Obama...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Pwning, May 10, 2009.

  1. Perseus Warlord

    Even though I totally disagree with almost 99% of what Pwning believes in, I can't leave a fellow Marine out to dry. Since Pwning finally yielded, can we finally close this thread, I have to take him back to the navy corpsman to patch him up and he has suffered enough abuse lol.

    And this is coming from someone who is a VFW card carrying member with combat medals from 4 wars lol. Ooooooraaaaah.
     
  2. Dozel Member

    so that is why nafta was created by the US? to protect its interests from canada.

    canada has been on the short end of the stick in relations to the US in our beef, lumber

    good to know its ok to rape your allies economically!
     
  3. PaulO New Member

  4. Valor Buffalo Rancher

  5. Von.Manstein New Member

    I heard Obama was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs.
     
  6. Jeer von Jeerington

    It heard it was the Chaos Theory, like with butterflies, only with his ears.
     
  7. Blackops Member

    wow ive never seen this side of borric before.

    Personally I dont feel like I know enough about these things to have a strong opinion in either direction. I just try my best to make the best decisions based on what I know.

    Im just a 23 year old college kid that hasnt had an interest in politics until things started getting wacky with bush and now obama.
     
  8. PaulO New Member

    Sup. Playing any fun games? Darkfall wasn't the game for me. Been playing around in the Alpha for Global Agenda some. Could have potential, but not sure it'd warrant a subscription from what I've seen so far.



    This 8 minute video explains everything you need to know:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM
     
  9. Blackops Member

    Hey hutto! , caz was telling me about global agenda too. whats the deal is it just under funded or not ready yet?
     
  10. Borric Der Kriegsminister


    So basically you're saying social anarchy? Because in this country we give up certain personal liberties for the protections that government is supposed to provide. I've never understood this point of view. There will never be such a thing as liberty as described in that video. It could work, until someone decided they wanted your stuff and just killed you for it.
     
  11. Blackops Member

    sounds like real life darkfall
     
  12. PaulO New Member

    Hey Blackops! It's early in development still, although they're talking about a release later this year. It's improved a lot the past 6 months. The PvP is fun and I'd definitely buy it if it were a standalone game (ala Guild Wars or TF2 or BF2042) but I haven't seen anything exceptional that would necessarily get me to pay monthly for it. Who knows.





    How is that any different than what we have right now? The government is not supposed to provide protections:

    "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security..."
    DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.

    "...a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."
    Warren v. District of Columbia

    Etc.

    If you were honest, you would realize that giving the government money protects you from them more than it protects you from anyone else. They are essentially the same as the mafia offering "protection" whether you want it or not. You want real protection? Buy some guns, lots of ammo, and teach yourself and your family how to use them safely. That's about the best way to protect yourself from someone intending you harm (except for the government).

    I'd say to you that we're giving up our liberties for very little in return. I'm not saying my way would be utopia or perfect in the least. In fact, there could end up being majorities going around extracting payment from everyone to fund their pet projects using a gun-toting "police" to enforce their rules. And they could end up calling themselves Republicans and Democrats... but at least it'd be nice to actually be free for a period of time before we get back to the current status quo.
     
  13. thorizdin Administrator

    That's a very interesting legal interpretation you have there ;p

    Just because the police can't be held criminally liable, in one specific case, doesn't mean that we don't enjoy protections (nor that government agents aren't to provide those protections) funded by taxation. The bit on the Due Process Clause is also a red herring since it is entirely about limiting government power and specifically doesn't address (by design) the responsibilities of government and the agents thereof.

    There are a plethora of laws, court cases, and regulations that do lay out exactly what the responsibilities of various agencies and agents are.

    BTW, I agree on your assessment of of GA
     
  14. PaulO New Member

    Fair enough. If there were multiple private agencies competing for our business instead of a monopoly over the police business (for example), do you think those two other girls would have been raped if they had called a private emergency security company? I'm willing to bet the level of service you would get for the costs would be much, much better than in the current system.

    By the way, what type of protections do you enjoy now that couldn't be enjoyed in a more free society?

    I wonder what % goes toward a service per dollar taxed.
     
  15. Borric Der Kriegsminister


    I think you took me a bit too literally. I always forget those on the right see things as black and white absolutes...;)

    The government is a necessary evil. By being an American citizen, you are agreeing to let the government regulate, control and protect certain portions of your life. You have a right to liberty, and by turning over some of that right to the government, through laws and regulations, the government attempts to preserve that liberty. That's why no one is allowed to walk in your house and shoot and kill your mom. The government doesn't prevent that from happening, but they will investigate, try, convict and punish the person who does. You violate rules and laws at your own risk. It's doubtful that you'd be able to avenge the death of your mother yourself, and would likely just get yourself killed. The government acts as your proxy in this matter.

    Your mafia analogy is crude and simplistic. The government isn't offering you protection from them (as in a mafia situation), but rather using that money to prevent automakers from making unsafe cars, ensuring that those with the public trust (banks, investment firms, etc.) aren't stealing your money. They build and maintain roads for you to drive on, schools for children to be educated in and many other services that you cannot provide for by yourself.

    I'm not saying Obama is the second coming, because he's not. I agree with about 75% of his ideas. But he was the obvious choice this time around. I agreed with McCain/Milf only about 25% of the time. One of my favorite political satirists, Bill Maher (a libertarian), has been taking the piss out of Obama for the past two weeks on his show. His last New Rules rant was particularly poignent, and while I don't agree with him 100% (gun control/defense spending), he's pretty much spot on.

