And In Other News Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
162

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
That makes tons of sense. No double standard at all. Keep federal government out of our lives, be controlled by state government instead. You wouldn’t expect consistency from these “conservatives” would you?!?!
[/quote]

At what level would you prefer to be controlled? Keep in mind everyone agrees there should be some control, murder law is the easiest example. So if there was only 1 level of government which controlled basic things like making murder illegal, where would you want it?[/quote]

Who is arguing that murder should be legal? No one is.

This is a very odd Hobbes type argument to make though. You are against the federal government controlling people, but have no problems with the state government doing it? Why not have the federal government do it? You don’t like when the federal government does it, but you do when the state does?

I don’t get that at all. And before the tired cliche of you can leave the state, you can also leave the country. And for some reason I don’t think you’re turning over as many backflips when liberals are trying to control at the state level. [/quote]

Okay you didn’t understand the question so lets try again. You seem to be against both state and federal so…

  • Are you in favor of any government at all? (yes or no only)
  • If yes, at what level do you prefer to have the most control?[/quote]

A. Yes
B. Probably local, but I could easily be against something at any level. Especially when it isn’t consistent at all with freedom.

C. Do you prefer your state to make stupid choices more than the federal government because that is the level you prefer freedom to be fucked up at more? [/quote]

One could argue it’s far easier to replace state level elected officials than national level ones. One could also argue it’s far more preferable to be ruled at the state level than the federal level since the state is more likely to act in their citizen’s interests. What is the point of having state borders if the citizens of a state have no control over how they are governed?

163

[quote]H factor wrote:
but I could easily be against something at any level.
[/quote]

So you will never be happy with government? Once you’ve accepted this it might be beneficial to move on and pick something productive to complain about.

164

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
One could also argue it’s far more preferable to be ruled at the state level than the federal level since the state is more likely to act in their citizen’s interests.
[/quote]
I take it you’re a glass is half full kind of guy.

165

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
One could also argue it’s far more preferable to be ruled at the state level than the federal level since the state is more likely to act in their citizen’s interests.
[/quote]
I take it you’re a glass is half full kind of guy. [/quote]

You could say that. Perfection is beyond the grasp of humankind so I’d rather face the devil in my backyard than the nameless, faceless one far away.

166

The sheer idiocy of this is frightening. Some of these people will actually vote and help direct the course pf our country.

167

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
One could argue it’s far easier to replace state level elected officials than national level ones. One could also argue it’s far more preferable to be ruled at the state level than the federal level since the state is more likely to act in their citizen’s interests. What is the point of having state borders if the citizens of a state have no control over how they are governed?
[/quote]

…and then one could argue it’s preferable to be ruled at the local level rather than the state level, the neighborhood level rather than the local level, and that it’s PREFERABLE to NOT BE RULED. A confederation of sovereign individuals would be ideal. Of course, we had a confederation(of states, at least) at one(two) times in this country’s history…and the government lovers got rid of it. What is the point of property lines if the “owner” of that property has no control over it?

168

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

C. Do you prefer your state to make stupid choices more than the federal government because that is the level you prefer freedom to be fucked up at more? [/quote]

Yes. That’s what federalism in the United States of America is all about.

The sovereign states, united by a constitutionally empowered central government with limited enumerated powers, are free to make stupid choices. You, the citizen of that gawd awful state of Kansas (or wherever) are free to to move to another sovereign state that is not so stupid.

Now shut the fuck up and go visit your U-Haul dealer.[/quote]

I already addressed this tired and predictable stupid response.

You, a citizen of the United States America, do not have to live here. And yet you complain about this country all the time. Instead of bitching about Obamacare, gun control, or anything else you whine about get in a plane or a boat and get the fuck out of here.

What a lazy predictable response that I already addressed because I knew idiots would come up with the “herp derp get a U-haul.” Damn I put it before anyone else put it because I knew that was the type of lame argument someone would come up with. Good to see it didn’t keep people from still dragging it out.

Which is odd because in all the time I’ve seen you talk to Maximus about living in California why have you not told him over and over again that he needs to get a U-Haul and move?

Ah, because you’re as predictable as they come and you’re for government intervention that you like (shit like we do in Kansas) and against the stuff you don’t like (stuff liberals do in California). You can’t really complain about anything but liberals and it must piss you off that I can shit on both sides because secretly you have a hard on for government control from righties. Especially in Kansas where we attempt theocracy as much as possible.

170

[quote]H factor wrote:
You, a citizen of the United States America, do not have to live here. And yet you complain about this country all the time. Instead of bitching about Obamacare, gun control, or anything else you whine about get in a plane or a boat and get the fuck out of here.
[/quote]
What country would want him? One with an idiot shortage?

