Racist Lefties Heckle Obama

[florelius]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]AdamDrew wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]

You obviously didn’t learn a thing from that video I posted. At no point in history has a “democracy” been a permanent form of government. It is more of a transitional phase that is not sustainable. I know exactly what you are trying to say, but you say “democracy” because everything we see or hear pertaining to our govt. has trained us to use that word. The founding fathers created the best form of government in the history of man at that point in time. They wrote the constitution after being abused by big govt, high taxes, overbearing religious institutions, and the bank of England. Sound familiar? The constitution has repeatedly been interpreted incorrectly and the wording has been stretched to fit issues as they arose. A lot would be resolved if we simply returned to the republic they set up. However, doing so would be equally as difficult as revamping the entire system with something new. I guarantee any new system would increase the powers of the federal govt exponentially. [/quote]

well the constitution was made to give the national goverment more power than it had under the confederation. The founding fathers wanted a stronger goverment because of the economic crisis in the 1780`s because of the dephts from the revolution, and because of shays rebellion. before they created the federation, the states had more power and the people had more influence. And the rich merchants in the north east disliked it, thats why they created a stronger national state. the common folks and the opposition was not happy about the idea of weaker regional states and a stronger national state. It was actually the opposition who demanded the bill of rights. So if you want a small goverment, look to the confederation, not the founding of the much more sentralized federation.

[/quote]

I can tell you’ve read Beard. However, you really need to balance your reading sir.

The powers of the new national governement were - and, theoreticaly at least, still are - enumerated; that means that the Federal governement was authorized only to do certain, specified, pre-defined things. Everything else was left to the States.

When the Federal Government acts within its mandated powers, we have the rule of law. That is the whole point of the Constitution - that we are a nation whose Federated Government is bound by the Rule of Law.

However, when it begins to use the Commerce Clause as an escape clause - and to consider the enumerated powers as suggestions followed by an “et cetera” - we started to veer off track into the arbitrary rule by men where now - unbound by the rule of law - the legislative and executive branches began to accrue increasing degrees power; in terms of function and size and the resources they wield.

We no longer live under a Government bound by the rule of law; we are, increasingly, living under a leviathan that is destroying what civil society remains, as well as the productive powers of its people; a leviathan that moreover sustains itself simply to sustain itself, by soaking up tax revenue, and thereby impoverishing the very people the leviathan purports to serve.

This is exactly what the Constitution was trying to prevent.

[/quote]

I have not read beard sir. I read it in a history book for university students. its called “out of many”.
This book did not say that the founding fathers gave the federalstate all powers, but more than the confederat state had. The federalstate became bigger because the society changed radically the first 80years of the federations existens. One historical event in the 1800`s affected the state a great deal: the civil war. Under the civil war, the lincon administration had to expand the federalstates powers to be able to win the war. After the war was over, the federal state did not give back its new powers to the states or the public.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]

Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:1. “Society” doesn’t exist as a thing independantly of the persons that make it up. See the definition of “reification.”

“Society” is a body that, though composed of individuals (which would seem to nullify any of your criticisms of “collectivism,” but I digress), has properties different than that of an individual, in the same way that an organ functions differently from the cells of which it is composed. See the definition of “emergent property.” [/quote]

An emergent property in a social system is NOT independent from the actions, values and purposes of the persons in the social system. “Society” or anything emergent in this context is not a “thing” that exists with its own actions, values or purposes. Moreover, an emergent property is not subject to discrete analysis; nor can it be measured, or objectified; nor can it be consciously controlled, or shaped, or modified without the use of force. See definition of “Spontaneous Order.”

2. Even if it did, “society” can no longer control the “economic basis” than it can control the English language, or any other language; what is beautiful about a language, and what is dynamic about an economy, is that it is spontaneously ordered; as so, it can be destroyed, but it cannot be centrally planned.

Except in the case of the USSR, Japan, Korea, China…

LOL - what? These are perfect examples of destroyed enconomies, annhilated civil order, oppressed people, raped natural environments, etc.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]AdamDrew wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]

You obviously didn’t learn a thing from that video I posted. At no point in history has a “democracy” been a permanent form of government. It is more of a transitional phase that is not sustainable. I know exactly what you are trying to say, but you say “democracy” because everything we see or hear pertaining to our govt. has trained us to use that word. The founding fathers created the best form of government in the history of man at that point in time. They wrote the constitution after being abused by big govt, high taxes, overbearing religious institutions, and the bank of England. Sound familiar? The constitution has repeatedly been interpreted incorrectly and the wording has been stretched to fit issues as they arose. A lot would be resolved if we simply returned to the republic they set up. However, doing so would be equally as difficult as revamping the entire system with something new. I guarantee any new system would increase the powers of the federal govt exponentially. [/quote]

well the constitution was made to give the national goverment more power than it had under the confederation. The founding fathers wanted a stronger goverment because of the economic crisis in the 1780`s because of the dephts from the revolution, and because of shays rebellion. before they created the federation, the states had more power and the people had more influence. And the rich merchants in the north east disliked it, thats why they created a stronger national state. the common folks and the opposition was not happy about the idea of weaker regional states and a stronger national state. It was actually the opposition who demanded the bill of rights. So if you want a small goverment, look to the confederation, not the founding of the much more sentralized federation.

