ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The Conservative/Libertarian appreciation thread

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:49 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:27 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 1:14 pm

>

>and it's a logical fallacy to think he is a communist simply because he got it. For example, white power groups tend to endorse far-right candidates. So, if I therefore concluded Ron Paul is a klansman, that would be about equal to your conclusion that Obama is a Socialist.
Again, wrong.  It's because of Obama's policies that he's socialist/marxist/communist and supported by those groups.  Just because the MESSiah doesn't use the title doesn't mean he doesn't support it.  Remember, he was taught those principles all his life and he's never stood up against them.  Obama's own mentor was a member of the Communist Party.  Read Obama's own books - he sought out anti-American / anti-Liberty people to learn from.  He talked about America's "bourgeois" socienty, which he was "resisting."  Look at Obama's policies - they align with the CPUSA.

Ron Paul supported by the KKK??!?!?!  They are far left, and historically filled by members and leaders of the democrats - very much the antithesis of Ron Paul.


That is looney.


Firstly, the Democrats are not leftists. The Democrats happen to occupy the rhetoric that is somewhat to the left of that of the far-right Republican Party. But that occurs in the very narrow spectrum of mainstream American politics; that doesn't make them true leftists. Throghout much of Europe, the Democrats would be seen as a part of the far right. And nieither are the KKK left; they are far right. 


One last for a while: I will go with capitalism is an outgrowth on liberty, but not an outgrowth of liberty. It's more like a wart.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:52 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:36 pm

>Again, to the other responder: With each generation the capitalist system becomes increasingly constraining as resources become harder to come by. Moreover, it is a system that requires unlimited growth, meanwhile resources are limited. It is a system with problems.
Ah yea... the fear teaching of "scarcity"....  The "experts" have been saying for years and years that we'd run out of X resource.... but are never right.   But let's say that some X resource does run out... that doesn't mean everything stops - something new takes its place.  That's capitalism - new creative ideas to meet the needs of others.


 


And as the universe appears to be unlimited, I'd say we have quite a long way to go before we run out of resources.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:57 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:49 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:27 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 1:14 pm

>

>

>and it's a logical fallacy to think he is a communist simply because he got it. For example, white power groups tend to endorse far-right candidates. So, if I therefore concluded Ron Paul is a klansman, that would be about equal to your conclusion that Obama is a Socialist.
Again, wrong.  It's because of Obama's policies that he's socialist/marxist/communist and supported by those groups.  Just because the MESSiah doesn't use the title doesn't mean he doesn't support it.  Remember, he was taught those principles all his life and he's never stood up against them.  Obama's own mentor was a member of the Communist Party.  Read Obama's own books - he sought out anti-American / anti-Liberty people to learn from.  He talked about America's "bourgeois" socienty, which he was "resisting."  Look at Obama's policies - they align with the CPUSA.

Ron Paul supported by the KKK??!?!?!  They are far left, and historically filled by members and leaders of the democrats - very much the antithesis of Ron Paul.

That is looney.

Firstly, the Democrats are not leftists. The Democrats happen to occupy the rhetoric that is somewhat to the left of that of the far-right Republican Party. But that occurs in the very narrow spectrum of mainstream American politics; that doesn't make them true leftists. Throghout much of Europe, the Democrats would be seen as a part of the far right. And nieither are the KKK left; they are far right. 

One last for a while: I will go with capitalism is an outgrowth on liberty, but not an outgrowth of liberty. It's more like a wart.

What's looney?  Using Obama's own words?


In American politics, we look at left as big government and right as small government:


 


Now if you still consider the democrats "right", then that shows how far left you are.  Of course, that's your right to think that way, but it does explain your views of being anti-liberty.


 


In Europe, the Communists were on the left and the Statists were on the right - both support big government.  It's a lose-lose situation.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 2:59 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:49 pm

>And nieither are the KKK left; they are far right.
Not in the USA, they're not.  They believe in subjugating others.  They were an outgrowth of people fighting against liberty.  They would go around murdering people.  That's not the right in the USA.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 3:00 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:49 pm

>One last for a while: I will go with capitalism is an outgrowth on liberty, but not an outgrowth of liberty. It's more like a wart.
You're free to move to Cuba or China or North Korea or other totalitarian country.

