Enough With The Finger Pointing

[tererun]

1.
Huh?? The whole ideal of Libertarianism is BECAUSE people are corrupt and greedy, particularly those in power. The ideals of Libertarianism keep the government in check, and stop them from overstepping their bounds and oppressing the American freedom.

yes, but government is what keeps us safe from another huge and horrible power called corporations. In a capitalist society money wields power. To ignore the reality that money has no moral values and does not care is to invite things like slavery, the great depression, our last recession, crime and prohibition, and all sorts of bad but effective parts of the human system. This is why libertarianism works better as an ideal that we can incorporate into our philosophy and derive a balance and argue over rather than a pure form of government.

2.
That's why Libertarianism thrives. I don't understand why when somebody becomes a part of the government, they go from a person to a deity. The people in the government are just as imperfect as the citizens of that government. In fact, ever more so because they become corrupted by the power.

3.

What I am talking about here is political philosophy, and confused is probably a good place to be. It means you are trying to look at something that is complex, sometimes completely illogical, and actually very important to our functioning as a society. I am not one of those people who just says libertarians are a bunch of wackos. I had to consider it for a long time until I realized there simply is no removing the despicable nature from mankind. because of this anything which gains power over people needs to be constantly checked and chipped away at because the power will conglomerate around itself. It is confusing. It is really hard to come up with a good system. I do not think the american system is terrible, just that we seem to be outgrowing it. The world societies are more elegant and matured while still retaining their primal values so we need a much more robust law system. You are absolutely right that system should hold liberties in high regard and seek to protect the people from the state and put the state at a disadvantage when dealing with a person. I am just waiting for people to wake up and see that what they want is not a new person, but5 a new government. I am also pretty sure this government has to be implemented voluntarily for the most part. People will have to see it and see it is good. I may not see it in my lifetime, but i think that there is a possibility we will actually accomplish it. I am also aware there is a possibility we might melt ourselves into puddles of ooze too.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Hm. Romney and McCain were both relatively moderate. Don't really see that that worked out too well. :shrug:

Considering that the true conservatives lost the primary, it is not that surprising.

 

[ChrisL]

yes, but government is what keeps us safe from another huge and horrible power called corporations. In a capitalist society money wields power. To ignore the reality that money has no moral values and does not care is to invite things like slavery, the great depression, our last recession, crime and prohibition, and all sorts of bad but effective parts of the human system. This is why libertarianism works better as an ideal that we can incorporate into our philosophy and derive a balance and argue over rather than a pure form of government.


What I am talking about here is political philosophy, and confused is probably a good place to be. It means you are trying to look at something that is complex, sometimes completely illogical, and actually very important to our functioning as a society. I am not one of those people who just says libertarians are a bunch of wackos. I had to consider it for a long time until I realized there simply is no removing the despicable nature from mankind. because of this anything which gains power over people needs to be constantly checked and chipped away at because the power will conglomerate around itself. It is confusing. It is really hard to come up with a good system. I do not think the american system is terrible, just that we seem to be outgrowing it. The world societies are more elegant and matured while still retaining their primal values so we need a much more robust law system. You are absolutely right that system should hold liberties in high regard and seek to protect the people from the state and put the state at a disadvantage when dealing with a person. I am just waiting for people to wake up and see that what they want is not a new person, but5 a new government. I am also pretty sure this government has to be implemented voluntarily for the most part. People will have to see it and see it is good. I may not see it in my lifetime, but i think that there is a possibility we will actually accomplish it. I am also aware there is a possibility we might melt ourselves into puddles of ooze too.

I have just one comment. It's quite obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that the government is in bed with corporations, both parties. IMO, the government is a MUCH more scary entity than any corporation. Corporation are consumer dependent.

