Paulyski 2,227 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-0...offenders_N.htm I just read this in the paper today. I looked up the article on the web. The program was started because of surging gun sales & hate & extremist groups like we have just seen in the recently released report by Nepolitano's office where included in possible domestic terrorists are people who: Oppose abortion Oppose same-sex marriage Oppose restrictions on firearms Oppose lax immigration laws Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs Oppose continuation of free trade agreements Are suspect of foreign regimes Fear Communist regimes Oppose a "one world" government Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and more... This is being sold to the people as "combating white supremacists" however with recent events classifying so many as possible domestic terrorists, is this the tool that our government is going to use to track everyone who owns a gun, loves the Lord & thinks that the constitution still means something? They seem to be trying to sell it as trying to prevent the "Lone Wolf" But do you mean to tell me that the relatively minuscule amount of "lone wolf terrorism" that we have had that it warrants this type of populous surveillance!? I mean this shit is so spread out in our country we had 1 big incident (Oklahoma) & a few small ones. This doesn't justify compiling data like this in my eyes. Headed up by, get this,, Obama's "S.S." I am ashamed to admit that I voted for Obama because I felt appalled by Bush's warrant-less wire tapping, fear-mongering & all the other fascist policies that he put in place! You can't f#%@*ng win!!! Less than 1 year later & he has turned into super-Bush. "Screw the economy, treat the populous like the enemy." I had no idea that when he made that "Clinging to their guns & Religion" comment that he meant that he was going to try to tear them away from me! This is truly some Orwellian shit! P.S. Their watching.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-0...offenders_N.htm I just read this in the paper today. I looked up the article on the web. The program was started because of surging gun sales & hate & extremist groups like we have just seen in the recently released report by Nepolitano's office where included in possible domestic terrorists are people who: Oppose abortion Oppose same-sex marriage Oppose restrictions on firearms Oppose lax immigration laws Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs Oppose continuation of free trade agreements Are suspect of foreign regimes Fear Communist regimes Oppose a "one world" government Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and more... This is being sold to the people as "combating white supremacists" however with recent events classifying so many as possible domestic terrorists, is this the tool that our government is going to use to track everyone who owns a gun, loves the Lord & thinks that the constitution still means something? They seem to be trying to sell it as trying to prevent the "Lone Wolf" But do you mean to tell me that the relatively minuscule amount of "lone wolf terrorism" that we have had that it warrants this type of populous surveillance!? I mean this shit is so spread out in our country we had 1 big incident (Oklahoma) & a few small ones. This doesn't justify compiling data like this in my eyes. Headed up by, get this,, Obama's "S.S." I am ashamed to admit that I voted for Obama because I felt appalled by Bush's warrant-less wire tapping, fear-mongering & all the other fascist policies that he put in place! You can't f#%@*ng win!!! Less than 1 year later & he has turned into super-Bush. "Screw the economy, treat the populous like the enemy." I had no idea that when he made that "Clinging to their guns & Religion" comment that he meant that he was going to try to tear them away from me! This is truly some Orwellian shit! P.S. Their watching.... How any gun owner voted for him still baffles the shit out of me! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ruffian72 548 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Same thoughts as you BD. A socialist based regime can't stay in power after the kool-aid drunk wears off without tolitarian measures. Bush seemed to be after enemies of all of us. Radical doesn't care who gets injured on a attack. Obama's (leftist) will make any non kool-aid drinker a enemy of the state. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 (Referring to the second paragraph of the article) Can anyone differentiate between "Free Speech" and "Hate Speech" for me? Who classifies what is "Hate Speech" and why is the First Amendment not applicable under this new term? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paulyski 2,227 Posted August 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 After 8 years of lies, underhandedness, letting the energy companies fleece the people, illegal wire taps & the fact that McCain completely sold out over the last 8 years, I figured "that one" might end some of that bullshit. But now he has taken it to a whole other level. Also In my profession (medical) I see people screwed by their insurance co.s on a daily basis. Reining in out of control insurance co.s is very important to me. THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE TO SERVE & PROTECT THE POPULOUS! NOT MONITOR & CONTROL THEM!! The dick-head dodged the gun control question pretty well, & where are the republicans with the filibuster? I voted for Bush back in 2000 too. I just cant win! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 The populous should have the ability and right to protect themselves. Regarding Insurance, I can't wait for the DMV lines and "take a number" system at my doctor's office. Maybe they will have an online version to save time and money. If I have a bleeding and festering head wound, I can go online and print out my own prescription for two Tylenol instead of waiting in line at the ER for actual care! And after I die, my family can sue the government for malpractice only to be laughed out of court. But thank God that illegals will have full benefits for free! An uninformed public is what has caused this entire cluster-fuck of a two party system we have right now! Now, those that inform themselves will be singled out and rounded up since they are "Lone Wolves"! Yay Freedom! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bayoupiper 738 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 So how do the rest of you on here that voted for Obama feel now????? RangerDave, you out there??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HollowPoint 0 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Welcome to America. All politicians are the same, I crack up when people republicans say that democrats are stupid and vice verse. It's the same thing, dude. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zenmetsu 17 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I did not vote for Obama. Voting for a candidate means that you are endorsing them. I do not support this nor any other form of government with the exception of self-rule. Laws are fine if they are written for and enforced by the people; it is leadership that I have problems with. I would be interested in one statistic: the percentage of federal laws that have the support of 50% or more of the population. I would be willing to bet that the number would be rather low. The question then is, why are these laws there? A large number of them are there to protect big business or have been put into place to make the U.S. more secure. Giving up freedom for security??? Over my dead body. I would rather be free and have a terrorist come into this country and put me to death than to have my government provide me with a lifetime of security within the confines of an enormous federal prison called the U.S.A. I catch a LOT of shit from my gun-loving friends because, being a social-anarchist, that somehow translates to me being lawless. I support law as long as it has the support of the people. Being somewhat of a leftist does not make me an enemy of gun-freedoms; I believe so strongly in personal freedom that I feel that only a dismantling of our current system can ever allow for such freedom. I believe that people should work to benefit society as a whole, but not be forced to do so. It really does not matter who people voted for. Democrat, republican, it really does not matter anymore. Neither side seems really concerned with protecting our freedoms. The only laws that we should have on our books are the ones that preserve our rights, not hinder them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
yakdung 2,926 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Paulyski, I noticed you indicate that you are from Portland Oregon. There must be some sort of indoctrination that takes place when you live in that part of the country. My little sister and her husband moved from Texas to that area. After several years, they turned into a couple of robotic moonbats. They also seem to be doing a great job of polluting their kids young minds as well (no religion / anti-gun). It is just an unfortunate shame that the younger generation has to experience really being screwed up the south end to believe it is happening for certain. Now to redeem yourself in 2010 when you vote again, just pull any lever that has an "R" next to it. I'm an independent conservative in my beliefs but I know our present system to elect Presidents doesn't support independent candidates. It is really all that I know to do other than keep buying more guns and ammo to help bolster the economy Good Luck, Yakdung Quote Link to post Share on other sites
superA 289 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I don't like the way so many politicians with 2010 coming up are acting like they don't give a fuck about public opinion anymore. This all seems to be happening very quickly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raoul_Duke 113 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 How any gun owner voted for him still baffles the shit out of me! +1 (Referring to the second paragraph of the article) Can anyone differentiate between "Free Speech" and "Hate Speech" for me? Who classifies what is "Hate Speech" and why is the First Amendment not applicable under this new term? I think I realized the "Freedom of Speech" was non-existent when I was a young child and learned that one could be charged and prosecuted for verbally threatening to harm the President. Not that you should threaten to harm the President, but you don't even have the right to talk about it. Of course, people cat threaten to harm me all day long, and it's "okay" as long as the threats are just verbal. Texas law states, "The use of force against another is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone . . ." In other words, do as we say, not as we do. An uninformed public is what has caused this entire cluster-fuck of a two party system we have right now! Now, those that inform themselves will be singled out and rounded up since they are "Lone Wolves"! Yay Freedom! +1 So how do the rest of you on here that voted for Obama feel now????? +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paulyski 2,227 Posted August 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Paulyski, I noticed you indicate that you are from Portland Oregon. There must be some sort of indoctrination that takes place when you live in that part of the country. My little sister and her husband moved from Texas to that area. After several years, they turned into a couple of robotic moonbats. They also seem to be doing a great job of polluting their kids young minds as well (no religion / anti-gun). It is just an unfortunate shame that the younger generation has to experience really being screwed up the south end to believe it is happening for certain. Now to redeem yourself in 2010 when