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 24 2013, 8:30 pm

@ FleetAdmiral_BamBam:


Listen. I'm not mad at you. But you need to take a look at the history behind how World War II developed, and absolutely include the Spanish Civil War and the reasons behind Italy's early involvement in World War II. The reason why I suggest you do is because you are getting snowed hardcore by very simple propaganda. Just do that and come back to me and tell me if your chart still makes sense, or whether or not your persective has been changed. I think you'll find the history interesting, regardless; it was an exciting time.


I'll leave it at that.


Why would I move to Cuba, China or North Korea? I dislike that stuff about as much as I dislike capitalism.  Moreovoer, I'm an American. I have nothing against the landscape; it's the government I dislike. What if I told you to move to Somalia so you could have your system?

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 1:32 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:48 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:36 pm

>

>As for your response that women have equal rights [already], the CPA would not only oppose outright attempts to strip women of equal rights directly, but they would also oppose all attempts to undermine or subvert those rights by indirect methods.
Saying that the CPUSA supports equal rights doesn't give them any legitimacy.  They could use the same argument saying equal rights for all.... it's still bogus as they're against my rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness because they conflict with their goals.

And who's trying to take away women's rights?  I have yet to see anyone doing this.


Chances are you were too busy trying to redefine rape or something to notice it, but apparently there are some things that tend to make American women apprehensive about voting for far-right candidates. I know all the good fellers are on the right, so anything bad must therefore be left, but you might want to ask a few women and see what they say.

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 1:52 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 24 2013, 10:47 am

>

>Private property is a descriptor of the private sector, which encompasses resources singularly owned or owned by a voluntary cooperative. Private property is simply an outgrowth of natural rights. The cup, private property, sitting on my desk was ultimately obtained from the tradeable labor of my body. It is proof of my previous labor. The existence of private property, and by extension the outgrowth of contracts, permit proof of trade and voluntary associations that guard against theft and slavery.

>You're confusing private property with  the use of first-strike force. Private property does not invoke the necessity of first-strike force against others, as the potential for trade exists. Quite the contrary, private property invokes concrete barriers among individuals who may otherwise transgress upon their fellows in a context of abstractual collective ownership where multiple claims exist upon a single resource.

>As I wrote earlier, this is inconsistent. It means property rights work in the opposite way that all our other rights work. If we were born simultaneously and then had to compete it might be one thing for you to say "I noticed this lake first, therefore it's my lake," but what about those born after us? Do they not have the same right to the Earth as we do? How can they compete for ownership of your lake if its ownership is already decided? Private property is a form of theft. It differs from personal property.

>If less social mobility exists in the U.S., it is because the U.S. has propped up those socially democratic nations through the redistribution of wealth (fractional reserve banking, bailouts, foreign aid, etc...) at the expense of enslaving U.S. citizens.

>Capitalism is increasingly constraining as resources become increasingly scarce. There is no way for subsequent generations to be as prosperous as those which went before once ownership of principal resources is already decided. Simply put, capitalism is a system dependent on unlimeted growth, meanwhile resources are limited.

>Little basis for that in the 19th Century. The U.S. has grown imperialistic over the 20th and 21st Centuries. But then the U.S. has the unconstitional Federal Reserve and its fractional reserve banking policies that permitted imperialist expansion.

>Unless you happen to count slavery, genocide of the natives, and such, little basis for that in the 19th century...

>Anarchism, at least Anarcho-Capitalism, doesn't advocate the absense of capital and private property... just government as a regulator.

>Anarcho-Cap is one type of anarchism, but it's an inconsistent form of anarchism. The only way to achieve self-governance is through the destruction of the hierarchical structure imposed by the existence of capital.

>How would you get rid of Federal and State Governments without violence, as Libertarianism adheres to the non-aggression principle and the negating of first-strike force? 

>You begin by forming a participatory democracy in the form of a cooperative and you form networks. That's if you meant left libertarianism. However, if you meant right libertarianism, then I'm not sure you could do that and stay here, because it is dependent upon capital and in order for it to be realized the market has to be left alone. I don't see that happening here.  You would need a voluntary group, an island of your own or the like, the ability to print your own money. And really, to me, that's when to experiment with laisez-faire capitalism, when it's your life on the line. 

>

>

T'Paul

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 75

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 5:15 am

[quote]


2.) The self-labeled term of "Progressive" is a narcissitic misnomer. However, I am willing to compromise on this point and offer a Constitutionally-based objective term: traitor? A bit too vague, but applicable.