[/quote]

I can tell you’ve read Beard. However, you really need to balance your reading sir.

The powers of the new national governement were - and, theoreticaly at least, still are - enumerated; that means that the Federal governement was authorized only to do certain, specified, pre-defined things. Everything else was left to the States.

When the Federal Government acts within its mandated powers, we have the rule of law. That is the whole point of the Constitution - that we are a nation whose Federated Government is bound by the Rule of Law.

However, when it begins to use the Commerce Clause as an escape clause - and to consider the enumerated powers as suggestions followed by an “et cetera” - we started to veer off track into the arbitrary rule by men where now - unbound by the rule of law - the legislative and executive branches began to accrue increasing degrees power; in terms of function and size and the resources they wield.

We no longer live under a Government bound by the rule of law; we are, increasingly, living under a leviathan that is destroying what civil society remains, as well as the productive powers of its people; a leviathan that moreover sustains itself simply to sustain itself, by soaking up tax revenue, and thereby impoverishing the very people the leviathan purports to serve.

This is exactly what the Constitution was trying to prevent.

[/quote]

I have not read beard sir. I read it in a history book for university students. its called “out of many”.
This book did not say that the founding fathers gave the federalstate all powers, but more than the confederat state had. The federalstate became bigger because the society changed radically the first 80years of the federations existens. One historical event in the 1800`s affected the state a great deal: the civil war. Under the civil war, the lincon administration had to expand the federalstates powers to be able to win the war. After the war was over, the federal state did not give back its new powers to the states or the public.

[/quote]

There is a very influential Progressive History book by Beard called an Economic interpretation of the Constitution - and it purports to show how economic interests entirely shaped the Constitutional convention - i.e., that ideas of liberty had little if any play. It’s infected most textbooks including, it seems, the one your university uses.

It wasn’t “society” that changed - it is that the Federal government has progressively arrogated power for itself - which accelerated in the 20th Cent. This is, of course, what the whole Tea Pary movement is about. It’s not about “lower taxes,” or not fundaementally.

The point is - and this may be hard for a foriegner to understand - it’s not about how much power the Federal Government was granted via the Constitution; it’s that those powers were “enumerated.” Do you understand what that is and why it’s important?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

katzenjammer wrote:An emergent property in a social system is NOT independent from the actions, values and purposes of the persons in the social system. “Society” or anything emergent in this context is not a “thing” that exists with its own actions, values or purposes. Moreover, an emergent property is not subject to discrete analysis; nor can it be measured, or objectified; nor can it be consciously controlled, or shaped, or modified without the use of force. See definition of “Spontaneous Order.”

OK, but what’s your point? All of your equivocating does nothing to conceal the fact there is a society with interests sometimes at odds with that of an individual–at least under a capitalist system.

LOL - what? These are perfect examples of destroyed enconomies, annhilated civil order, oppressed people, raped natural environments, etc.

WTF are you talking about? The USSR and Japan were the fastest, greatest economic transformations in history. These countries, with varying degrees of government planning, all built impressive economies in record time precisely by disregarding the economic dogma that you peddle.

As for the other things you mention, I’m not sure why you think that we are free from those things? I guess just pretend if you want.

[florelius]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]AdamDrew wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]

You obviously didn’t learn a thing from that video I posted. At no point in history has a “democracy” been a permanent form of government. It is more of a transitional phase that is not sustainable. I know exactly what you are trying to say, but you say “democracy” because everything we see or hear pertaining to our govt. has trained us to use that word. The founding fathers created the best form of government in the history of man at that point in time. They wrote the constitution after being abused by big govt, high taxes, overbearing religious institutions, and the bank of England. Sound familiar? The constitution has repeatedly been interpreted incorrectly and the wording has been stretched to fit issues as they arose. A lot would be resolved if we simply returned to the republic they set up. However, doing so would be equally as difficult as revamping the entire system with something new. I guarantee any new system would increase the powers of the federal govt exponentially. [/quote]

well the constitution was made to give the national goverment more power than it had under the confederation. The founding fathers wanted a stronger goverment because of the economic crisis in the 1780`s because of the dephts from the revolution, and because of shays rebellion. before they created the federation, the states had more power and the people had more influence. And the rich merchants in the north east disliked it, thats why they created a stronger national state. the common folks and the opposition was not happy about the idea of weaker regional states and a stronger national state. It was actually the opposition who demanded the bill of rights. So if you want a small goverment, look to the confederation, not the founding of the much more sentralized federation.

