20 Mar 14
Originally posted by whodeyI'll never forget when you said "I seek to spread the power and thus spread the wealth." 😉
Obama is a collectivist and collectivists naturally gravitate towards dictatorships. It's just common sense man. You keep centralizing power until it is just one man running the show.
In the US we have a president who shoves health care down our throats and then single handedly exempts his buddies from it. What kind of a fool country would you call that ...[text shortened]... nstead, I seek to spread the power and thus spread the wealth. This 1%'er poo is for the birds.
And again, you're thinking in all-or-nothing terms. The United States is not a commune, nor is it a totalitarian regime. It borrows some ideas from "collectivist" principles and others from "libertarian" principles. Whether it should borrow from one set more than the other is debatable, but you can't just make up what it is or is not.
20 Mar 14
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey, in reading your posts over time, I have to conclude that you are a closet absolutist. You don't really believe in democracy, even in principle, but you can't admit it to yourself. Hence the contradictory nature of most of your diatribes.
Obama is a collectivist and collectivists naturally gravitate towards dictatorships. It's just common sense man. You keep centralizing power until it is just one man running the show.
In the US we have a president who shoves health care down our throats and then single handedly exempts his buddies from it. What kind of a fool country would you call that ...[text shortened]... nstead, I seek to spread the power and thus spread the wealth. This 1%'er poo is for the birds.
20 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaYou spread wealth by empowering people, not by mandating a certain amount of money to them to merely survive via entitlements. That is akin to a slaves existence on a plantation. Instead, empowering people is done by spreading power around, which is what this country was originally based upon.
I'll never forget when you said "I seek to spread the power and thus [b]spread the wealth." 😉
And again, you're thinking in all-or-nothing terms. The United States is not a commune, nor is it a totalitarian regime. It borrows some ideas from "collectivist" principles and others from "libertarian" principles. Whether it should borrow from one set more than the other is debatable, but you can't just make up what it is or is not.[/b]
The US is not a totalitarian regime. However, last year alone it passed over 40,000 new laws and regulations and with each law and regulation our freedoms decrease. This will continue as we fall deeper and deeper into a totalitarian like regime. Couple that with the police state Edward Snowden tried to warn us about, and what is unraveling is rather unsettling.
As far as libertarian principles go, I suppose Obama is happy with letting people smoke pot. Outside of that I have no idea what is libertarian about this government. In fact, people are going to need a lot more of it to smoke with the way things are looking. Perhaps Obama knows this and figures people are better pot heads than protesting in the streets. Who knows, maybe Sandra Fluke will get up and testify about how the government should all buy us pot because we have a right to get high.
20 Mar 14
Originally posted by SoothfastCollectivists are the ones that do not believe in democracy. That is because collectivists seek to centralize power. Democracy flourishes when power is divided equally amongst the population as citizens vote for local politicians who are in tune with their needs because they actually live in their community and actually care about their plight. When elections are more local your vote matters more because there are far fewer of you to vote. These elections are held in liberal areas and conservative areas around the country, enabling each community self determination.
Whodey, in reading your posts over time, I have to conclude that you are a closet absolutist. You don't really believe in democracy, even in principle, but you can't admit it to yourself. Hence the contradictory nature of most of your diatribes.
Conversely, what we have now is a system where winner takes all as they lead half or more of the country by leash and chain kicking and screaming. Now that the Executive branch has all the power, our votes come down to one man, the President. Now your vote is diluted due to the masses that vote and it is someone who is out of touch with what is going on around you locally and could really care less about you. Throw in all the Executive Departments who pass regulations that are just as powerful as laws, and what you have is an army of unelected bureaucrats passing laws continually. This is the most undemocratic aspect to it all, something collectivists cherish because they know what is best for us. Since they already know what is best for us, freedom becomes our biggest enemy. In fact, there is nothing scarier to a collectivist than a free market. Hell, they won't even let you buy biggie sodas.
Originally posted by wittywonkaThat is an awfully weak retort.
You're confident that every single law was restrictive? That not one was designed to reduce bureaucracy or regulations?
I think we can both agree that there may have been a few out of the 40,000, like smoking pot laws, but by in large they are exceptions to the rule.
Is America really that bad? Do we need another 40,000 laws and regulations this year? If so, why not consider building a fence along the Mexican border, TO KEEP AMERICANS IN!!
It will be just like the former USSR, one big prison.
Liberals might like the idea of prison. Just think of the equality it brings.
1. Equal access to food and shelter.
2. Equal income.
3. Guns are banned, keeping you safe in prison.
4. Every day is gay pride day in jail. All the gay sex you can imagine.
5. No one drives cars or heats or cools large houses. Think of all the reduction in carbon emissions.
It would be a liberal utopia!! 😵
21 Mar 14
Originally posted by whodeyIn this thread, for the time being, my sole concern was (or at least eventually became) convincing you not to think in utter absolutes.
That is an awfully weak retort.
I think we can both agree that there may have been a few out of the 40,000, like smoking pot laws, but by in large they are exceptions to the rule.
At least we made progress somewhere.
21 Mar 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaAre you implying that I'm not absolutely wrong?
In this thread, for the time being, my sole concern was (or at least eventually became) convincing you not to think in utter absolutes.
At least we made progress somewhere.
The hell you say!! 😲
22 Mar 14
1 edit
I just read that Hillary has a huge lead for the 2016 elections. That's right conservatives, another two terms after two terms of Obama await you.
And guess what, the only adversary is Jeb Bush who comes in second to Hillary. That's right, the royal blood line of the Clintons and Bush's is what we have been reduced to as a nation that is ruled by an elite aristocracy.
When will we have enough? The only vote that matters is for state legislature. Everything else has been predetermined.
http://conventionofstates.com/progress-report