It is no more narcissitic or a misnomer than the term "libertarian." Honestly, had the few in those early communist groups in the US only been responsible for contributing to the early women's suffrage movement, they would already be able to list more accomplishments in the way of liberation than all the suposed "libertarians" put together. 


It's important to understand "progressive" in the John Dewey sense, otherwise it means nothing. It just means someone who constantly engages in critical thinking.


Hoover deregulated the market only marginally. He still favored government intervention and encouraged Unionization, which hindered economic growth. He also expanded the Federal Reserve's ability to engage in fractional reserve banking or counterfeiting. Counterfeiting creates false indicators in the market and encourages the creation of bubbles that eventually burst.


Granted that unions have become  impotent since they were co-opted by the Democrats, but they did much more to fix the economy than did the Hoover doctrine, which was to impose austerity in a time of recession. The problem with "set it and forget it" style capitalism is that capitalism fails almost instantly and when lots of people are living on the streets with their families as a result, they tend to think of ways to fix it instead of just letting things play out for the sake of experimentation.


No. The progressives continued to expand government beyond its Constitutional limits, thereby creating more government to be infilitrated and increasing the likelihood that it would be infiltrated. It's analogous to a pizza and additional toppings where the pizza is government and the additional toppings are infiltrators. The smaller the pizza, the less room for additional toppings; the greater the pizza, the more room for additional toppings.  


What I'm talking about, for example, is that you can actually verify the matter. Roosevelt was an afluent man, for example. And when he was in office, there were several meetings over what needed to be done for the economy, and things were said. Literally, a large part of the "New Deal" was done to keep the working class happy enough to keep the rich, rich.


We've never had an established socialist phase, a period of state capitalism, which attempts to transition to communism. Albeit, what we have indeed could be compared to state capitalism with all the bailouts.


How is it a "BS" answer? The analysis is based on sound economics. And if one doesn't believe in voluntary associations, than the only alternative left is slavery. And who is devolving the conversation into immaturity with the introduction of profanity?


Haha. Well, if you like, BS is actually a technical term being used by fairly prominent philosophers lately. However, assigning a name to a group of people for some derogatory purpose is still immature. 




3.) During Lincoln's time, the Republicans were the more liberal party, as opposed to the Democrats who were then conservative. The moniker changed when Woodrow Wilson reorganized the Democratic Party to such an extent that he made the Republican Party look conservative only in comparison. 


Lincoln has no credibility. Lincoln, following in the footsteps of South American dictators, rallied against slavery only as a political ruse to gain power. Many White Northerners only wanted slavery to end because slavery monopolized jobs for blacks that whites might otherwise have access to in their place. Slavery was to be ended, not for the benefit of blacks, but for whites to displace blacks in the job market. And this was largely what happened during Reconstruction. 


As to wage labor being equatable to slavery... The Lincoln Administration engaged in fractional reserve banking (the Greenback?)... that is to say counterfeiting... which is yet another form of theft and slavery. Fractional reserve banking expands the money supply artificially and leads to higher prices of commodity goods and services.  Instead of gaining purchasing power under a gold standard, where even low wage earners may benefit, all wage earners lose purchasing power under fractional reserve banking. Lincoln was a hypocrit. 


That doesn't change wage slavery or wage labor from what it is.


A single-payer system is not compatible with natural rights even by your standards. You claimed earlier: you have a right to privacy until the job you are applying to demands a genetic screening. This happens to a greater degree when the -- central authority/the government/the single-payer system -- is granted a monopoly. Because no competition exists, potential employees don't have anywhere else to go if they don't like the employer's demands. Your descriptors of slavery become maximized under a single-payer system.  But in a free-market, where multiple employers compete against one another for employees, the employee has many different options for business standards, thereby encouraging potential employers to be as non-invasive as possible.


Also, it's in the interest of business to comply with natural rights.  Employees simultaneously play the part of consumers. If an employee doesn't consume their own product, that doesn't bode well for the business. 


I claim I have a right to privacy regardless of whether the job I apply for demands a health screening. It's obviously a flawed relationship that would require such, especially when, for example, different racial groups and men and women have slightly different health concerns.


6.) Oh are they? So the idea that personhood only includes white males is somehow less perverted? 