you vote again, just pull any lever that has an "R" next to it. I'm an independent conservative in my beliefs but I know our present system to elect Presidents doesn't support independent candidates. It is really all that I know to do other than keep buying more guns and ammo to help bolster the economy Good Luck, Yakdung It's fucked up dude... I am considered "suspect" because I own & carry firearms. People think your stupid if you love the Lord. Gay people seem to be the only ones that want to get married, the list goes on... I live in the "hood", I go out to the rural areas where my folks live, to shoot & it's a little more normal out there, but half the people seem to be on meth! The cities are where the work is, & I am "on-call" so I must live close. Yeah, no values, ungodly high real-estate prices... When my folks pass on I think I'll take my inheritance, move to Poland & be a second rate english teacher or something. At least they still have family values. But I'm all my folks have, so I stay for them. As for insurance, I am not saying to nationalise healthcare. I am just saying; As it is, you pay $5,000.00 just for anastisa another $25,000 for a simple surgery. If you have ever been unemployed for 65 days you must pay it yourself because you are considered "pre-existing" even though you have paid your premiums for years. That is wrong in my book. They are greedy & need SOME regulation so they stop taking advantage of the people. Bush was bought & paid for by them & McCain sold out to gain their favor. I feel we are in a hopeless situation short of all out revolt. But every time a guy gets fed up & loses it that instance is used call all gun owners terrorists to curb even more of our rights. This isn't the America I learned about in school. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chevymann 13 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 What the heck is "anastisa"?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zenmetsu 17 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Anastisa is a form of anesthesia used in the Northwestern U.S. It is a form of brainwashing followed up with a healthy dose of alchohol to incapacitate a patient before undergoing surgery. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chevymann 13 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Anastisa is a form of anesthesia used in the Northwestern U.S. It is a form of brainwashing followed up with a healthy dose of alchohol to incapacitate a patient before undergoing surgery. WOW! THis whole time I thought Doctors were prescribing a Disney movie.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Anastisa is a form of anesthesia used in the Northwestern U.S. It is a form of brainwashing followed up with a healthy dose of alchohol to incapacitate a patient before undergoing surgery. WOW! THis whole time I thought Doctors were prescribing a Disney movie.... They are especially effective if laced with a little "Hillary Clinton Speech". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
james lambert 3,059 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I was not fooled for one nanosecond. Nor will I be fooled by those who blame industry,...oil or otherwise. Just the facts Maam... Jim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigj480 203 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I did not vote for Obama. Voting for a candidate means that you are endorsing them. I do not support this nor any other form of government with the exception of self-rule. Laws are fine if they are written for and enforced by the people; it is leadership that I have problems with. As long as laws are supported my the majority, you are fine with them? That's a scary thought. Ask the native Americans, African slaves and German Jews how well that works. Mob rule is chaos. I would be interested in one statistic: the percentage of federal laws that have the support of 50% or more of the population. I would be willing to bet that the number would be rather low. The question then is, why are these laws there? I suspect you are correct, most laws are not supported by the people. I also suspect that they are put in place in order to grow governmental power over the people, that is the nature of government. A large number of them are there to protect big business or have been put into place to make the U.S. more secure. Giving up freedom for security??? Over my dead body. I would rather be free and have a terrorist come into this country and put me to death than to have my government provide me with a lifetime of security within the confines of an enormous federal prison called the U.S.A. Some laws may support businesses, some may hurt businesses, but that's irrelevant. In the end they are merely tools to gain power and big bro only cares about himself. So you prefer open boarders? It is freedom to you, to let anyone come in and out of this country? I could understand letting Americans go and leave so no freedoms are lost. What freedoms are lost by securing the boarders? I catch a LOT of shit from my gun-loving friends because, being a social-anarchist, that somehow translates to me being lawless. I support law as long as it has the support of the people. Being somewhat of a leftist does not make me an enemy of gun-freedoms; I believe so strongly in personal freedom that I feel that only a dismantling of our current system can ever allow for such freedom. I believe that people should work to benefit society as a whole, but not be forced to do so. Again, mod rule is chaos and far from being free. What makes you a leftist? Social anarchists do not believe in any government or private property, is this true? Laws are to be put in place an enforced only by the people? Do you not see the potential problem this creates? If no one is to say what the laws are disagreements and bloodshed will follow suit and NO ONE will be free. People would limit your freedom and you will only be free if you can force them to stop. It really does not matter who people voted for. Democrat, republican, it really does not matter anymore. Neither side seems really concerned with protecting our freedoms. The only laws that we should have on our books are the ones that preserve our rights, not hinder them. I concur. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zenmetsu 17 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I did not vote for Obama. Voting for a candidate means that you are endorsing them. I do not support this nor any other form of government with the exception of self-rule. Laws are fine if they are written for and enforced by the people; it is leadership that I have problems with. As long as laws are supported my the majority, you are fine with them? That's a scary thought. Ask the native Americans, African slaves and German Jews how well that works. Mob rule is chaos. No system is perfect. The point is that mob rule extends itself over small areas, not large ones. It would be like eliminating the federal government and allowing state governments to continue. You end up with regions where people are more or less happy with the laws and, if they disprove of them enough, they can simply move to an area which has laws that are agreeable. Most people are stubborn though. Just look at how many people here are from Kalifornia and bitch about the ridiculous gun control there. They can move here to Arizona and have whatever the hell they want... OH... federal law still prevents Arizonans from having a full-auto unless we sign over my souls. Federal government, if one should be allowed to continue, should serve ONLY to protect the integrity of our nation (border control, military, etc) and to ensure that no state laws are passed that limit our freedoms as dictated in the Bill of Rights. Any federal law going beyond this should be shot down. A large number of them are there to protect big business or have been put into place to make the U.S. more secure. Giving up freedom for security??? Over my dead body. I would rather be free and have a terrorist come into this country and put me to death than to have my government provide me with a lifetime of security within the confines of an enormous federal prison called the U.S.A. Some laws may support businesses, some may hurt businesses, but that's irrelevant. In the end they are merely tools to gain power and big bro only cares about himself. So you prefer open boarders? It is freedom to you, to let anyone come in and out of this country? I could understand letting Americans go and leave so no freedoms are lost. What freedoms are lost by securing the boarders? What freedoms are lost by securing the borders? For starters, I have to consent to a full search of my person when I come back into this country. A lot of people are FOR securing our borders. I know that the number of people in Arizona who support locked down borders exceeds the number of those who oppose. Not only do you have illegal immigrants taking up jobs that Americans could have, you have problems with vehicles and other assets somehow becoming self-sentient and defecting to Mexico. Oh, I suppose they COULD be getting stolen, but I would hate to stereotype any racial groups. I catch a LOT of shit from my gun-loving friends because, being a social-anarchist, that somehow translates to me being lawless. I support law as long as it has the support of the people. Being somewhat of a leftist does not make me an enemy of gun-freedoms; I believe so strongly in personal freedom that I feel that only a dismantling of our current system can ever allow for such freedom. I believe that people should work to benefit society as a whole, but not be forced to do so. Again, mod rule is chaos and far from being free. What makes you a leftist? Social anarchists do not believe in any government or private property, is this true? Laws are to be put in place an enforced only by the people? Do you not see the potential problem this creates? If no one is to say what the laws are disagreements and bloodshed will follow suit and NO ONE will be free. People would limit your freedom and you will only be free if you can force them to stop. Again, simple mob rule is not what I am dictating here. If you can have a limited and responsible federal government which does not get power-hungry, then I can tolerate it's existence. Society strives for stability. What good is short-lived freedom if the system falls into chaos and martial law becomes necessary to bring things under control? I am a leftist because I believe that the means of production should be owned by society, not private interests. Of course, the moment you take the monetary system into account, what I am proposing is not possible. I do not propose taking any property from any person in making a transition to a different model of society, this would be hypocrisy. Invalidating the monetary system, however, would shift people's interest in business ownership from personal-gain to providing for society. In addition, people would be forced to become more self-reliant and, in turn, the country would be less susceptible to collapse due to financial meltdowns. I know... I am speaking nonsense here... a utopian and unrealistic ideal. Everyone wants to cling to a system which allows for a "get rich quick" scheme... but they cry bloody murder whenever people who can play the game better get a leg up on them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
