Bill Maher on Obama

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
You think Lincoln was a tyrant? You think every government that has ever existed was a tyranny? You’re really hard to take seriously.

Lincoln was most certainly a very bad man. He was a democratically elected tyrant for sure – just like many of them are.

Okay, you’re a crackpot. Thanks for clearing that up.

[/quote]

What do you call a person who murders over half a million people because he does not want them to have their own freedom?

I am afraid I am not the crackpot but rather you are because you, like many others, willingly swallow all the “educational” propaganda you’ve been fed.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Out of curiosity, what historical societies, if any, do you think were well governed?

The ones that lasted.[/quote]

So… Imperial China (~1200BC or 220BC - 1912) and Ancient Egypt (~3200 BC - 50 BC) and maybe the Romans/Byzantines (753 BC - 1453 AD) were the greatest societies ever? I don’t think any of those placed much of an emphasis on individual liberty.

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Out of curiosity, what historical societies, if any, do you think were well governed?

The ones that lasted.

So… Imperial China (~1200BC or 220BC - 1912) and Ancient Egypt (~3200 BC - 50 BC) and maybe the Romans/Byzantines (753 BC - 1453 AD) were the greatest societies ever? I don’t think any of those placed much of an emphasis on individual liberty. [/quote]

Uhhh…no governments have lasted.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
You think Lincoln was a tyrant? You think every government that has ever existed was a tyranny? You’re really hard to take seriously.

Lincoln was most certainly a very bad man. He was a democratically elected tyrant for sure – just like many of them are.

Okay, you’re a crackpot. Thanks for clearing that up.

What do you call a person who murders over half a million people because he does not want them to have their own freedom?

I am afraid I am not the crackpot but rather you are because you, like many others, willingly swallow all the “educational” propaganda you’ve been fed.[/quote]

There are acceptable reasons to rebel against a lawfully elected government. Defending chattel slavery is not one of them.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Out of curiosity, what historical societies, if any, do you think were well governed?

The ones that lasted.

So… Imperial China (~1200BC or 220BC - 1912) and Ancient Egypt (~3200 BC - 50 BC) and maybe the Romans/Byzantines (753 BC - 1453 AD) were the greatest societies ever? I don’t think any of those placed much of an emphasis on individual liberty.

Uhhh…no governments have lasted.[/quote]

Uh huh. Well, the current longest-lasting government would probably be Britain (1066, 1215, ~1350 or 1689 - Present), so I guess you’re okay with a moderate mixed economy.

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
You think Lincoln was a tyrant? You think every government that has ever existed was a tyranny? You’re really hard to take seriously.

Lincoln was most certainly a very bad man. He was a democratically elected tyrant for sure – just like many of them are.

Okay, you’re a crackpot. Thanks for clearing that up.

What do you call a person who murders over half a million people because he does not want them to have their own freedom?

I am afraid I am not the crackpot but rather you are because you, like many others, willingly swallow all the “educational” propaganda you’ve been fed.

There are acceptable reasons to rebel against a lawfully elected government. Defending chattel slavery is not one of them.

[/quote]

You think Lincoln cared about slavery? That was his scapegoat to kill southerners.

Slavery was abolished by the free market and not government all over the world. Why was murder necessary in the US to change something that sound economic reasoning ultimately leads to anyway?

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Out of curiosity, what historical societies, if any, do you think were well governed?

The ones that lasted.

So… Imperial China (~1200BC or 220BC - 1912) and Ancient Egypt (~3200 BC - 50 BC) and maybe the Romans/Byzantines (753 BC - 1453 AD) were the greatest societies ever? I don’t think any of those placed much of an emphasis on individual liberty.

Uhhh…no governments have lasted.

Uh huh. Well, the current longest-lasting government would probably be Britain (1066, 1215, ~1350 or 1689 - Present), so I guess you’re okay with a moderate mixed economy.

[/quote]

I don’t care about “long lasting”; none can last because all government eventually becomes tyrannical and oppress people in excess of what they will tolerate – the US included. There will always be people ready to overthrow it. Government cannot work and never will.

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
You think Lincoln was a tyrant? You think every government that has ever existed was a tyranny? You’re really hard to take seriously.

Lincoln was most certainly a very bad man. He was a democratically elected tyrant for sure – just like many of them are.

Okay, you’re a crackpot. Thanks for clearing that up.

What do you call a person who murders over half a million people because he does not want them to have their own freedom?

I am afraid I am not the crackpot but rather you are because you, like many others, willingly swallow all the “educational” propaganda you’ve been fed.

