Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WashingtonTimes: Voight: Is Obama creating a civil war in America?


Destino

Recommended Posts

Ah, so it permitted states to ignore the full faith and credence clause of the Constitution. (If they were doing so for the purpose of legislating against gays.)

Oddly enough, DOMA cited the full faith and credit clause in maintaining the rights of the states not wanting gay marriage to not have their laws superseded by those of another state.

Feel free to rage against this reasoning in your next post, I won't stop you...

(And it created a federal definition of "marriage". But he supported it, because he opposes the feds defining marriage.)

... and deny them those rights at the federal level.

... nor will I likely respond. I'm not going to debate DOMA with the two of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If race is such a big factor, where was all this anger and outrage before and just after Obama took office?

It was simmering and slowly building. To some folks, Obama's election was the last straw. "Now these blacks have a new messiah and they want to take over! Look at the Black Panther thugs at the polling station! After all, he is not even from America! He is Kenyan! He doesn't understand America, with his black preacher and his black liberation philosophy."

It isn't to hard to see it. I go to right-wing websites and I read this stuff -- I don't see how you can miss any of this if you spend time on the Internet.

Maybe some of the more feeble-minded people to show up these protests are motivated by racism, but a vast majority of it is a reaction to his policies. There may a handful of racists along for the ride, but they aren't in the driver's seat.

Yeah -- a reaction to policies which have already happened. We spent TRILLIONS during the Bush years, and we didn't see any of the same reactions from some of these people. Heck, many of these folks SUPPORTED these policies. But Obama is elected, and all hell breaks lose -- gee, what is the difference? Hmmm....

GOP spends trillions? The country is in good hands. Obama is elected? TIME TO SECEDE!

So I just don't buy that it is only over his policies, especially since some of these policies have yet to be implemented, and especially since some of this anger is over misinformation, such as the recent "death panels" debate.

Why do you think it is so easy for people to believe things about Obama or his policies without any evidence? Because they want to believe it. They want to believe he wasn't born here in the US. They want to believe that his policies are a march to socialism -- that he wants to kill the elderly! -- so they can agitate about "taking back the country."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe some of the more feeble-minded people to show up these protests are motivated by racism, but a vast majority of it is a reaction to his policies.

Your claim would have more credibility if one protester in a thousand could actually tell you what the policies are.

Remember? The purpose of this thread is that the chief spokesman for the "they're going to come and kill your mother!" brigade, a person who's spent the last month claiming that the bill specifically orders that all patients over the age of 60 must be killed on sight, and citing the specific page number where it says so, can't find it, in the document which she brought.

Edit: My bad.

I thought that this conversation was taking place in a different thread that had been hijacked.

Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that this is the central question, but it's not really relevant, since any pro-life libertarian has presumably already decided that question in favor of personhood.

Oh, agreed. I don't find the term "pro-life libertarian" to be a contradiction in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To others, this is a gross perversion of capitalism.

Exactly. If anything, it is a perversion of the free market.

And the iron triangle: isn't it bureaucrats instead of the military?

Bureaucrats are often embedded into the military. Think Donald Rumsfeld vs. Colin Powell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a friend in college who was virulently pro-gun control. He used to insist that one day there would be a civil war over gun rights.

Finally, I looked at him and said "Oh really? And just which side do you think would win that one?"

Stopped him dead in his tracks. :)

Yep. The government has all the big ones.

People would have to resort to insurgent sort of tactics to win that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He would remove Federal "rights" to marriage for all if he could. Marriage is a religous designation and never should have become the province of the Federal Government.

But as long as he can't remove it, then he'll make certain that Group X gets the benefits, but Group Y doesn't.

That was the sole purpose of DOMA: "Gay marriages, even if fully recognized by the state in which they are performed, aren't marriages".

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is people try to use abortion as a gotcha issue for libertarians. They certainly did for Ron Paul. I think people can answer that question both ways and be either pro-life or pro-choice without having to turn in their libertarian card.
This.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. The government has all the big ones.

People would have to resort to insurgent sort of tactics to win that one.

That wasn't really my point. How many "hippies", as you put it, do you know that have the guns to fight the civil war in the first place?

Besides, the right loons are more violent because the left loons are all mellowed out, and can be distracted with a bag of cheetos. :silly:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Capitalism is seen as a monopolistic power entity. Think small business vs. Big Business corporations (ex. Wal-mart vs. some town shops) and perhaps that will make it a little bit more clear.

You can be a small "c" capitalist without being a "Capitalist." Small "c" capitalists tend to support the free market in its true competitive form. A large "C" Capitalist wants victory in any form for their business, and that the ends justifies the means. Squash competition. Good. Move to a third nation for cheap labor? Good. Violate laws and exploit labor to achieve these aims? Good. Break up pro-union rallies with armed goons? Good. Create government-business monopolies to further their supra-national objectives?

Even better.

This isn't the goal of the average small business owner who just want to find their niche in the market.

Incidentally, mutualism is a pro-free market, anti-capitalist philosophy.

Some do. That is why I use the phrase "anarcho-capitalist" during some arguments.

You just missed the anti-capitalism element with your own example: Anti-crony capitalism, which is a form of anti-capitalism. Some would argue that one of the highest forms of capitalism is, indeed, crony capitalism.

Because capitalism also represents the worst excesses of the free market/free enterprise system. Look at the modern world for a multitude of examples.

One of the best examples you can use is warfare, which has sometimes been used to further corporate economic goals. To some people, Capitalism represents the Iron Triangle: the merger of Congress, the military, and the Corporate body.

Your points are well-taken, but those excesses you lay out are not the result of an inherent flaw in capitalism. All of those problems are created or exacerbated by government. The military-industrial complex exists as a result of aggressive foreign policy. Crony capitalism and monopolies are the result of government regulations that cripple the little guys you speak so highly of. Why do you think corporations spend so much time lobbying Congress? Because they know they can buy themselves favor from a government that inserts itself into the market like a meddling, inept referee.

To right-libertarians, the common nefarious thread running throughout the Iron Triangle isn't capitalism, it's government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but that's kind of a "death panel" comment.

Yeah, race is a factor in politics today.

It was a factor 10 years ago, too. And 50 years ago.

So no, I'm not going to stand here and try to claim that race has no effect whatsoever in the world today. (I couldn't keep a straight face.)

OTOH, I will point out that, IMO, if we had President Hillary today, we'd be seeing the same exact behavior.

(Well, OK, maybe they wouldn't be claiming she was born in Kenya.)

Race is not the overwhelming factor; I would say that Obama's liberal tendencies is probably bringing this out more then anything. else But it's easy to see the racial baggage which is coming out of the woodwork. The sort of racial baggage I've seen simmering under the cover for years.

Combine Obama's color, ethnic heritage, and liberalism, and you have a volatile mixture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In truth, Ron Paul is pretty clearly a libertarian, though of course there are different kinds. He might be officially a Republican, but there's only one district in the country that the "official" Libertarian Party doesn't try to field a candidate (as far as I know). Guess which one it is?

I always assumed that libertarians believe in the separation of church and state.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.

http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Seems to me like Ron Paul has more in common with the Christian right than libertarians. What sort of a libertarian believes there is no rigid separation between the church and state?

Libertarian= social liberal and economic conservative. Seems to me like Ron Paul is a social conservative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your points are well-taken, but those excesses you lay out are not the result of an inherent flaw in capitalism. All of those problems are created or exacerbated by government. The military-industrial complex exists as a result of aggressive foreign policy. Crony capitalism and monopolies are the result of government regulations that cripple the little guys you speak so highly of. Why do you think corporations spend so much time lobbying Congress? Because they know they can buy themselves favor from a government that inserts itself into the market like a meddling, inept referee.

To right-libertarians, the common nefarious thread running throughout the Iron Triangle isn't capitalism, it's government.

I recall reading an opinion piece, about 10 years ago.

It said that, in keeping with the grand national tradition of getting ready to fight the last war, that the political parties have been assembling forces with which to fight the last economic war.

That the next economic war (one which had already started) wasn't between labor and business (the two "sides" which the Parties were basing all of their rhetoric on), but between big business and small business.

(And, he said, that one side had already won that war, with the government's help.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your claim would have more credibility if one protester in a thousand could actually tell you what the policies are.

Hey, I've said many times during the threads about this that a lot of these protesters are absolute maroons.

I just don't think that putting a camera on the loudest, dumbest guy at a protest is a good way to get a finger on the pulse of a movement and shouldn't lead to the conclusion that the only people who oppose Obama's health care reform must be morons, racists, or both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found out that Ron Paul also opposed the Civil Rights act of 1964. That has to be biggest social issue of that time. What sort of a libertarian would oppose that? Sorry, but you can't look at his justifications to claim that he's a libertarian. His record seems to suggest that he's a social conservative who has more in common with Pat Buchanan than anybody else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was simmering and slowly building. To some folks, Obama's election was the last straw. "Now these blacks have a new messiah and they want to take over! Look at the Black Panther thugs at the polling station! After all, he is not even from America! He is Kenyan! He doesn't understand America, with his black preacher and his black liberation philosophy."

It isn't to hard to see it. I go to right-wing websites and I read this stuff -- I don't see how you can miss any of this if you spend time on the Internet.

I see it as well,and it is a small minority(not unlike the conspiracy crap you endorsed:)) that encompasses all political parties.

Is there really more of it ,or is it more visible as a result of O and co using it as a excuse?

I certainly agree there is a fringe element in society,but I fail to see it embraced or even highly represented.

Yeah -- a reaction to policies which have already happened. We spent TRILLIONS during the Bush years, and we didn't see any of the same reactions from some of these people. Heck, many of these folks SUPPORTED these policies. But Obama is elected, and all hell breaks lose -- gee, what is the difference? Hmmm....