171

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
One could argue it’s far easier to replace state level elected officials than national level ones. One could also argue it’s far more preferable to be ruled at the state level than the federal level since the state is more likely to act in their citizen’s interests. What is the point of having state borders if the citizens of a state have no control over how they are governed?
[/quote]

…and then one could argue it’s preferable to be ruled at the local level rather than the state level, the neighborhood level rather than the local level, and that it’s PREFERABLE to NOT BE RULED. A confederation of sovereign individuals would be ideal. Of course, we had a confederation(of states, at least) at one(two) times in this country’s history…and the government lovers got rid of it. What is the point of property lines if the “owner” of that property has no control over it?[/quote]

Then you are just talking anarchy and even then that would be short lived because the nature of man is such that someone, somewhere, always will gather a force of men in order to subjugate others. Some form of governmental control is necessary to enforce the rules men have agreed upon in order to coexist together. The government needs to have enough power to enforce the laws. A confederation of states needs to have a ruling body to ensure the security of each state both individually and collectively. The trick is to limit the power of those ruling bodies. The history of mankind shows that all limits on power will eventually be circumvented. Which is why revolutions must occur periodically to restore the rights of the people.

172

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

C. Do you prefer your state to make stupid choices more than the federal government because that is the level you prefer freedom to be fucked up at more? [/quote]

Yes. That’s what federalism in the United States of America is all about.

The sovereign states, united by a constitutionally empowered central government with limited enumerated powers, are free to make stupid choices. You, the citizen of that gawd awful state of Kansas (or wherever) are free to to move to another sovereign state that is not so stupid.

Now shut the fuck up and go visit your U-Haul dealer.[/quote]

I already addressed this tired and predictable stupid response.

You, a citizen of the United States America, do not have to live here. And yet you complain about this country all the time. Instead of bitching about Obamacare, gun control, or anything else you whine about get in a plane or a boat and get the fuck out of here.

What a lazy predictable response that I already addressed because I knew idiots would come up with the “herp derp get a U-haul.”

Which is odd because in all the time I’ve seen you talk to Maximus about living in California why have you not told him over and over again that he needs to get a U-Haul and move?

Ah, because you’re as predictable as they come and you’re for government intervention that you like (shit like we do in Kansas) and against the stuff you don’t like (stuff liberals do in California). You can’t really complain about anything but liberals and it must piss you off that I can shit on both sides because secretly you have a hard on for government control from righties. [/quote]

If you say so.

You missed the point but you are rather adept at that. You wouldn’t understand the concept of federalism if it was barbed and pounded into your skull with a sledgehammer.

Your limited scope of intellectual comprehension asserted too much federal power was akin to too much state power and thus both forms were equally malignant. But the distinction you failed to draw was that you have 49 other jurisdictions to which you can move if you are unhappy with your plight without having to leave the country. Of course that becomes less of an option if the federal behemoth continues to metastasize because those distinctions become blurred with a one size fits all central government.

So no, a large intrusive state is not as “bad” as a large intrusive federal government.

Savvy?
[/quote]

No I get the concept even though you’re quite talented at assuming no one but you knows what they are talking about. Then again you couldn’t be bothered to read what I’d already said about spare me the move cliche before you even said it.

It’s good to know where you draw the line. Large intrusive state government is ok (even though you bitch about state government decisions all the time), large intrusive federal government not ok. Advice to someone who lives in a “conservative” intrusive state is move, advice to someone who lives in a “liberal” instrusive state is to bitch and moan about how horrible that is and that you need to vote people like that out.

It’s good to see that the hypocrisy I was talking about is not just limited to Republicans in Kansas, but to wannabe small government chaps in Montana.

173

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
You, a citizen of the United States America, do not have to live here. And yet you complain about this country all the time. Instead of bitching about Obamacare, gun control, or anything else you whine about get in a plane or a boat and get the fuck out of here.
[/quote]
What country would want him? One with an idiot shortage? [/quote]

It’s ok for HIS argument to be move someplace else, it is simply not ok for someone else to reply YOU move somewhere else. He tends to do that sort of thing a lot…

175

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

No I get the concept even though you’re quite talented at assuming no one but you knows what they are talking about.

[/quote]

Au contraire, I know that many do know what I’m talking about. But some dullards don’t get it and I accept that.

You can bark up that tree all you want but when you display ignorance about federalism I would be amiss to spare you.

It’s not “OK,” it’s merely that its problems can be mitigated more easily than a large, intrusive, unconstitutional federal government.

You need to try the novel approach (for you) of rowing with both oars in the water, mi amigo.

[/quote]

I only display ignorance when you create ignorance for me by twisting my words or by creating arguments for me based on something else.

I will always be ignorant to you because you refuse to read what I say and base your response off mine. It’s exactly like the missile defense thread where you felt the need to educate me about a position because of a position someone else has taken.

My frustration in your responses is because you don’t ever take the time to read in full and listen to my posts. You actually have that habit with many members and I have pointed that out to you more than once. Then your go to move is some type of personal attack (a push hallmark) followed by some weird analogy or 1800’s type reference.

Bounce on your trampoline with one foot instead of two.

Listen with the right ear and speak with the left.

Chop wood with your neighbor’s ax before chopping wood with your own to stay sharp.

176

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Which is why revolutions must occur periodically to restore the rights of the people.
[/quote]

We agree.