There are acceptable reasons to rebel against a lawfully elected government. Defending chattel slavery is not one of them.

[/quote]

I will catch some flack for this but there was a lot more on the table than slavery during that era. To even suggest that is minimizing the issues that were of actual concern…slavery was going to disappear north or south victory.

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
dhickey wrote:
quidnunc wrote:

Which direction are we headed? Towards more gov’t control over means of production or less? More freedom (economic or otherwise) or less?

Is the gov’t involved in the birth of our children?
Is the gov’t involved in the raising of our children?
Is the gov’t involved in the education of our children?
Is the gov’t involved in the employment of our children?
Is the gov’t involved in health care?
Is the gov’t involved in what kind of house we can build and live in?
Is the gov’t involved in the food we eat?
Is the gov’t involved in the services we chose to buy or sell?
Does the the gov’t take more of our income than any other expenditure does?
Is the gov’t involved in our retirement?
Is the gov’t involved in our death?

Pretty much every government that has ever existed since the creation of writing has involved itself in all or most of these things. If you think that Hammurabi, Lincoln, Charlemagne, Harding, Tutankhamen, Henry VIII and Cleopatra were all socialists, then the term really becomes kind of meaningless.

Well they were tyrants.

We could compromise on tyranny.

Obama wants to be a tyrant, enslaving people with their own money.

Better?

You think Lincoln was a tyrant? You think every government that has ever existed was a tyranny? You’re really hard to take seriously.

Out of curiosity, what historical societies, if any, do you think were well governed?[/quote]

Lincoln was a tyrant, yes.

Killing 600000 people who just want to live under a different government and suspending habeas corpus is a pretty good hint.

Well the days of enlightened absolutism were pretty good.

Monarchs hardly dared to raise taxes for fear of being decapitated.

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
You think Lincoln was a tyrant? You think every government that has ever existed was a tyranny? You’re really hard to take seriously.

Lincoln was most certainly a very bad man. He was a democratically elected tyrant for sure – just like many of them are.

Okay, you’re a crackpot. Thanks for clearing that up.

[/quote]

Hey, you use killer arguments.

Your rhetorical prowess and sheer intellectual weight of your reasoning is unmatched on this forum if not in society as a whole.

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
You think Lincoln was a tyrant? You think every government that has ever existed was a tyranny? You’re really hard to take seriously.

Lincoln was most certainly a very bad man. He was a democratically elected tyrant for sure – just like many of them are.

Okay, you’re a crackpot. Thanks for clearing that up.

What do you call a person who murders over half a million people because he does not want them to have their own freedom?

I am afraid I am not the crackpot but rather you are because you, like many others, willingly swallow all the “educational” propaganda you’ve been fed.

There are acceptable reasons to rebel against a lawfully elected government. Defending chattel slavery is not one of them.

[/quote]

Oh, so why did Lincoln promise them to make slavery permanent if they just stayed with the union?

Could it be that it wasn´t about slavery after all?

in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune: “My paramount object…is to save the union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery”-quote courtesy of Abe Lincoln

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
You think Lincoln was a tyrant? You think every government that has ever existed was a tyranny? You’re really hard to take seriously.

Lincoln was most certainly a very bad man. He was a democratically elected tyrant for sure – just like many of them are.

Okay, you’re a crackpot. Thanks for clearing that up.

What do you call a person who murders over half a million people because he does not want them to have their own freedom?

I am afraid I am not the crackpot but rather you are because you, like many others, willingly swallow all the “educational” propaganda you’ve been fed.

There are acceptable reasons to rebel against a lawfully elected government. Defending chattel slavery is not one of them.

You think Lincoln cared about slavery? That was his scapegoat to kill southerners.

Slavery was abolished by the free market and not government all over the world. Why was murder necessary in the US to change something that sound economic reasoning ultimately leads to anyway?[/quote]

Slavery was abolished in Britain and its colonies by (mostly religious) activists, and was opposed by most capitalist interests at the time. Britain’s ban on the Atlantic slave trade was enforced by the full might of the Royal Navy.

The US might have gone down the same path, had not part of the country decide they’d rather commit treason then be denied the right to own human beings. Here’s Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy:

[quote]
The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution â?? African slavery as it exists amongst us â?? the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerâ??stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery â?? subordination to the superior race â?? is his natural and normal condition.[/quote]

And here’s the South Carolina Declaration of Secession

[quote]
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.[/quote]

Your assertion that Lincoln “wanted to kill Southerners” would be laughable if it weren’t so offensive. I know that you can’t back this up with a source, but feel obligated to ask you to.