 

[John Liberty]

Well, I assume you are capable of reading english, and that I do not need to say it louder because I can't do that through this medium so I guess i have to ask what was confusing. You need to stop playing the exact same blame game they do. It is not the blame that is the problem. The fact someone is at fault is part of the situation, so there is proper blame. The reason the finger pointing is bad is because they are all doing wrong and pointing at the other guy while they all actually work together and make things happen. The dems say the banking failure was caused by lack of regulation and republican greed. the republicans say that the failure is due to liberal policies and democrat greed. When you look at the word liberal it means free or accepting. When you see that it makes both arguments the exact same thing, and they are actually both true because both sides were liberal and deregulated the banking industry to allow their friends to make a ****ton of money. believe me, good old boy rand paul is a player in that game just like every other person you mentioned. This goes beyond who to elect, and comes down more to a reality there is a fundamental flaw in the system that will allow this to keep happening over time because even if you get a good person the corruption will take hold and take them out.

1).

Well, I assume you are capable of reading english, and that I do not need to say it louder because I can't do that through this medium

Oh I read the words, even if they didn't make an ounce of sense.

2).

because both sides were liberal

:lamo

3).

believe me, good old boy rand paul is a player in that game just like every other person you mentioned.

What's your big issue with Rand Paul? How about you give me some sources to back up all the trash talk you're slinging in almost every single thread I post(even the ones where I don't mention him). Is it a troll tactic or are you actually serious?

4).

allow this to keep happening over time because even if you get a good person the corruption will take hold and take them out.

So your one of those people that think it's hopeless anyway, so why bother trying? I see...

 

[Montecresto]

Roberts and Alito are far better justices than Kagan and Sotomayor

Roberts was anti ACA until, through the information the Obama administration derived from the illegal NSA spying program was presented to him, then he made a last minute about face. See the danger of blackmail in the NSA program?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Enough with the finger pointing guys. The truth is life under the Obama administration has been almost identical to life under the Bush administration with the slight difference that we actually have a better idea of what's going on(thanks to people like Manning and Snowden).

I find it actually slightly amusing that Liberals who were up in arms about drone strikes during the Bush presidency are now saying things like "Obama is doing it to protect our freedoms".

On the flip side when Republicans that are screaming for Obama's head about these drone strikes and the NDAA are confronted about Bush doing similar things during his presidency, they lower their head and mumble something about Bush using fewer drone strikes than Obama.

I think that things in this country are not going to get any better until we all stop pointing fingers at the other parties. There are good people in the Republican party(i.e. Rand Paul) and bad people in the Republican party(i.e. John McCain). There are also good people in the Democratic party(i.e. Rep Timothy J. Penny) and bad people in the Democratic party (i.e. President Obama). Party doesn't make the man, policy does. Until people start getting that concept, things in this country are not going to get any better.

Now I realize that calling both parties out on their crap is not going to make me a very popular person, I am expecting the rage comments to begin brewing almost as soon as I post this...but it is something that needs to be said.

1. I wouldn't say identical at all, but I imagine from a libertarian perspective, it could seem that way. I think claims that both terms are "identical" are both simplistic and hyperbolic which is an interesting combination.

2. I don't get the impression that many liberals justify Obama's use of drones. In fact, most of the liberals I know are very vocal about their disapproval and criticism of Obama's drone program is pervasive on liberal sites. I see a lot of libertarians and conservatives claim that liberals are being hypocritical when it comes to Obama, but that's not my impression as many liberals seem to be quite fed up with the President.

3. While I agree that "pointing fingers" is not, in itself, a solution as problems exist within the parties many of us tend to support, I don't agree with your list of "good people" and "bad people" when it comes to politics. I'm a liberal. My problem is that Obama and the Democratic Party aren't sticking to liberal principles. Therefore, I'm not that interested in people like Ron Paul or John McCain or anyone on the right. I'm interested in the Democratic Party becoming more liberal and having the will and integrity to implement liberal policies instead of the centrist **** Obama came up with.

 

[Goshin]

Considering that the true conservatives lost the primary, it is not that surprising.

Well, in a sense you'd think it would be otherwise. If the party base (it is typically the party devout that vote in primaries, mostly) voted for moderate candidates, why didn't they (DID they?) turn out in force to support those moderate candidates in the general election?

Or perhaps they did and just lost anyway.

In any case, that strategy, of selecting the most moderate, mild, bland, vanilla, uninteresting, as-close-to-free-from-controversy candidate as possible, does not seem to be working out for the GOP in presidential elections.


I'm not saying they need to put up an ultra-conservative... that isn't going to fly in modern America either... but the current strategy of trying to avoid the typical media crucifixion by selecting a candidate who is about as interesting as dry toast and yogurt ain't working out for them too well.

 

[Montecresto]

please show us how much public debt this country ran before the 16th amendment
so you side with me Yes we Can borrow and print like a teenaged girl with her Daddy's credit card
without consequence

Angry, your funny. You should be FunnyOldGuy!

 

[tererun]

I have just one comment. It's quite obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that the government is in bed with corporations, both parties. IMO, the government is a MUCH more scary entity than any corporation. Corporation are consumer dependent.

I view that as competing lovers in the case of america. Which is not good for the people.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

yeah first McCain then Obamney as the candidate, no one wants to admit it but the re-election of Hussien Obama
was the end, there's no turning back now It doesn't matter what the GOP does the time for ballots is past.

 

[Goshin]

I have just one comment. It's quite obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that the government is in bed with corporations, both parties. IMO, the government is a MUCH more scary entity than any corporation. Corporation are consumer dependent.

Yes, and no. When corps get big enough and their consumer base broad enough, and their wealth and power reach certain levels, they can engage in a lot of propaganda as well as big-money lobbying. At that point, consumer anger bringing them down becomes improbable. Also, most Americans just buy whatever they want at the best price they can get and pay little attention to what the corps producing same do... partly because it is complex and hard to keep straight who makes what and who owns what, and most people just don't care enough to do that.

Big corps, though, I have become convinced in recent years, pose almost as much of a threat to personal liberty as big government. Almost.

 

[John Liberty]

yes, but government is what keeps us safe from another huge and horrible power called corporations. In a capitalist society money wields power. To ignore the reality that money has no moral values and does not care is to invite things like slavery, the great depression, our last recession, crime and prohibition, and all sorts of bad but effective parts of the human system. This is why libertarianism works better as an ideal that we can incorporate into our philosophy and derive a balance and argue over rather than a pure form of government.


What I am talking about here is political philosophy, and confused is probably a good place to be. It means you are trying to look at something that is complex, sometimes completely illogical, and actually very important to our functioning as a society. I am not one of those people who just says libertarians are a bunch of wackos. I had to consider it for a long time until I realized there simply is no removing the despicable nature from mankind. because of this anything which gains power over people needs to be constantly checked and chipped away at because the power will conglomerate around itself. It is confusing. It is really hard to come up with a good system. I do not think the american system is terrible, just that we seem to be outgrowing it. The world societies are more elegant and matured while still retaining their primal values so we need a much more robust law system. You are absolutely right that system should hold liberties in high regard and seek to protect the people from the state and put the state at a disadvantage when dealing with a person. I am just waiting for people to wake up and see that what they want is not a new person, but5 a new government. I am also pretty sure this government has to be implemented voluntarily for the most part. People will have to see it and see it is good. I may not see it in my lifetime, but i think that there is a possibility we will actually accomplish it. I am also aware there is a possibility we might melt ourselves into puddles of ooze too.

1).

but government is what keeps us safe from another huge and horrible power called corporations.

The phrase: "government keeping us safe" is practically an oxymoron.

2).

In a capitalist society money wields power.

Money wields power, capitalist society or not. Man's greedy nature makes it that way, not capitalism. Capitalism is actually a better system of protecting people from corporations because the free market gives corporations competition. When there are jobs out there that treat people better or have better prices, people will want to work and buy things from those companies. Google: "Austrian economics and the free market", because explaining the ideals of the free market, as much as I enjoy it, is too big of a time suck.

3).

what they want is not a new person, but5 a new government.

So you're a Liberal Anarchist....interesting.

 

[Andalublue]

Benghazi happened under Obama. Would it have happened if Bush was in office? We can't know that. we can only know that it didn't happen under Bush.

9/11 happened under Bush. Would it have happened if Obama had been in office? We can't know that. We can only know that it didn't happen under Obama.

 

[Goshin]

yes, but government is what keeps us safe from another huge and horrible power called corporations. In a capitalist society money wields power. To ignore the reality that money has no moral values and does not care is to invite things like slavery, the great depression, our last recession, crime and prohibition, and all sorts of bad but effective parts of the human system. This is why libertarianism works better as an ideal that we can incorporate into our philosophy and derive a balance and argue over rather than a pure form of government.


What I am talking about here is political philosophy, and confused is probably a good place to be. It means you are trying to look at something that is complex, sometimes completely illogical, and actually very important to our functioning as a society. I am not one of those people who just says libertarians are a bunch of wackos. I had to consider it for a long time until I realized there simply is no removing the despicable nature from mankind. because of this anything which gains power over people needs to be constantly checked and chipped away at because the power will conglomerate around itself. It is confusing. It is really hard to come up with a good system. I do not think the american system is terrible, just that we seem to be outgrowing it. The world societies are more elegant and matured while still retaining their primal values so we need a much more robust law system. You are absolutely right that system should hold liberties in high regard and seek to protect the people from the state and put the state at a disadvantage when dealing with a person. I am just waiting for people to wake up and see that what they want is not a new person, but5 a new government. I am also pretty sure this government has to be implemented voluntarily for the most part. People will have to see it and see it is good. I may not see it in my lifetime, but i think that there is a possibility we will actually accomplish it. I am also aware there is a possibility we might melt ourselves into puddles of ooze too.

Huh. That actually impressed me as something thoughtful and well-considered, which I could agree with at least on many points. While I have not exactly been a Tererun fan in the past, keep posting intelligent thoughts in a reasonable tone like that and you'll make a more effective impression on many people than you used to.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

a businessman will not do things that are bad for business or he doesn't stay in business
only governments can and will rule against the will of the people

simple things escape simple minds?

 

[Moot]

Yes, and no. When corps get big enough and their consumer base broad enough, and their wealth and power reach certain levels, they can engage in a lot of propaganda as well as big-money lobbying. At that point, consumer anger bringing them down becomes improbable. Also, most Americans just buy whatever they want at the best price they can get and pay little attention to what the corps producing same do... partly because it is complex and hard to keep straight who makes what and who owns what, and most people just don't care enough to do that.

Big corps, though, I have become convinced in recent years, pose almost as much of a threat to personal liberty as big government. Almost.

I would also add that some corporations can afford to buy their own armies. Corporations operate like mini governments minus the democracy.

 

[tererun]

1).
Oh I read the words, even if they didn't make an ounce of sense.

2).
:lamo

3).
What's your big issue with Rand Paul? How about you give me some sources to back up all the trash talk you're slinging in almost every single thread I post(even the ones where I don't mention him). Is it a troll tactic or are you actually serious?

4).
So your one of those people that think it's hopeless anyway, so why bother trying? I see...

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it think. You are going to have to come some distance on this yourself. I can show you the peices, you have to see how they fit and understand it before you will be anything but a blind follower. The reason you believe in rand paul is because he is a finger pointer. That is all rand does. often it is really distracting like his filibuster on drones in the US which was way out of context for the nomination he was filibustering, and they lost. there was all that noise, what happened when the noise died down? yeah, they passed a few things.

 

[Andalublue]

Big corps, though, I have become convinced in recent years, pose almost as much of a threat to personal liberty as big government. Almost.

I'd switch it around and say that big government is almost as much of a threat to personal liberty as big corporations. Almost, but not quite given that there remains a vestige of democratic accountability with government. Corporations are accountable to no one.

 

[Montecresto]

a businessman will not do things that are bad for business or he doesn't stay in business
only governments can and will rule against the will of the people

simple things escape simple minds?

That's just lovely Angry!! Good job.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Show me links to the pictures of the SWAT Teams and heavy armor that Wal-Mart has?
How much of Apple's budget is spent on armed enforcement teams that order people at gunpoint to buy IPods?