The high standards to which I refer the Founding Fathers having are in accordance with sound money, private property, and voluntary associations. It is the modern predilection for fractional reserve banking (counterfeiting) under the euphamism of Central Banking, which perpetuates theft and slavery, that I refer to as perverted.


I have previously gone on record as having opposed the bipartianship that led to the weaker aspects of the Constitution, most notably the political expediencies of the Fugitive Slave Clause and the contradictory permittance of slavery within a Union whose aim was to maximize liberty. The Founding Fathers should have either waited to Unionize until the North and South worked out their economic differences... or Lincoln should've let the South secede in peace, as Buchanon permitted, until the South peacefully ended slavery and would be drawn back into the Union voluntarily for the same motivations that drew them to Unionize in the first place.


I am just glad that I am not the one who feels a need to somehow defend a culture of genocide and slavery.


[/quote]

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 5:15 am

 Re: Bambam


 


http://gifwall.net/gif/LOL.gif


Ah, trolls.


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 10:20 am

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 8:30 pm

>

>@ FleetAdmiral_BamBam:

>Listen. I'm not mad at you. But you need to take a look at the history behind how World War II developed, and absolutely include the Spanish Civil War and the reasons behind Italy's early involvement in World War II. The reason why I suggest you do is because you are getting snowed hardcore by very simple propaganda. Just do that and come back to me and tell me if your chart still makes sense, or whether or not your persective has been changed. I think you'll find the history interesting, regardless; it was an exciting time.

>
If you've been here a while, you'd know teach history (guest lecturer) at a some colleges.  I could go on and on about how the USA drove Germany into debt (WWI) resulting in hyperinflation which got people to want someone to promise them better times (Hitler.)  I could go on and on about all those... But then I'd be referencing actual history and not the crap the "gubmunt edewkayshun & indoctrunayshun cystduuhhmm" spews.


 


At least some people learn from history.... others prefer to repeat the same mistakes.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 10:24 am

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 8:30 pm

>Why would I move to Cuba, China or North Korea? I dislike that stuff about as much as I dislike capitalism.  Moreovoer, I'm an American. I have nothing against the landscape; it's the government I dislike. What if I told you to move to Somalia so you could have your system?
So you dislike tyranny as much as freedom?  That makes no sense.


And Somalia doesn't have the system I want - the warlords prefer tyranny, not liberty.


 


I'd suggest that you read the writings of our founding fathers and look at exactly why our Republic was created the way it was.


 


Also, http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/ is a good primer on different forms of governments.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 10:30 am

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 25 2013, 1:32 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:48 pm

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 24 2013, 2:36 pm

>

>

>As for your response that women have equal rights [already], the CPA would not only oppose outright attempts to strip women of equal rights directly, but they would also oppose all attempts to undermine or subvert those rights by indirect methods.
Saying that the CPUSA supports equal rights doesn't give them any legitimacy.  They could use the same argument saying equal rights for all.... it's still bogus as they're against my rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness because they conflict with their goals.

And who's trying to take away women's rights?  I have yet to see anyone doing this.

Chances are you were too busy trying to redefine rape or something to notice it, but apparently there are some things that tend to make American women apprehensive about voting for far-right candidates. I know all the good fellers are on the right, so anything bad must therefore be left, but you might want to ask a few women and see what they say.

Huh???  You mean like the ProRegressives telling women that a "safe zone" protects women and they don't deserve their Constitutional right to protect themselves?   Wrong again T'Paul, you're confusing an individual harming another with society taking away the rights of people.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 10:36 am

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 25 2013, 5:15 am

>Granted that unions have become  impotent since they were co-opted by the Democrats,
Look it up... unions were created by democrats as a way to protect "white" laborers from competition (usually asians & blacks.)

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 10:44 am

Quote: T'Paul @ Mar. 25 2013, 1:52 am

>You begin by forming a participatory democracy in the form of a cooperative and you form networks. That's if you meant left libertarianism. However, if you meant right libertarianism, then I'm not sure you could do that and stay here, because it is dependent upon capital and in order for it to be realized the market has to be left alone. I don't see that happening here.  You would need a voluntary group, an island of your own or the like, the ability to print your own money. And really, to me, that's when to experiment with laisez-faire capitalism, when it's your life on the line. 
This is already being worked on via "Seasteading."

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: King B IX

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum