Tell me this guy ain't a Marxist...
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats because I don't believe a word of it.
And you do believe McCain???
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
And you do believe McCain???
Not so much. I think he is an intrinsically more honest person than Obama. But I certainly believe that he will be even less likey to keep any promist to conservatives than Bush was. He will probably keep his promises to everyone else as best he can. But he has nothing but contempt for conservatives, probably more so than Obama does.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, we certainly need some kind of law to prohibit people from bringing more welfare dpendents into the world.
But one passed by the peepul, right?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But one passed by the peepul, right?
Certainly. But, of course, in my ideal government, only those actually producing and paying more into the system than they get back from it would be allowed to vote anyway.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on ability and giving to those based upon need.
Actually no. I think you mean: Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on wealth and giving to those based upon need. At least as far as I have heard, Socialists are just as willing to take money from an incompetent - like, say, Rumsfeld, as from a competent, like say, Romney.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Sorry. Yes, I think the quote is something more like "from those with means to those with need" or something like that, except in German of course. Still, most of those with means will be those with ability, plus a few lucky incompetents I suppose. I'm actually pretty sure though that most of the incomptents will be those with need.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
But one passed by the peepul, right?
Certainly. But, of course, in my ideal government, only those actually producing and paying more into the system than they get back from it would be allowed to vote anyway.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, of course, in my ideal government, only those actually producing and paying more into the system than they get back from it would be allowed to vote anyway.
Yeah, that's pretty much what Mugabe has set up.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
And you do believe McCain???
Not so much. I think he is an intrinsically more honest person than Obama. But I certainly believe that he will be even less likey to keep any promist to conservatives than Bush was. He will probably keep his promises to everyone else as best he can. But he has nothing but contempt for conservatives, probably more so than Obama does.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But he has nothing but contempt for conservatives, probably more so than Obama does.
Well, they certainly haven't put their money where their mouth is (I'll bet you haven't - on the Presidential level - either), so if by some strange quirk of fate he won, they'd have no-one to blame for their lack of access but themselves.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Sorry. Yes, I think the quote is something more like "from those with means to those with need" or something like that, except in German of course. Still, most of those with means will be those with ability, plus a few lucky incompetents I suppose. I'm actually pretty sure though that most of the incomptents will be those with need.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But he has nothing but contempt for conservatives, probably more so than Obama does.
Well, they certainly haven't put their money where their mouth is (I'll bet you haven't - on the Presidential level - either), so if by some strange quirk of fate he won, they'd have no-one to blame for their lack of access but themselves.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
(I'll bet you haven't - on the Presidential level - either),
I sent a money to Fred Thompson's campaign. I was going to send money to McCain after he selected Palin, but by the time I got around to he had already pissed me off again so I declined. Frankly, I'm glad the conservatives have not supported him. Save our money for a better candidate later.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, of course, in my ideal government, only those actually producing and paying more into the system than they get back from it would be allowed to vote anyway.
Yeah, that's pretty much what Mugabe has set up.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Yeah, that's pretty much what Mugabe has set up.
As well as the founders of our own nation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Yeah, that's pretty much what Mugabe has set up.
As well as the founders of our own nation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As well as the founders of our own nation
Not at all. They set up a very libertarian confederacy. Then when the founders weren't looking a bunch of professional politicians hijacked the second convention and wrote the constitution.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
(I'll bet you haven't - on the Presidential level - either),
I sent a money to Fred Thompson's campaign. I was going to send money to McCain after he selected Palin, but by the time I got around to he had already pissed me off again so I declined. Frankly, I'm glad the conservatives have not supported him. Save our money for a better candidate later.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
As well as the founders of our own nation
Not at all. They set up a very libertarian confederacy. Then when the founders weren't looking a bunch of professional politicians hijacked the second convention and wrote the constitution.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
:rolleyes: I would be perfectly happy if the articles of confederation were maintained, but they certainly did not represent a libertarian confederation. But both the original articles and the constitution both limited voting rights to (white male) land owners. They thought that those with an investment in society were the ones who were responsible enough to be trusted with the right to vote. I share that sentiment.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Save our money for a better candidate later.
I didn't think there was going to be another one. Won't Obama declare himself Beloved Leader for Life in a couple of years?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Won't Obama declare himself Beloved Leader for Life in a couple of years?
Could be. But that would be fine with me. At least it would answer the question of whether or not there is anything left of American zeal for liberty.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
:rolleyes: I would be perfectly happy if the articles of confederation were maintained, but they certainly did not represent a libertarian confederation. But both the original articles and the constitution both limited voting rights to (white male) land owners. They thought that those with an investment in society were the ones who were responsible enough to be trusted with the right to vote. I share that sentiment.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They thought that those with an investment in society were the ones who were responsible enough to be trusted with the right to vote.
Perhaps the fact that they were all white male land oweners had something to do with it, eh? I agree, by the way. I just think there are other ways of displaying an investment in society - as I think you know.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
They thought that those with an investment in society were the ones who were responsible enough to be trusted with the right to vote.
Perhaps the fact that they were all white male land oweners had something to do with it, eh? I agree, by the way. I just think there are other ways of displaying an investment in society - as I think you know.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I just think there are other ways of displaying an investment in society - as I think you know.
Indeed I do, one of which would be the difference between what one pays in taxes and what one receives in welfare or other subsidies.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.