 

[John Liberty]

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it think. You are going to have to come some distance on this yourself. I can show you the peices, you have to see how they fit and understand it before you will be anything but a blind follower. The reason you believe in rand paul is because he is a finger pointer. That is all rand does. often it is really distracting like his filibuster on drones in the US which was way out of context for the nomination he was filibustering, and they lost. there was all that noise, what happened when the noise died down? yeah, they passed a few things.

1.)

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it think.

Exactly what I was just thinking about you, to be quite honest.

2).

was way out of context for the nomination he was filibustering

No, it wasn't. He wanted answers and he wasn't getting any. So he held up progress. Also, his filibuster is what brought many conservatives to the light about the drone strikes. I knew many conservatives that were for the drones strikes, until after Rand Paul made his filibuster. The fact that someone would stand up there talking for 13 hours straight about the topic, made them stop and think.

3).

you will be anything but a blind follower

Blind follower, eh? If I were a blind follower I'd be a slave to partisan policies...which I'm not. I'd probably be a Mitt Romney supporter, rather then a Rand Paul supporter.

 

[justabubba]

Show me links to the pictures of the SWAT Teams and heavy armor that Wal-Mart has?
How much of Apple's budget is spent on armed enforcement teams that order people at gunpoint to buy IPods?

anyone mention XE yet?

(f/k/a blackwater)

 

[Cameron]

Enough with the finger pointing guys. The truth is life under the Obama administration has been almost identical to life under the Bush administration with the slight difference that we actually have a better idea of what's going on(thanks to people like Manning and Snowden).

I find it actually slightly amusing that Liberals who were up in arms about drone strikes during the Bush presidency are now saying things like "Obama is doing it to protect our freedoms".

On the flip side when Republicans that are screaming for Obama's head about these drone strikes and the NDAA are confronted about Bush doing similar things during his presidency, they lower their head and mumble something about Bush using fewer drone strikes than Obama.

I think that things in this country are not going to get any better until we all stop pointing fingers at the other parties. There are good people in the Republican party(i.e. Rand Paul) and bad people in the Republican party(i.e. John McCain). There are also good people in the Democratic party(i.e. Rep Timothy J. Penny) and bad people in the Democratic party (i.e. President Obama). Party doesn't make the man, policy does. Until people start getting that concept, things in this country are not going to get any better.

Now I realize that calling both parties out on their crap is not going to make me a very popular person, I am expecting the rage comments to begin brewing almost as soon as I post this...but it is something that needs to be said.

Every single political issue is like this. Politics has essentially become a competitive sport. People spend more time trying to stick it to the other side than developing an ideology or ideas.

Then again, I think it was probably always like this. I do think the internet makes it worse though, because now more people are involved, which means the politicians have to do it 24/7, whereas in the past I think it may have been more of a show for election time.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

anyone mention XE yet?

(f/k/a blackwater)

Ah yes our famous mercenarys

 

[tererun]

1).
The phrase: "government keeping us safe" is practically an oxymoron.

When we set government and business at odds they fight each other and not the people. It is not that simple, but it is a matter of keeping powers in check and the best thing to use is other powers.

2).
Money wields power, capitalist society or not. Man's greedy nature makes it that way, not capitalism. Capitalism is actually a better system of protecting people from corporations because the free market gives corporations competition. When there are jobs out there that treat people better or have better prices, people will want to work and buy things from those companies. Google: "Austrian economics and the free market", because explaining the ideals of the free market, as much as I enjoy it, is too big of a time suck.

google the history of the US in the early 1900s. look at things like robber barrons, industrialist companies, and all the abuses that happened. The market does not correct itself in that fgashion due to man's greed, and you need to look into your system and see the regulations that were actually in place at the time. Those regulations might not be government imposed.

3).
So you're a Liberal Anarchist....interesting.

No, you are closer to anarchy than i am. You are the one who feels little government is a good thing. Though I do not have a full idea of the type of government i would support i do know it would regulate industries to some extent. It would most certainly not rely solely on the market to correct itself. That is capitalist anarchy. Unless you are a part of the one percent, you do not want to know what that looks like in it's pure form.