View Full Version : Obama to Americans "you don't deserve to be free. "
mrsat_98
01-01-2014, 11:40 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/12/31/obama-to-americans-you-dont-deserve-to-be-free/
Christian Liberty
01-01-2014, 12:45 PM
I just read through the whole thing. I pretty much agree with the article's interpretation of what Obama said,but he didn't actually say what the article says he said.
Not to debate this again, but I still find the presumption that abortion laws are contrary to liberty is, at the very least, something that should not be ASSUMED. Even if you think that side is right, its not a blatant hypocrisy to believe the unborn should be protected while also supported laissez faire capitalism.
Contumacious
01-01-2014, 01:01 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/12/31/obama-to-americans-you-dont-deserve-to-be-free/
"Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory."
He is the typical socialist motherfucking liar.
.
His entire presidency has been an abject failure. He could have accomplished so much had he stuck to the law of the Constitution which he swore to defend. But his vows have been proven worthless and his actions self-serving and against the values and traditions of this Nation. He has become hands down the WORST President of our lifetimes.
Ender
01-01-2014, 01:15 PM
His entire presidency has been an abject failure. He could have accomplished so much had he stuck to the law of the Constitution which he swore to defend. But his vows have been proven worthless and his actions self-serving and against the values and traditions of this Nation. He has become hands down the WORST President of our lifetimes.
He's not the worst- he's just following in W's footsteps.
Contumacious
01-01-2014, 01:18 PM
His entire presidency has been an abject failure. He could have accomplished so much had he stuck to the law of the Constitution which he swore to defend. But his vows have been proven worthless and his actions self-serving and against the values and traditions of this Nation. He has become hands down the WORST President of our lifetimes.
An abject failure from a Libertarian standpoint.
Unfortunately they define success as the ability to acquire power , manipulate the parasitic faction and subjugate the opposition by any means necessary.
.
Christian Liberty
01-01-2014, 01:19 PM
He's not the worst- he's just following in W's footsteps.
Well, Obama's tyranny has been worse than Bush's, but that's really only because it has to start somewhere. The next President (Unless its Rand Paul) will be worse. And if Bush could somehow get elected for a third term in 2016, he'd be worse.
He's not the worst- he's just following in W's footsteps.
I guess it is a matter of opinion, and frankly towards the end of Bush's second term I said he was the worst President. But Obama did what I hoped wouldn't be done and that is surpass even Bush as becoming the absolute worst President of our lifetimes (in my opinion).
Ender
01-01-2014, 01:19 PM
"Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory."
He is the typical socialist motherfucking liar.
.
Maybe a little history should be mandatory for all US Presidents- like the fact that Harding brought the country out of a mini-depression with good financial policies. But we couldn't have that, so Harding died mysteriously. Hard to imagine, I know. :rolleyes:
erowe1
01-01-2014, 01:22 PM
I'm so sick of him using the phrase "trickle down." The entire premise of his signature economic stimulus package was that all that corporate welfare he doled out would trickle down.
Ender
01-01-2014, 01:22 PM
I guess it is a matter of opinion, and frankly towards the end of Bush's second term I said he was the worst President. But Obama did what I hoped wouldn't be done and that is surpass even Bush as becoming the absolute worst President of our lifetimes (in my opinion).
Understand.
I think that Obama pulling back from Syria and willing to negotiate with Iran makes him a bit better than Bush- but that is also just my personal POV.
amy31416
01-01-2014, 01:27 PM
He's not the worst- he's just following in W's footsteps.
I loathed Bush/Cheney with a passion, and I honestly think O's worse. It only gets muddled for me when it comes to foreign policy--where I'd put them in about the same category.
Contumacious
01-01-2014, 01:35 PM
Maybe a little history should be mandatory for all US Presidents- like the fact that Harding brought the country out of a mini-depression with good financial policies. But we couldn't have that, so Harding died mysteriously. Hard to imagine, I know. :rolleyes:
I agree with many of Prez Harding economic policies. Every president since then has supported fascistic/socialistic policies.
.
Ender
01-01-2014, 01:39 PM
I loathed Bush/Cheney with a passion, and I honestly think O's worse. It only gets muddled for me when it comes to foreign policy--where I'd put them in about the same category.
Yeah, it's a muddled mess- but Bush gave us the lovely PAs I & II plus NDAA. Those are the things that now allow all the fast and heavy loss of personal freedom in the good ol' US of A.
Christian Liberty
01-01-2014, 01:40 PM
Understand.
I think that Obama pulling back from Syria and willing to negotiate with Iran makes him a bit better than Bush- but that is also just my personal POV.
Yeah I agree, although he's even worse on economics so maybe it balances out. Not for me, though. I'll take bad foreign policy and terrible economic policy over having those flipped around if its up to me, theft isn't as bad as murder.
Ultimately we had the same choice with Obama/Romney. Romney may have been a little better (miniscule) for the economy, but his foreign policy would have been even worse. Hence why I marginally preferred Obama.