    Take a minute and read through that...

    Or since most of you kids these days like to argue points with you tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfBIkoBhao
    It's even funnier than reading it...
     
  16. PaulO New Member

    How different is that from the idea of liberty I posted before?


    Wow. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I wonder if a truly free market would provide these services better than the current system. There were maintained roads before they were public and became maintained by nonconsensual coercion. There were schools before they were public and became maintained by nonconsensual coercion. I'm not saying every road would be maintained and every kid would get an education, but that isn't happening now either and we are all still forced to pay for services that fail to meet our standards.

    If you say something like, "only the wealthy had access to a good education" many would argue that the same is true today. However, I'd say, if you look at most private services that only the wealthy had at one point: central heating, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, electricity, cars, color televisions, cell phone service, internet service, etc, these are examples of services that were once only available to wealthy people but through competition and the market the prices dropped, the standard of living improved, and more and more people are able to partake of them without forcing people to pay for services without their consent. Could you imagine the cable company charging you for cable even if you didn't use it? That's essentially what the government is doing right now. Do you really think the market could not provide roads and schools and such with better standards than we have now and as time progressed for much, much cheaper?
     
  17. Borric Der Kriegsminister

    Do you really believe what you're saying, or are you just playing devil's advocate and trolling? The free market utopia that you seem to desire already exists. Just look at some of the developing nations in Africa. They're full of democratic free market governments that are so weak (what you're advocating) that no one builds roads, schools, businesses and regions of these countries are ruled with force by tribal warlords. Which is exactly what would happen if the US were to skew in the direction you've stipulated. Only the tribal warlords wouldn't be named Msamba Okambi, but rather John Smith and Bill Jones. They'd be white and educated, but would use force in a more directed and savage way than you would think is possible. They would be your neighbors and co-workers. Without the federal government we'd descend back into city states and wage aggressive war against each other. The sad fact for most true conservatives is that they're only American enough when they are contained by the government. If our government failed, they'd be the first ones taking what they wanted by force.

    If what you wanted came to pass, there would be bloodshed on an unprecedented scale. Americans, as a general rule are greedy, selfish and armed to the teeth. The minority who aren't would be obliterated in weeks. Better living through superior firepower. The reason government exists is because we can't be trusted not to fuck with other people while we look out for our own self interests.

    Free market capitalism isn't a form of government. It's an economic theory. One that has not been proven. The flat earth crowd believes that true open markets can solve all of America's problems. A well-regulated market can do those things, and provide protection for citizens and consumers. But unchecked capitalism will never succeed because of one thing: greed. If one can make $10 responsibly without screwing anyone over, and make $20 by screwing someone over (if there's no regulation), the capitalist will do the $20 screw over everytime. Well, in that true free market, people who get tired of being screwed over will just kill the folks that are doing the screwing. Greed fuels capitalism.

    Until Americans (and all humans) stop being so damn greedy this will never change. The zero-sum mentality has to stop. Society needs to change and it won't be easy. It will take generations to root out and eradicate the 'greed is good' attitude that is so pervasive in modern society.

    Yet you talk about liberty. Even with your conservative liberty fo 5 year olds video, I really don't think you understand it. Socialism is almost pure liberty. Imagine this:

    A world where everyone chooses a career that they enjoy doing and have an aptitude for. And that choice isn't influenced by wages, because everyone receives a comfortable wage for every job. You work less and have more free time because profit isn't the motive. You have full health care and get to retire at 60. Your pension is the same as your at work wage, because you've worked throughout your entire life. You get a month of vacation every year and can spend it wherever you like. You choose where in the world you want to live. The trade off? You have to work. Everyone does, unless they are disabled to a point where they cannot. Each works according to his own gifts. Almost everyone has something that they can do that would be productive.

    How do we make this happen? Well first, the technological advancements of the next 20 years will go a long way in eliminating the crap menial jobs that no one wants to do. I can feel your argument coming against this already. How will we get those advancements without a free market to drive their development? The answer? The declining free market will provide a lot of them. It's our fault we've become dependant on this corrupt and unfair system, and we'll pay the price for awhile as it finally rots away. Things will be rough for a generation or two. But slowly, people will realize that honest work, not motivated by profit, is an attractive idea. You'll have inventors working hard to invent things because they want to and enjoy it, not because there's a profit in it. Inventions labeled as non-profitable in our time will be developed and improve the human experience.

    Socialism is coming. It's inevitable. The most significant reason for it's failure in the past (besides imperfect implementation) is that the technology of the time wasn't able to support it. And believe me, I have no problem using technology develoed by the free market to make the jump to a more enlightened, socialist world. The free market debacle is society's growing pains on the bath to a better, enlightened future.

    But we'll have to change the name. The word socialism equals pure evil in the minds of a lot of people. People who are ignorant and just don't understand, or people who do, and are too selfish and greedy to care. I suggest we call it Libertyism, because hey, who doesn't like liberty? And a socialist utopia offers far more liberty than the free market can ever provide...
     
  18. Von.Manstein New Member

    I've heard Obama's been involved in radical activities in his past, such as jaywalking and throwing a recyclable can in a trash can when nothing else was around.
     
  19. ZOMG Burn him at the stake. Commifascist!!!
     
  20. Pwning Lord

    Nope just homosexual activities and smoking the crack pipe, but hey, if Clinton can get a blowjob from some fat intern at the white house then anything is possible!
     

Share This Page