[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
As far as me being a comunist, I am not I say we need to socialize medicine

Every time you type you prove to us more and more that you have communist ideals.

Let me ask you 2 questions:

-Is social security being run well or is it broke?

-Is Medicare running well or is it on the brink of being broke?

Let’s add universal healthcare to that, but this time it will be full of hope…and…(please help me finish this statement)

Let me ask you something. Is your precious private enterprise doing a good job providing medical care? (I’ll give you a hint: hell no.) Have a discussion, but don’t pretend we can do nothing.

Let me ask you something:

Is there a free market in the US when it comes to healthcare?

For if not, how can it have failed?

[/quote]

The way I see it, we do not have a free market on health care because Insurance is controlling health care

[quote]jcoop82 wrote:
in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune: “My paramount object…is to save the union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery”-quote courtesy of Abe Lincoln[/quote]

He also argued quite eloquently that people had the right to secede.

As a congressman in the case of Texas secession from Mexico that is.

It is almost as if he took the preamble of the Declaration of Independence seriously back then.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Out of curiosity, what historical societies, if any, do you think were well governed?

The ones that lasted.

So… Imperial China (~1200BC or 220BC - 1912) and Ancient Egypt (~3200 BC - 50 BC) and maybe the Romans/Byzantines (753 BC - 1453 AD) were the greatest societies ever? I don’t think any of those placed much of an emphasis on individual liberty.

Uhhh…no governments have lasted.

Uh huh. Well, the current longest-lasting government would probably be Britain (1066, 1215, ~1350 or 1689 - Present), so I guess you’re okay with a moderate mixed economy.

I don’t care about “long lasting”; none can last because all government eventually becomes tyrannical and oppress people in excess of what they will tolerate – the US included. There will always be people ready to overthrow it. Government cannot work and never will.[/quote]

See, if you had just made clear from the start that you’re an anarchist nutter, you could have saved me a lot of time. There are some opinions worth engaging in serious debate with, but this ain’t one of them.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Full blown socialism means no one in the medical field will profit from their work. Do you understand the consequences of this?

The goal of Socialism IS destruction. That’s the goal of the Left.

[/quote]

Republican retoric

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
As far as me being a comunist, I am not I say we need to socialize medicine

Every time you type you prove to us more and more that you have communist ideals.

Let me ask you 2 questions:

-Is social security being run well or is it broke?

-Is Medicare running well or is it on the brink of being broke?

Let’s add universal healthcare to that, but this time it will be full of hope…and…(please help me finish this statement)

Let me ask you something. Is your precious private enterprise doing a good job providing medical care? (I’ll give you a hint: hell no.) Have a discussion, but don’t pretend we can do nothing.

Let me ask you something:

Is there a free market in the US when it comes to healthcare?

For if not, how can it have failed?

The way I see it, we do not have a free market on health care because Insurance is controlling health care

[/quote]

Yup, but by what means?

Trough bought politicians.

In a free market the consumer decides and noone else.

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I am curious of what everybody would say to do away with public education and create companies to find land, build schools, hire teachers and staff, maintain landscape and buildings and allow them to make a profit. How many people think we would have a better system than we do now? I would bet we pay twice as much and get half of what we get now. And the corporations we pay would be smoking wealthy, and they would be part of the right wing which would have it�¢??s puppets saying Oh we need to keep our education private, it does not matter that only half of the kids in America get an education, it does not matter that all these private corporations do is add on profit to every thing they pay for.

Really?

Look at the Washington school voucher programs and weep.

The beginninghttp:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32805-2004Jun10.html

The results:

The end:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133248.html

To sum it up for you:

Private schools are safer, have less dropouts and better academic achievements at far less costs then public schools, especially for minorities that do not do so well in the public school system.

Unfortunately teachers unions do not like the idea because people prefer private schools if they can choose so and they contribute lots of money to the Democrats so this program had to die.

The private school where Barack Obama will send his kids too will miss two students this year, because the school voucher program was ended.

Interestingly enough that means that the people you would entrust with building a public school system that works prefer to send theirs to private schools.

[/quote]

I do not even have to read all your links Private school is going to be much more expesive , try educating the masses, unless you think that 50% of children do not need education

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Full blown socialism means no one in the medical field will profit from their work. Do you understand the consequences of this?

The goal of Socialism IS destruction. That’s the goal of the Left.

Republican retoric

[/quote]

What’s the rhetoric you’ve been spewing?