[/quote]

I can tell you’ve read Beard. However, you really need to balance your reading sir.

The powers of the new national governement were - and, theoreticaly at least, still are - enumerated; that means that the Federal governement was authorized only to do certain, specified, pre-defined things. Everything else was left to the States.

When the Federal Government acts within its mandated powers, we have the rule of law. That is the whole point of the Constitution - that we are a nation whose Federated Government is bound by the Rule of Law.

However, when it begins to use the Commerce Clause as an escape clause - and to consider the enumerated powers as suggestions followed by an “et cetera” - we started to veer off track into the arbitrary rule by men where now - unbound by the rule of law - the legislative and executive branches began to accrue increasing degrees power; in terms of function and size and the resources they wield.

We no longer live under a Government bound by the rule of law; we are, increasingly, living under a leviathan that is destroying what civil society remains, as well as the productive powers of its people; a leviathan that moreover sustains itself simply to sustain itself, by soaking up tax revenue, and thereby impoverishing the very people the leviathan purports to serve.

This is exactly what the Constitution was trying to prevent.

[/quote]

I have not read beard sir. I read it in a history book for university students. its called “out of many”.
This book did not say that the founding fathers gave the federalstate all powers, but more than the confederat state had. The federalstate became bigger because the society changed radically the first 80years of the federations existens. One historical event in the 1800`s affected the state a great deal: the civil war. Under the civil war, the lincon administration had to expand the federalstates powers to be able to win the war. After the war was over, the federal state did not give back its new powers to the states or the public.

[/quote]

There is a very influential Progressive History book by Beard called an Economic interpretation of the Constitution - and it purports to show how economic interests entirely shaped the Constitutional convention - i.e., that ideas of liberty had little if any play. It’s infected most textbooks including, it seems, the one your university uses.

It wasn’t “society” that changed - it is that the Federal government has progressively arrogated power for itself - which accelerated in the 20th Cent. This is, of course, what the whole Tea Pary movement is about. It’s not about “lower taxes,” or not fundaementally.

The point is - and this may be hard for a foriegner to understand - it’s not about how much power the Federal Government was granted via the Constitution; it’s that those powers were “enumerated.” Do you understand what that is and why it’s important?

[/quote]

what does enumerated mean?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

Forgive him, florelius, he’s still under the impression that the Founding Fathers were saints, and truly had ideas of liberty in their hearts when they designed our government.

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:
it cant be proffesionel, it must be some form of militia composed of normal people and they shouldn not be soldiers of proffesion. A proffesionel army will most likely be a interrest group. The power lies with the gun, and therefor the people most have the gun so to speak.[/quote]

So what you are saying that the European hand gun bans are ridiculous and that we should have gun laws like most states in America?

I agree!

[orion]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Forgive him, florelius, he’s still under the impression that the Founding Fathers were saints, and truly had ideas of liberty in their hearts when they designed our government.[/quote]

Nonsense, they were smugglers, cut throats, slave holders and a bunch of bastards which is why they

a) defeated the English and

b) tried to make sure that noone would accumulate too much power in the system they created because unlike you they had no illusions whatsover about the nature of man, them being what they were.

[florelius]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Forgive him, florelius, he’s still under the impression that the Founding Fathers were saints, and truly had ideas of liberty in their hearts when they designed our government.[/quote]

well, they had ideas of liberty in their hearts when they designed your government, but
it was for themself haha.

but I do believe that jefferson was a man of ideals, he tried to abolish the slavery in his owne state
right after the revolution and his vision of a republic of small independent farmers is not an elitist idea.

but many others of the men who created the constitusion had one goal in mind, to keep most of the power and wealth away from the majority of the people, and that is elitist.

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
it cant be proffesionel, it must be some form of militia composed of normal people and they shouldn not be soldiers of proffesion. A proffesionel army will most likely be a interrest group. The power lies with the gun, and therefor the people most have the gun so to speak.[/quote]

So what you are saying that the European hand gun bans are ridiculous and that we should have gun laws like most states in America?

I agree!

[/quote]

we had a discussion about the military after the revolution, but know you discuss gun policy in our
capitalist system.

but I shall try to answer. I think that there are good pro-gun arguments and good anti-gun arguments
so I have not made up my mind about it. Its the same with the cannabis debate for my part.

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
it cant be proffesionel, it must be some form of militia composed of normal people and they shouldn not be soldiers of proffesion. A proffesionel army will most likely be a interrest group. The power lies with the gun, and therefor the people most have the gun so to speak.[/quote]

So what you are saying that the European hand gun bans are ridiculous and that we should have gun laws like most states in America?