If a revolution is to occur in Country A, those who rebel for freedom should not create a new state. If one somehow arises from voluntary action on the part of all, then so be it. There is no reason that one group should be granted the right to tax and initiate force against the others. Any attempt to grant a group that power should be seen as what it is-an act of aggression that needs to be fought. Most people believe socialism doesn’t work well, so why should it be seen as the best way to fund defense, courts, etc.?

177

H-Factor,

I am curious to know, because you mentioned that you have been in Kansas for a long period of time. What has your travel situation been like in the US or internationally ? Have you been to areas that are a bit opposite of Kansas as far as politics goes ?

It wasn’t until I went to a more Conservative area of the US recently, where I realized how different things compared to where I live. I am not talking about buying into some shit theory in a book, or some bullshit spoken by a pundit, or something written by a politically biased newspaper. Have you been able to witness life and society with your own eyes in a Liberal place, for you to formulate your own opinion ?

I am not looking for a shit storm here, I am asking (no sarc).

178

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
H-Factor,

I am curious to know, because you mentioned that you have been in Kansas for a long period of time. What has your travel situation been like in the US or internationally ? Have you been to areas that are a bit opposite of Kansas as far as politics goes ?

It wasn’t until I went to a more Conservative area of the US recently, where I realized how different things compared to where I live. I am not talking about buying into some shit theory in a book, or some bullshit spoken by a pundit, or something written by a politically biased newspaper. Have you been able to witness life and society with your own eyes in a Liberal place, for you to formulate your own opinion ?

I am not looking for a shit storm here, I am asking (no sarc).

[/quote]

I have already told you that I lived in California for a short time. I have spent frequent time growing up in New Jersey as well (family there). My grandparents are from Missouri (which is pretty similar for the most part to Kansas) and I have cousins from Ft. Lauderdale.

Internationally I have not traveled much only going to Puerto Rico and Canada.

I do not feel as if I need to go live amongst liberals for years to formulate an opinion on things I would not like in those areas. I DO think some people who haven’t lived in conservative areas like I have have no idea what rural America CAN be like.

I remember when I said come live amongst all these “conservative” Republicans here once and about three forum members said wouldn’t that be awesome. I pointed out the amount of poverty, pointed out the amount of government assistance, etc. This idea that the Democrats have this coalition where everyone who is poor and on government assistance votes for them is simply not based on any sort of reality.

I’m in an area where a ton of people are poor, a ton are on government assistance, and they all vote Republican all the time. I frequently point out the hypocrisy of the right wing because I’m surrounded by it. Honestly I also do not feel progressives try to hide certain things as much. They will flat out tell you they are for bigger government. I may not agree with it, but it is honest. Here we have tons of people on government assistance talking about how much they hate Obama because they are so stupid they don’t realize they use most of the stuff he supports.

You can paint a picture of the view from some problems in California and that’s great. I can tell you that the “other team” in charge isn’t exactly paradise either.

It’s why I rail against the two party system so often. And really I’m more saddened by Kansas than anything else. I don’t dislike living here in many instances, but I can’t stand how voters here have no idea about anything. I know that is a nationwide problem, but we have people who only watch Fox News who complain about OTHER people on government assistance when they get government assistance all the time. I truly think in my area we have a lot of people who have no idea that stuff they get from the government is government assistance.

They complain about all these phantom people in other areas they do not know about abusing government handouts literally while they do the same thing. They are following every bit of the marching orders as anyone else. They know they are supposed to be pissed off about Benghazi because that’s what the TV told them, but they have no idea what happened or even where it is.

179

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

No I get the concept even though you’re quite talented at assuming no one but you knows what they are talking about.

[/quote]

Au contraire, I know that many do know what I’m talking about. But some dullards don’t get it and I accept that.

You can bark up that tree all you want but when you display ignorance about federalism I would be amiss to spare you.

It’s not “OK,” it’s merely that its problems can be mitigated more easily than a large, intrusive, unconstitutional federal government.

You need to try the novel approach (for you) of rowing with both oars in the water, mi amigo.

[/quote]

LOL notice how this ass clown only quoted the parts HE wanted to respond to…it’s not like he had a defensible stance against any of it, but in his little mind he somehow thought these were his strong points…LOL

180

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Which is why revolutions must occur periodically to restore the rights of the people.
[/quote]

We agree.

If a revolution is to occur in Country A, those who rebel for freedom should not create a new state. If one somehow arises from voluntary action on the part of all, then so be it. There is no reason that one group should be granted the right to tax and initiate force against the others. Any attempt to grant a group that power should be seen as what it is-an act of aggression that needs to be fought. Most people believe socialism doesn’t work well, so why should it be seen as the best way to fund defense, courts, etc.?[/quote]

Private armies and Courts doesnt sound like freedom to me, it sounds more like a dystopian living hell in my eyes, where the Rich have private armies, police-forces at their disposal and the poor have none who protects them except themself( like a angry starving abused mob for instance ). What makes more sense in an anarchist context IMO, is perhaps something like communal Courts and militias, not Commercial ones I see are suggested here at PWI by some of the resident anarcho-capitalists. Then again I am a socialist and therefor cant see the Logic behind anarcho-capitalism.