissed before ever entering the realm of a courtroom, to be decided on.


With the "socialists being strung up and and executed" comment, sure it was ridiculous because let's face it, treason is not something that's punished for anymore in this country. People think it's too harsh to execute someone for their mis-duties against their own citizens. The fact is, it's not harsh at all, society is just becoming softer to the reality of repercussions and their intended use.

Many socialist policies would, do, and will continue to violate constitutional law, as well as human-rights. When you violate humans-rights you should be executed, regardless of the constitution. Do you know anything about the UN and their disarmament policies they have set forth on, beginning in 1961? That is a socialist program, and it's foundation is built of a complete violation of human-rights. Not only is disarming the world's civilians of their firearms a human-rights violation, it's a constitutional violation as well if the policy were to be executed on this land (the USA).

Socialism in it's true essence, is a malignant, destructive force, cloaked through the facade of "doing good". Those who are unable to understand that, are simply the most blind form of human-beings on the planet, as they are essentially agreeing to destroy man, through the pretense of "taking care of one another". It's an absolute paradox.

I guess I have to be more precise in the words I choose, because we're going to get caught up arguing semantics. For you socialism is a broad umbrella of things that would include everything from Obamacare to disarmament. The way you describe it sounds a lot like communism to me. I know there are a lot of flavors of socialism, but that is one I've never heard of. I double checked Wikipedia just to make sure that I'm not the one who is misunderstanding it, and I see there are a bazillion different types of socialism, so maybe one of those types is what you're talking about. When I said socialism, I was referring to the kinds of policies that guys like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Ralph Nader, Elizabeth Warren, Kucinich, or Noam Chomsky might advocate. Each one describes themselves differently so I though Socialist was a broad enough term to cover them all. Apparently that term was far too broad.

Even though I felt like a lot of what you said had nothing to do with what I was talking about, I'd be glad to comment on it. I believe the "tax" in regards to Obamacare is not the bill you're paying to your insurance company, it refers to the penalty that you pay for not having insurance. You said "you" a lot when you described your position on Obamacare as if I am in favor of it. I'm not at all in favor of it. I didn't like it when the republicans argued for it in the 90's and I didn't like it when the Democrats made it law. I believe you would have gotten it either way. I can easily imagine McCain signing the same thing into law had he won, and all the talking heads on the right would have praised it as a free market solution to healthcare and the Democrats would have hated it and called it a giveaway to the insurance companies. This is my theory, that both sides want to do the same thing, they just sell it to us differently.

You seem awfully concerned about guns. While I do believe the UN would love to take those guns away from you, I doubt very much that either party would attempt it in this county. The reason being that the US is the biggest gun manufacturer in the world and the lobby that represents that industry is incredibly powerful and influential. Notice that Obama recently killed the small arms treaty that was being drafted in the UN. I suspect he did it not because of ideology but because of the money involved. Obama has a tendency to side with the money. I'm personally not concerned about guns because I think we're very close to making them completely irrelevant. Right now I could build a rail gun with parts in my garage. In another 10 years I could find parts to build one that would outperform the best rifles available today. So far we have no regulations involving energy weapons.

So let me restate my opening thought that started this thread:
In an effort to end authoritarianism in this country, I think our government would operate more efficiently if the two parties were Libertarians and Green.

 

[Mr Neutron]

I believe as well that it is not a tax and is unconstitutional and I like the law.

You like the law even though you admit it is unconstitutional?