Tell the parties to go f*** themselves!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 8:51 AM GMT
    Ok, so I've been reading through the political posts on this site, and I've noticed that people on both sides make sweeping generalizations about political ideologies, tending to group everyone into the "left" or the "right."

    So what I want to ask, how many people out there still believe in the nonpartisan principles the United States was founded on of boundless freedoms and opportunities? How may of you believe that government meddling, redistribution, censoring, warmongering, and social engineering are destroying American society? How many of you truly believe that America is about the opportunity to work hard and build something from nothing without everyone trying to loot your prosperity?

    Both parties want to take away freedoms in one way or another, either social, economic, or both. Doesn't anyone think that maybe the government isn't the key to our salvation from every minor discomfort or major catastrophe?

    I ask because so many seem to want wealth for themselves yet demonize the wealthy as greedy and evil. So many claim to love free speech but want to silence anyone who says anything offensive or "antisocial." So many want to bring down corporations but ignore the wealth, jobs, products, and prosperity those corporations have brought to this country. Why do so many of you hold as a matter of faith, practically religiously, that politicians are more honest and trustworthy than businessmen?

    Does anyone out there think as I do that the government is doing exactly what it's supposed to be protecting us from; telling us how to live our lives?

    Please, if you aren't American, I'm still very interested in your opinion!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 12:46 PM GMT
    I think all politicians have at least two faces! Does that count? Since I'm not American. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 1:57 PM GMT
    Human beings have a tendency to react to current events. Right at the present moment the private sector, especially the financial sector, is in the doghouse, and for good reason. The current crises is due to a variety of factors including government action, but the hubris displayed by the bankers and investment bankers did not help their cause any.

    So now government is viewed in a favourable light. Eventually people will realize that governments (politicians and bureaucrats) are also very limited in what they can accomplish. First of all politicians are prone to pandering to voters and often do not show leadership. Secondly many politicians are not experts in the areas that are now causing the greatest problems. They are relying on experts such as Mr. Geithner who is very smart, but not all-knowing.

    I personally have always seen capitalism and socialism as symbiotic. The private sector is good at creating wealth, while the government, through programs such as social security, education and health care, is better at distributing wealth. Socialist societies do not do well without a healthy private sector (e.g. the Soviet Union), and Capitalist societies do not do well without good social programs (they need a skilled, educated and healthy workforce and consumer).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 2:10 PM GMT
    bsubioguy,

    You have my vote. I agree with you 100%. Any chance you will run for congress?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 2:21 PM GMT
    bsubioguy said
    So what I want to ask, how many people out there still believe in the nonpartisan principles the United States was founded on of boundless freedoms and opportunities?


    Really? The US was founded on principles of "boundless" freedoms? You might want to rethink that statement, especially considering Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution. There always has been and always will be a tension inherent in government that limits the freedoms of its citizens in order to pursue other purposes--the US government is not exceptional in that regard. An inability to recognize that tension is, in my opinion, the basis of the libertarianism that has made itself more and more popular in our society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 5:11 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    bsubioguy said Both parties want to take away freedoms in one way or another, either social, economic, or both.


    This is naive horseshit. There, did you want THAT opinion?


    I totally respect your opinion, but I think you are totally wrong. Keeping the money you make through your own hard work is as much a freedom as who you can marry, just two examples. Currently the Democrats wish to take away the first freedom, and the current dumbass republicans want to take away both...

    As four the "boundless freedoms" comment, it was a bit of an exaggerated aphorism. I do realize there is a place for government, and that we could not function without an impartial system to keep one person from violating the freedoms of another. However, I wholeheartedly believe the government has stepped so far beyond these bounds that we barely recognize what true freedom is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 5:51 PM GMT
    bsubioguy said
    jprichva said
    bsubioguy said Both parties want to take away freedoms in one way or another, either social, economic, or both.


    This is naive horseshit. There, did you want THAT opinion?


    I totally respect your opinion, but I think you are totally wrong. Keeping the money you make through your own hard work is as much a freedom as who you can marry, just two examples. Currently the Democrats wish to take away the first freedom, and the current dumbass republicans want to take away both...