454496 71 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 If Obama put every American on a terrorist list it would not matter unless congress acted on it. If people really want to put a stop to what is happening congressmen have to be changed. I wounder if anyone has considered if Obama's ultimate plan is to changed the white power in congress? Which might not be a bad thing. Regulators Cannot Be Owners or Manufactures! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paulyski 2,227 Posted August 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 What the heck is "anastisa"?? Another damn typo. Please see my topic titled: TYPOS!!! In fight club... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vultite 57 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 so they detected the majority of America, lol, so whats the plan next? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chevymann 13 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 What the heck is "anastisa"?? Another damn typo. Please see my topic titled: TYPOS!!! In fight club... LOL.. Just busting your balls a little since stated you were on call in the medical field and butchered anesthesia... Welcome to the forum. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Twinsen 86 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 After 8 years of lies, underhandedness, letting the energy companies fleece the people, illegal wire taps & the fact that McCain completely sold out over the last 8 years, I figured "that one" might end some of that bullshit. But now he has taken it to a whole other level. Also In my profession (medical) I see people screwed by their insurance co.s on a daily basis. Reining in out of control insurance co.s is very important to me. THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE TO SERVE & PROTECT THE POPULOUS! NOT MONITOR & CONTROL THEM!! The dick-head dodged the gun control question pretty well, & where are the republicans with the filibuster? I voted for Bush back in 2000 too. I just cant win! The only way to make sure the government serves and protects the populous is to make sure that is all they have the money to do. You give them power, they're going to overstep it one increment. So you put a HUGE GOVERNMENT guy in like Obama, and get ready to grab your ankles and get fucked in your ass, hard, for the next few years. Bend the fuck over, it's ass rape time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zenmetsu 17 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) After 8 years of lies, underhandedness, letting the energy companies fleece the people, illegal wire taps & the fact that McCain completely sold out over the last 8 years, I figured "that one" might end some of that bullshit. But now he has taken it to a whole other level. Also In my profession (medical) I see people screwed by their insurance co.s on a daily basis. Reining in out of control insurance co.s is very important to me. THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE TO SERVE & PROTECT THE POPULOUS! NOT MONITOR & CONTROL THEM!! The dick-head dodged the gun control question pretty well, & where are the republicans with the filibuster? I voted for Bush back in 2000 too. I just cant win! The only way to make sure the government serves and protects the populous is to make sure that is all they have the money to do. You give them power, they're going to overstep it one increment. So you put a HUGE GOVERNMENT guy in like Obama, and get ready to grab your ankles and get fucked in your ass, hard, for the next few years. Bend the fuck over, it's ass rape time. BOHICA! It really does not matter who you voted for. The government faces problems that cannot be resolved with politicians. Folks of a scientific nature might be able to solve some of the problems, but not your run-of-the-mill born-with-a-silver-spoon-up-their-ass politician that America has elected for the past 3 decades. Gun-huggers cry bloody murder when the government tries to restrict their rights. Tree-huggers cry bloody murder when the government turns a blind eye to corporations raping our planet. Meanwhile, almost everyone bitches about the government not using our tax dollars wisely. We all know that the government should fear the people and not the other way around. People, however, are too lazy, stubborn, or stupid to act. Let us take a step back and look at what happens on smaller scales. What happens when, say, auto workers do not get what they want? They strike. By the same notion, if the working class gets too bitchy about the excessive taxation and tax dollars going to the wrong causes, why not send a message? Even if 25% of the people managed to avoid paying taxes for a year, it would put a hurtin' on the ol' government, likely enough to seriously cripple it and bring about REAL change. I mean, what is the government going to do with all those people; throw them all in jail? Oh yeah... I remember something about the National Guard recruiting for Internment camp overseers. Still... kinda hard to launch such an initiative when you are piss-ass broke. </soapbox> Ok, I am officially an extremist and on their watchlist now. Edited August 14, 2009 by zenmetsu Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paulyski 2,227 Posted August 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) Although my statements may seem inflammatory, PLEASE do not use them to reinforce or validate any plans to take any drastic measures into your own hands & try to make a statement through violent means. I am just venting on the internet, & spurring discussion. If you do, do something drastic, rest assured that the media will make you look like a deranged loser, they will say that your penis is 2" long & that you have never had any friends. The mass populous will believe them, & you will be imprisoned or put to death after a decade of imprisonment. Meanwhile you will be used as an example to take even more of the rest of our rights away from us & we will curse your name. If anyone MUST make that type of statement, PLEASE use a steak knife or a pair of sewing sizers. Edit: My little buddy Casimir begs this restraint of you. Edited August 15, 2009 by Paulyski Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigj480 203 Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 I did not vote for Obama. Voting for a candidate means that you are endorsing them. I do not support this nor any other form of government with the exception of self-rule. Laws