That's no excuse! You need to check your remarks before you start hurling out attacks! Accusing me of things I never said is pretty low, especially considering how up in arms you got! If you can't take the time to check before you start attacking people, you might as well just stop attacking people!
See, but you misunderstand my 'attack' ... it's more a dose of reality... if you are implicitly calling the constitution 'kooky' a 'relic', a 'goddamned piece of paper' then you by proxy DO NOT believe in the freedoms that the constitution is meant to guard... and so, instead of changing what is good about america, do all freedom loving americans and go to a country where they've already implemented the same programs... you'd be more comfortable there and I could keep my country free. It's a win-win.
Bull. It was specifically targeted at me, several times.
Ok, well, looking back over my 'attacks' they were hardly 'attacks' even... the points that seemed more attacks were suggestions or analogous statements.
The only real 'attack' was on my assumption that you are a drone repeating the message you saw from the MSM.
Says you. You just find it easier to think people are sheeple who are spoon-fed by the media than maybe just trying to accept that fact that rational, thinking people disagree with you. It's a problem endemic to libertarians, the inability to accept that thinking, rational people disagree with them.
It's just the FACT of the situation... the majority of people get the majority of their information strictly from mainstream sources (tv and internet mostly)... and the mainstream is constantly framing the debate to suit their agenda, and alter the thought patterns of the general public. So, while a free-thinking person might prefer socialist / communist values should look to history of those values and see how the 'good' that comes of it frequently becomes a tyrannical system of control over the people.
A free thinking person would be able to take in the new information so that they could alter their beliefs in order to find a means of protecting the people within this 'socialization' , or accept that a 'socialist' program is too easily corruptible and that a free-market republic offers the best production and the best protections for the people that make up the country.
Also, when using blanket statements where you address the argument as a whole I can apply that argument to each statement I made... since I was forced to interpret your views from one sentance, don't be mad that the interpretation wasn't your intention.
But it's still generally the best place to get the facts, as major media outfits are the ones that are actually going to send out reporters.
Yes and no... I could probably find a few examples where the news would overstate or understate the numbers and only give the real numbers at the foot end of the article showing that they used misleading terms to describe the situation.... Hell, I even saw one newscast where it was announced that 2 studies have determined that injecting your baby with mercury containing vaccines would HELP brain development... YES, mercury now HELPS brain development.
The news is only as accurate as it doesn't infringe on the advertisers needs...
I love how I ask you to retract an insult (that I was being spoon-fed by the media), and you put another insult into your post. And libertarians wonder why people are so mean to them.
That's not an insult... it's an observation. This is a black and white issue to me... if you oppose the constitution and work against it, I have no qualms in pointing out that you are what the founding fathers would have called a 'domestic enemy'... that's pretty well where the line in the sand will be drawn.
Let's say I decided to pass some sort of health-care amendment, giving the federal government permission to institute health-care reforms. I suspect not, and that goes on to showcase my point. Many times when libertarians bring up the constitution, it seems that they're just doing it because it helps their aims, not so much because they're so amazingly worried about staying to the letter.
Now, if you decided to pass an ammendment to health-care where access to emergency and NECESSARY treatment was a guaranteed right, but where the shift was on 'prevention' (I mean living healthy, not vaccinations)then 'treatments'... but that anything above and beyond was up to the individual to pay... I might support that... IF IT WERE INSTITUTED by the individual states.
So, the only real concerns for the federal government is protecting the borders, collecting and distributing taxes. I might have missed a thing or two, but everything that's not mentioned in the constitution as a 'federal' concern is the concern of the individual states, or the people.
I find it ironic that you bring those up, which are all amendments:roll:
Well, if your changes do NOT interfere with the other ammendments then I would look at it and potentially support it...
and who is to determine the best interest of the people?
This one falls on the american people to be certain that they are voting in representatives that truly represent their interests and removing them from office if they are acting otherwise. On this one, the majority of people have failed cause they are more interested in the big game then in being politically active. (to keep it simple)
Wait, are you still trying to suggest I've been brainwashed by the media here?
You misread what I wrote there... I wasn't saying that you were brainwashed by the media... just pointing out that you are parroting media talking points.
I think you have it backwards. it isn't that people have beliefs because the party has those beliefs, its that the party has beliefs because its members have those beliefs.
Maybe initially... but the democrats are typically the 'anti-war' party... but now, they are the party that shuffles the numbers to make a surge look like a retraction of troops, just to cite one example of how the shift in party values has shifted the values of many of it's followers.
How much did your guy get in the last election? Can you at least agree that calling it a fringe belief if very few people buy the whole of it?
That depends... according to the polls Ron Paul won just about every primary debate... but the media claimed it was a 'hacked' survey where 1-2 people were voting repeatedly.
That's the point... you can have whatever beliefs you want... so long as you're acting within the bounds of the constitution and the natural / god given rights of the people.
Look, calling libertarians 'fringe' may be accurate it's becoming less and less fringe by the day, but it's not an insult... calling them 'kooky' and 'crazy' without justification is really just an attempt to stifle debate.
And yes, people have some issues they agree with you on, but then you also have to consider the huge bulk of things like isolationism
Actually, globalism and free trade have essentially been forced on the public with the debate being media sales pitches as to how it would improve the economy... now that most of our production has been shipped overseas, people are probably able to figure out that they would have been better off just trading the products rather then selling the production line.
and the gold standard, that you're very much alone on.
We should never have left the gold standard... however, the economy is too far gone to make gold a viable standard. At this point the only thing that needs to be 'federalized' is the federal reserve, so that congress to regain control of the issuance of currency so that we aren't stuck paying interest on every dollar the current federal reserve lends to the government.
I call complete bull here. And here's an amazing thought, why don't you not get insulting at all!
Once again you misread what I said... I ATTEMPT to avoid insulting people, sometimes I do get carried away, but that's only human.
Whats your evidence for this?
- Pre-emptive war strategy
- millitarization of police
- patriot act (and reauthorization)
- end of posse comatatis
- warrantless wiretapping
- bailouts
and so on... don't make me link every one of these... you'd have to be living under a rock to not be aware of these.
And you don't defend yours with the same religious zeal?
Yes, yes, I do... although I'm aware of it, also why I try to avoid getting insulting.
That would be completely unworkable and unmanageable.
How so?? This way you would avoid settling on a president that think's there's 57 states 'and 2 more to go'.
I know that the vote counters have a hard time counting ballots for 2 candidates properly, but the point was we need to focus our politics on individual issues, rather then parties and leaders.