    As four the "boundless freedoms" comment, it was a bit of an exaggerated aphorism. I do realize there is a place for government, and that we could not function without an impartial system to keep one person from violating the freedoms of another. However, I wholeheartedly believe the government has stepped so far beyond these bounds that we barely recognize what true freedom is.



    THe biggest problem right now is the "King" president" . Bush is going to do ..... so and so ....Obama is going to ,,,so and so. The 20th century demonstrated that one man governments underperform democracies but somehow we have failed to see this and we have another King president. According to our constitution the "Congress will make the laws"....We are supposed to be the government of the people. Following a President King ..a top down government is not what the founding fathers had in mind.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 5:57 PM GMT
    bsubioguy saidKeeping the money you make through your own hard work is as much a freedom as who you can marry, just two examples. Currently the Democrats wish to take away the first freedom, and the current dumbass republicans want to take away both...


    If I give you a kitchen and teach you how to cook, and protect you while you shop for ingredients, and you subsequently make money selling the food you make, is ALL that money properly yours to keep? Aren't I entitled to something back for everything I did to make your success possible? How would I have been able to help you in the first place if others like you hadn't chipped in their fair share?

    Perhaps you are not a cook, but you have used public roads, yes? And I'm sure you can find other ways in which you have benefited from taxes. If not, this brief essay might give you a few more ideas.

    I think that blaming the government for everything is just as bad as expecting the government to fix everything. The American ideal is not to have no government; it is to have a government which is a tool that implements the collective will of the people.

    There are several things which it only makes sense to do collectively, such as infrastructure (e.g. roads and bridges). Saving our infrastructure (and creating jobs in the process) is a significant part of the stimulus package. I think that's a good thing. What do you think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 6:00 PM GMT
    bsubioguy saidWhy do so many of you hold as a matter of faith, practically religiously, that politicians are more honest and trustworthy than businessmen?


    I certainly don't think they are. However, the difference is that we can FIRE the politician if he screws us; we cannot do that with the corporate CEO. This in no way means that corporations are evil. However, some level of public oversight is necessary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 6:02 PM GMT
    I think the current financial mess caused by the unfettered behavior of private financial institutions shows that there needs to be a public presence to prevent individual greed from hurting everybody else. The trick is to get a proper balance.

    But for right now, I dont think people are going to be in the mood to hear any bullshit about leaving the market totally free to make the right decisions. ... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 6:27 PM GMT
    I would echo the sentiments of
    Bsubioguy
    SurrealLlife
    Alpha13
    Rotabilis

    We are truly being led and not represented.
  • kaccioto

    Posts: 284

    Feb 24, 2009 10:34 PM GMT
    elephant, donkey..tomatoe, tamato

    dc answers to a little discrete building in nyc on on nassau & liberty st..that's where the country's really run from
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2009 10:50 PM GMT
    Bsubioguy:

    Oh my lord....you get it!!! I can't disagree with one thing you have said. Matter of fact..that was the basis for my thread about smoking.....(Notice how when someone disagrees with you they resort to name-calling or ridicule of your opinion.)
    If you thought 'taxation without representation' was bad.....taxation with misrepresentation is worse!
  • kaccioto

    Posts: 284

    Feb 24, 2009 10:53 PM GMT
    jprichva said


    That's naive horseshit too. By the way.


    ehh, your firing in dec was horseshit..but no fret, the building bridges program, not figuratively of course, needs people ..he's got your back, no worries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2009 1:08 AM GMT
    rotabilis said
    bsubioguy saidKeeping the money you make through your own hard work is as much a freedom as who you can marry, just two examples. Currently the Democrats wish to take away the first freedom, and the current dumbass republicans want to take away both...


    If I give you a kitchen and teach you how to cook, and protect you while you shop for ingredients, and you subsequently make money selling the food you make, is ALL that money properly yours to keep? Aren't I entitled to something back for everything I did to make your success possible? How would I have been able to help you in the first place if others like you hadn't chipped in their fair share?

    Perhaps you are not a cook, but you have used public roads, yes? And I'm sure you can find other ways in which you have benefited from taxes. If not, this brief essay might give you a few more ideas.