I agree!

[/quote]

we had a discussion about the military after the revolution, but know you discuss gun policy in our
capitalist system.

but I shall try to answer. I think that there are good pro-gun arguments and good anti-gun arguments
so I have not made up my mind about it. Its the same with the cannabis debate for my part.
[/quote]

So “the people” must have guns to be free, but you are not quite sure you want them to have guns?

Where do you think a militia keeps its guns?

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
it cant be proffesionel, it must be some form of militia composed of normal people and they shouldn not be soldiers of proffesion. A proffesionel army will most likely be a interrest group. The power lies with the gun, and therefor the people most have the gun so to speak.[/quote]

So what you are saying that the European hand gun bans are ridiculous and that we should have gun laws like most states in America?

I agree!

[/quote]

we had a discussion about the military after the revolution, but know you discuss gun policy in our
capitalist system.

but I shall try to answer. I think that there are good pro-gun arguments and good anti-gun arguments
so I have not made up my mind about it. Its the same with the cannabis debate for my part.
[/quote]

So “the people” must have guns to be free, but you are not quite sure you want them to have guns?

Where do you think a militia keeps its guns?

[/quote]

the guns are common property in a socialist society.

but if people should have guns in todays capitalist europa, thats a matter I dont have made up my mind about.

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
it cant be proffesionel, it must be some form of militia composed of normal people and they shouldn not be soldiers of proffesion. A proffesionel army will most likely be a interrest group. The power lies with the gun, and therefor the people most have the gun so to speak.[/quote]

So what you are saying that the European hand gun bans are ridiculous and that we should have gun laws like most states in America?

I agree!

[/quote]

we had a discussion about the military after the revolution, but know you discuss gun policy in our
capitalist system.

but I shall try to answer. I think that there are good pro-gun arguments and good anti-gun arguments
so I have not made up my mind about it. Its the same with the cannabis debate for my part.
[/quote]

So “the people” must have guns to be free, but you are not quite sure you want them to have guns?

Where do you think a militia keeps its guns?

[/quote]

the guns are common property in a socialist society.

but if people should have guns in todays capitalist europa, thats a matter I dont have made up my mind about.[/quote]

Where is the difference?

Either they have guns or they dont.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

orion wrote:b) tried to make sure that noone would accumulate too much power in the system they created because unlike you they had no illusions whatsover about the nature of man, them being what they were.

They tried to make sure no one accumulated power other than the people who already had it–themselves.

Another staggering misreading of history. Thanks very much.

[orion]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

orion wrote:b) tried to make sure that noone would accumulate too much power in the system they created because unlike you they had no illusions whatsover about the nature of man, them being what they were.

They tried to make sure no one accumulated power other than the people who already had it–themselves.

Another staggering misreading of history. Thanks very much.
[/quote]

The US constitution is about 20 pages or so.

I suggest you read it.

But, even if you were right, which you are not, do you realize how very little power over other people (read other land owning white men) they actually wanted to have?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

Again, you demonstrate the short-sightedness so necessary to be a libertarian. They may not have wanted much power over other land-owning white men, but this constituted a small part of society, the bulk of which they were perfectly content to keep in servitude. The classic liberals railed against slavery except where it actually existed, just as you now rail against exploitation except where it actually exists.

[orion]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Again, you demonstrate the short-sightedness so necessary to be a libertarian. They may not have wanted much power over other land-owning white men, but this constituted a small part of society, the bulk of which they were perfectly content to keep in servitude. The classic liberals railed against slavery except where it actually existed, just as you now rail against exploitation except where it actually exists.

[/quote]

Again, you show the shortsightendness of Hitler loving vegans, in that you fail to realize that their promise was universal and was kept in full over time?

They were politiocians that did what was possible given what they had to work with but do you really think that the Declaration of Independance was something that Jefferson just winged after a drunken night at the local strip club?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

Their promise? Care to elaborate? I am aware of no promises, other than that colonial leaders would be free to exploit the people without interference from the British. Are you so easily fooled by flowery language?

[jp_dubya]

can you to PM each other?
What’s the point of a one to one in the open?

[Eli_B]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Alffi wrote:
He’s no more black than white yet he signed himself as being black even when given the option of multi-racial. Or more spefically, african-american. Unless he was born in Africa as some claim, what’s so dominantly african about him? American whites don’t call themselves european-american. It almost reads like an admission to the birth certificate crowd. Just like when Michelle Obama referred to Kenya as Obama’s “home country”.[/quote]

Alffi, you are just a racist. Do you Fins have a Tea Party rally going on or somehting? :)[/quote]

Why are you smiley facing the guy? He is actually a racist.