GOP spends trillions? The country is in good hands. Obama is elected? TIME TO SECEDE!

If you didn't see the outrage then you weren't looking..or perhaps because W didn't feature it as a excuse.

Around here secession is always a popular talking point,and has been since I was a child...just part of our arrogant and independent nature.

So I just don't buy that it is only over his policies, especially since some of these policies have yet to be implemented, and especially since some of this anger is over misinformation, such as the recent "death panels" debate.

Why do you think it is so easy for people to believe things about Obama or his policies without any evidence? Because they want to believe it. They want to believe he wasn't born here in the US. They want to believe that his policies are a march to socialism -- that he wants to kill the elderly! -- so they can agitate about "taking back the country."

Well perhaps they embraced the Dem admonition to never let a crisis go to waste? :D

More likely it is simply a result of the instability they see in both their finances/economy and the direction of the country.

The town hall concept and the embrace of liberal tactics of protest simply give a more visible platform ...WITH the help of the administration:)

W just dismissed them as the loony fringe...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, I've said many times during the threads about this that a lot of these protesters are absolute maroons.

I just don't think that putting a camera on the loudest, dumbest guy at a protest is a good way to get a finger on the pulse of a movement and shouldn't lead to the conclusion that the only people who oppose Obama's health care reform must be morons, racists, or both.

Hey, I am a Trekkie.

I've been to lots of conventions. (I've run over a dozen.)

Every time the local TV station send a crew to cover the convention, guess who they take pictures of?

The weirdest-looking guy in the place.

(And it's never me.) :cry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just found out that Ron Paul also opposed the Civil Rights act of 1964. That has to be biggest social issue of that time. What sort of a libertarian would oppose that? Sorry, but you can't look at his justifications to claim that he's a libertarian. His record seems to suggest that he's a social conservative who has more in common with Pat Buchanan than anybody else.

I like both of them very much. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Race is not the overwhelming factor; I would say that Obama's liberal tendencies is probably bringing this out more then anything. else But it's easy to see the racial baggage which is coming out of the woodwork. The sort of racial baggage I've seen simmering under the cover for years.

Combine Obama's color, ethnic heritage, and liberalism, and you have a volatile mixture.

I agree.

At least we are finally having the discussion more out in the open and exposing the hypocrisy on race from all sides.

Perhaps it will be a teaching moment in our history,but it won't be pretty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I always assumed that libertarians believe in the separation of church and state.

You're moving the goalposts, here. Your initial oversimplification was shot down (with no response from you, I noticed ;)), so now you're moving on to something else.

I'm not going to chase you from topic to topic, because frankly, I don't care if you think that Ron Paul isn't a libertarian.

Suggestion:

Let's drop the gay marriage discussion.

:thud:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your points are well-taken, but those excesses you lay out are not the result of an inherent flaw in capitalism. All of those problems are created or exacerbated by government.

You're missing the point -- you almost have it, but not quite. That is one the inherent flaws of capitalism: exploitation. Exploitation of relationships.

The flaws aren't created by government -- they are often enabled by government.

The military-industrial complex exists as a result of aggressive foreign policy.

That is one factor of it, but you are missing the billions in profits which is being made. And this dates back to the early part if the 20th century. Read Robert M. Lafollette's speeches during his opposition to World War I. Read Smedly Butler's "War is a Racket." The corporate body uses the military to further their aims:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Crony capitalism and monopolies are the result of government regulations that cripple the little guys you speak so highly of.

Yes and no. And, again, you are ignoring the power goals of the monopolists.

Why do you think corporations spend so much time lobbying Congress? Because they know they can buy themselves favor from a government that inserts itself into the market like a meddling, inept referee.

You have it backwards. These policies are the result of crony capitalistic aims. First, they have an objective: expand business, increase profits. Second, they have a means to achieve this objective: Lobby members of Congress. Gain influence and back-room sweet-heart deals.

Both sides try to gain an advantage and a profit from the relationship. This is why the English Crown and the East Indian Trade Company had a mutual relationship.

Also, you are are totally ignoring the anti-trust laws which were passed during the Progressive period BECAUSE of crony-capitalism. This laws are not intended to kill competition and the "little guy" -- it was meant to increase competition which is killed by monopolies, aka "trusts."

To right-libertarians, the common nefarious thread running throughout the Iron Triangle isn't capitalism, it's government.

And that is why they are missing the point. You can't blame only the farmer who is filling the trough for the pigs: You also have to blame the pigs, themselves. To blame government while ignoring the capitalist monopolies is missing one side of the argument.

BTW, all of this was discussed during the 19th century by socialists. They were very critical of the capitalist-government power enabling relationship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I like both of them very much. :)

Yes, but are you a libertarian? :silly:

It's odd that you should say this, though, because they're almost polar opposites. Buchanan is socially conservative and fiscally liberal, while Paul is usually the reverse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...