    I think that blaming the government for everything is just as bad as expecting the government to fix everything. The American ideal is not to have no government; it is to have a government which is a tool that implements the collective will of the people.

    There are several things which it only makes sense to do collectively, such as infrastructure (e.g. roads and bridges). Saving our infrastructure (and creating jobs in the process) is a significant part of the stimulus package. I think that's a good thing. What do you think?


    That article is humorous in that it seems to completely ignore the cost in taxes and liberties associated with all those "benefits" while completely ignoring the many free market solutions that are often cheaper and more efficient. I personally love the part about paying for water, but only under private company ownership. Um, public water still has to be paid for, and if private water companies charge 43 cents then government water probably charges $1 in taxes. But since the rich foot the bill, who cares right?

    As for the stimulus package, there couldn't be a more damaging thing for our economy. Now the nation is more in debt, which means everyone gets to keep less of their money in the future. Few know even how those funds will be spent, probably just like most other government money; as pork to special interests. I have no doubt it will create jobs, but realistically that same money in the private sector would create far more jobs and more productive ones at that. People simply working should not be the goal, we need people to produce.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2009 1:25 AM GMT
    Well I would say I'm more Independent in that I agree with Republicans stance on governmental issues, but I disagree with their social stance which was injected into them by the religious right. On the other hand I agree with Democrats on social issues, but disagree with their governmental policies. So therefore, I guess I'm Independent. As far as Libertarians, each one I've met has just been a closet Democrat who just liked the glamour of calling themselves a Libertarian.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 25, 2009 1:50 AM GMT
    bsubioguy said, "I totally respect your opinion, but I think you are totally wrong. Keeping the money you make through your own hard work is as much a freedom as who you can marry, just two examples. Currently the Democrats wish to take away the first freedom, and the current dumbass republicans want to take away both..."



    The next time you drive down any given street or walk down any given sidewalk, think of the hard earned money that was taken, by taxes, from us all to make that happen.

    Politicians are interested in only two things: money and votes. That's what keeps them relevant. The power changes that regularly happen from elections are what keep politicians in check. Everyone knew what was coming with an Obama Presidency. The same couldn't be said of the Bush Presidency.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 25, 2009 1:52 AM GMT
    luvjunkie said, "As far as Libertarians, each one I've met has just been a closet Democrat who just liked the glamour of calling themselves a Libertarian."

    Libertarians are far more to the right with governmental affairs than Republicans are. The only difference is that Republicans are more interested in making themselves relevant in the political process.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2009 1:53 AM GMT
    To understand what Americans believe about government, you have to read the Declaration of Independence. The beginning part discusses what we think the purpose of government is and the theory of government

    Thomas JeffersonWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


    Then to look at our current form you have to read the preable to the Constitution which contains the goals of our government.

    We the PeopleWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America


    Now feel free to discuss what you see here
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 25, 2009 1:59 AM GMT
    "...in order to form a more perfect union..."


    You know, that was the first thing I thought of when I read this thread.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 25, 2009 2:03 AM GMT
    Everyone knew what was coming with an Obama Presidency. The same couldn't be said of the Bush Presidency.


    Even Bush said that he didn't see coming, the recession at the end of his presidency. Even when he was warned by Congressional Democrats and Republicans, as early as 2005, of the impending financial crisis. icon_surprised.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 25, 2009 2:04 AM GMT
    (I'm having a conversation with myself, out loud!) icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2009 2:57 AM GMT
    bsubioguy saidThat article is humorous in that it seems to completely ignore the cost in taxes and liberties associated with all those "benefits" while completely ignoring the many free market solutions that are often cheaper and more efficient.


    Since the whole point of the essay is to illustrate why the cost of these government programs is justified, it seems disingenuous to say that the article ignores the cost. The essay is a response to those constantly complaining about the cost.

    Now, when I say "cost", I am just referring to taxes. You said taxes AND liberties. What other personal liberties do you feel are infringed by the programs mentioned in the essay?

    bsubioguy saidI personally love the part about paying for water, but only under private company ownership. Um, public water still has to be paid for, and if private water companies charge 43 cents then government water probably charges $1 in taxes. But since the rich foot the bill, who cares right?