are fine if they are written for and enforced by the people; it is leadership that I have problems with. As long as laws are supported my the majority, you are fine with them? That's a scary thought. Ask the native Americans, African slaves and German Jews how well that works. Mob rule is chaos. No system is perfect. The point is that mob rule extends itself over small areas, not large ones. It would be like eliminating the federal government and allowing state governments to continue. You end up with regions where people are more or less happy with the laws and, if they disprove of them enough, they can simply move to an area which has laws that are agreeable. Most people are stubborn though. Just look at how many people here are from Kalifornia and bitch about the ridiculous gun control there. They can move here to Arizona and have whatever the hell they want... OH... federal law still prevents Arizonans from having a full-auto unless we sign over my souls. Federal government, if one should be allowed to continue, should serve ONLY to protect the integrity of our nation (border control, military, etc) and to ensure that no state laws are passed that limit our freedoms as dictated in the Bill of Rights. Any federal law going beyond this should be shot down. I agree completely, the role of the fed gov should only be things that are absolutely necessary and that the states can not do, as you indicated. That just doesn't sound anarchist, at least to someone like me who has little knowledge about what anarchists believe. It also doesn't sound "leftist" at all. A large number of them are there to protect big business or have been put into place to make the U.S. more secure. Giving up freedom for security??? Over my dead body. I would rather be free and have a terrorist come into this country and put me to death than to have my government provide me with a lifetime of security within the confines of an enormous federal prison called the U.S.A. Some laws may support businesses, some may hurt businesses, but that's irrelevant. In the end they are merely tools to gain power and big bro only cares about himself. So you prefer open boarders? It is freedom to you, to let anyone come in and out of this country? I could understand letting Americans go and leave so no freedoms are lost. What freedoms are lost by securing the boarders? What freedoms are lost by securing the borders? For starters, I have to consent to a full search of my person when I come back into this country. A lot of people are FOR securing our borders. I know that the number of people in Arizona who support locked down borders exceeds the number of those who oppose. Not only do you have illegal immigrants taking up jobs that Americans could have, you have problems with vehicles and other assets somehow becoming self-sentient and defecting to Mexico. Oh, I suppose they COULD be getting stolen, but I would hate to stereotype any racial groups. That is why I included the part about Americans coming and going as the please. Show proof that you are an American and you are GTG. Yeah, it's a small hassle, but so is getting a drivers license. What is the alternative? Minutemen? I catch a LOT of shit from my gun-loving friends because, being a social-anarchist, that somehow translates to me being lawless. I support law as long as it has the support of the people. Being somewhat of a leftist does not make me an enemy of gun-freedoms; I believe so strongly in personal freedom that I feel that only a dismantling of our current system can ever allow for such freedom. I believe that people should work to benefit society as a whole, but not be forced to do so. Again, mod rule is chaos and far from being free. What makes you a leftist? Social anarchists do not believe in any government or private property, is this true? Laws are to be put in place an enforced only by the people? Do you not see the potential problem this creates? If no one is to say what the laws are disagreements and bloodshed will follow suit and NO ONE will be free. People would limit your freedom and you will only be free if you can force them to stop. Again, simple mob rule is not what I am dictating here. If you can have a limited and responsible federal government which does not get power-hungry, then I can tolerate it's existence. Society strives for stability. What good is short-lived freedom if the system falls into chaos and martial law becomes necessary to bring things under control? I am a leftist because I believe that the means of production should be owned by society, not private interests. Of course, the moment you take the monetary system into account, what I am proposing is not possible. I do not propose taking any property from any person in making a transition to a different model of society, this would be hypocrisy. Invalidating the monetary system, however, would shift people's interest in business ownership from personal-gain to providing for society. In addition, people would be forced to become more self-reliant and, in turn, the country would be less susceptible to collapse due to financial meltdowns. I know... I am speaking nonsense here... a utopian and unrealistic ideal. Everyone wants to cling to a system which allows for a "get rich quick" scheme... but they cry bloody murder whenever people who can play the game better get a leg up on them. That's my understanding of what "anarchy" is, a complete absence of government as government is bad. People currently own the "means of production" and without money we would barter. Nothing wrong with that but what would prevent those currently with the "means of production" from keeping them. Why would it be bad if they did? How are those without the "means of production" supposed to get them? The government can not give anything that has not been taken from others, and that would be (and is) immoral. No one "deserves" anything which they have not earned by producing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.