    Of course I care. But I care more that everyone have access to clean drinking water than I care about how much disposable income a well-off person like myself will have after taxes. You say this is about liberty, but you're actually pitting one liberty against another: the "freedom to keep more of my paycheck" versus the "freedom to have the water I need to live." Which do you regard as more important? If poor people suffer because of insufficient or dirty water, do you care? Or is it only the bottom line of the rich which concerns you?

    I'm not even talking about compassion here, though there is that aspect too. What I'm talking about is long-term enlightened self-interest. The more numerous and desperate the have-nots become, the more untenable the position of the haves becomes.

    Do you really think that everything in the essay has a free-market solution? What about public health? Roads and bridges? Workplace safety?

    bsubioguy saidI have no doubt it will create jobs, but realistically that same money in the private sector would create far more jobs and more productive ones at that. People simply working should not be the goal, we need people to produce.


    I agree with you on that, but you can't get yourself to the factory and produce something if the infrastructure falls apart, nor can you hire skilled labor to help you produce stuff if the educational system falls apart.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2009 3:20 AM GMT
    Yes, I absolutely agree.

    I am not an American, i am a Canadian, but the same applies.

    We have several parties, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Quebecois, New Democratic Party (NDP) and Green, among others.

    the big four however, (the first 4 mentioned), often collude on the "big" issues, and their differences are rather petty political issues or "show issues" used to divide the population against each other.

    Among the issues that i think will never be solved by Parliaments, Legislatures, Congresses, etc., are abortion and gay rights. the divide over these is often religious based, and i am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State, to protect the state from the influence of the church, but also to protect the church from the influence of the state.

    Religious issues, or at least, issues largely evoking religious concerns, cannot be legislated into or out of significance - this is a change in culture, not law, that is required.

    However, these issues allow for political wrangling on the part of big parties - the left supports such and such, the right opposes such and such. and the back and forth continues, while all the while, both the left and right parties dismantle all our other freedoms.

    The "right" often dismantles freedoms in the name of fighting terror, while the left dismantles them in the name of fighting climate change. these are but two examples of many.


    I think this comes to a broader question of how we view the "political world". To separate the "political" into left and right is a very linear way of viewing the world. Politics encompass, whether or not we realize it, everything in our lives, so to view things as left or right, in other words, black and white, is not a helpful way of understanding the world and our role and position within it.

    Rather, life, and our world, are cyclical, and so i propose viewing the world through a new paradigm. Not a linear line from one point to the next. But a circle.

    On the line - the far left and the far right - Communism and Fascism respectively - are, aside from ideological differences, very similar structures of society - both seek to create a massive, coercive and authoritarian state, stifle all dissent and dismantle all freedoms. Both rely upon the collusion between government and the economy... particularly big government and big corporations. For those that were unaware, big American corporations and banks (most of which are still around and bigger today), funded the rise of Hitler and financed and colluded with Nazi Germany, and at the same time, starting earlier in the 1930s, helped the Soviet Union industrialize in its Five Year Plans under Stalin [ Time Magazine, 1930: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,789203,00.html

    Both systems, on the far left and far right are about total control in the hands of a few, and the subordination of the many. Primarily, it is about the destruction of the individual.

    So, in a circle spectrum, the far left and the far right are tied together at the bottom of the circle... with a small space in between, yet to be defined in political discourse, but largely in the direction the world is headed - think, based upon the "China model" - authoritarian capitalism.

    This circle, then, allows you to see a spectrum not based upon "left" and "right", but upon, freedom and control. On the other side of the circle, what once could be described as "the middle of the line" can be the ultimate freedom.

    This is where i like to place myself on the "political spectrum", advocating and working towards whatever will bring all people of the world the most freedom possible from all forms of tyranny.

    This also allows you to see a more balanced concept of the world, as in, whatever direction in the circle trends move towards, sliding down the left or right, they both lead to the same place... tyranny. And so it is the duty of the free thinking individual to see that our society tries to build itself up and remain centered... in free thought and free ideals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2009 4:46 AM GMT
    Well my friend, George Washington agrees with you, he warned us of parties in his farewell address

    George WashingtonI have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

    This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.


    So George agrees...dump the parties