I agree with many of Prez Harding economic policies. Every president since then has supported fascistic/socialistic policies.
.
Don't get me wrong, as an ideal I don't support any degree of government. With that being said, unless you use a very strict definition of "socialist" or "fascist" that applies to just about everybody, I don't think Coolidge was one. Coolidge was great as far as I can tell, at least as far as Presidents go.
Ender
01-01-2014, 01:41 PM
I agree with many of Prez Harding economic policies. Every president since then has supported fascistic/socialistic policies.
.
Pretty much. I think JFK woke up but he also suffered an early demise.
Christian Liberty
01-01-2014, 01:41 PM
Yeah, it's a muddled mess- but Bush gave us the lovely PAs I & II plus NDAA. Those are the things that now allow all the fast and heavy loss of personal freedom in the good ol' US of A.
I'm pretty sure that one was Obama, unless you're talking about something other than the indefinite detention. Obama signed the patriot act just as much as Bush did, so I feel like that's kind of a wash as well.
That said, Bush did start the war in Iraq. Obama might have too, but we can't really deal in "what ifs". That's the thing that truly makes Bush worse in my mind.
jmdrake
01-01-2014, 01:42 PM
Understand.
I think that Obama pulling back from Syria and willing to negotiate with Iran makes him a bit better than Bush- but that is also just my personal POV.
Obama was forced to pull back from Syria. China and Russia flexed their collective muscles. He had no fucking choice. There's a similar situation with Iran. China and Russia will never allow a U.N. Security Council vote leading to war with Iran like they allowed leading to war with Iraq. Obama deserved no more credit on this than he did for "getting us out of Iraq early" when he didn't get us out a day earlier than Bush had negotiated us to be there, and he (Obama) was trying to negotiate a deal for us to stay longer. Pull back from Syria? After it became common knowledge that the Syrian opposition was being run by Al Qaeda? After he pulled that same stunt in Lybia (cooperating openly with Al Qaeda to overthrow a dictator that had been friendly to the U.S.)? After Bengahzi? All that shows is that he, at this point, is weaker than Bush was. I guess having an ineffective tyrant is slightly better than having an effective one.
Edit: The one positive thing about having Obama president on the Syria question is that he had to run against his own base to try to push that through. Bush would have had a bunch of mindless teocons lined up to support him chanting "Murika! Murika!" had he tried to attack Syria. But Obama didn't willing back away from squat.
Suzanimal
01-01-2014, 01:42 PM
He's not the worst- he's just following in W's footsteps.
Bush set the bar pretty high but I wouldn't underestimate Obama, he's still got 3 years.
Christian Liberty
01-01-2014, 01:44 PM
Obama was forced to pull back from Syria. China and Russia flexed their collective muscles. He had no fucking choice. There's a similar situation with Iran. China and Russia will never allow a U.N. Security Council vote leading to war with Iran like they allowed leading to war with Iraq. Obama deserved no more credit on this than he did for "getting us out of Iraq early" when he didn't get us out a day earlier than Bush had negotiated us to be there, and he (Obama) was trying to negotiate a deal for us to stay longer. Pull back from Syria? After it became common knowledge that the Syrian opposition was being run by Al Qaeda? After he pulled that same stunt in Lybia (cooperating openly with Al Qaeda to overthrow a dictator that had been friendly to the U.S.)? After Bengahzi? All that shows is that he, at this point, is weaker than Bush was. I guess having an ineffective tyrant is slightly better than having an effective one.
Yeah, people have tried to argue to me that Romney was a businessman and thus would be more effective. All that did was reassure me in my (again, slight) preference for Obama over Romney. And I really shudder to think what a truly effective tyrant like Abe Lincoln, Woodrow, or FDR could do with today's tech.
erowe1
01-01-2014, 01:44 PM
I'm pretty sure that one was Obama, unless you're talking about something other than the indefinite detention. Obama signed the patriot act just as much as Bush did, so I feel like that's kind of a wash as well.
That said, Bush did start the war in Iraq. Obama might have too, but we can't really deal in "what ifs". That's the thing that truly makes Bush worse in my mind.
It's harder to say with Obama. But Gore was who would have been in office. And I think there's a pretty good chance that he would have gone to war in Iraq. Clinton had already signed a law making the pursuit of regime change there official US policy.
Ender
01-01-2014, 01:45 PM
Obama was forced to pull back from Syria. China and Russia flexed their collective muscles. He had no fucking choice. There's a similar situation with Iran. China and Russia will never allow a U.N. Security Council vote leading to war with Iran like they allowed leading to war with Iraq. Obama deserved no more credit on this than he did for "getting us out of Iraq early" when he didn't get us out a day earlier than Bush had negotiated us to be there, and he (Obama) was trying to negotiate a deal for us to stay longer. Pull back from Syria? After it became common knowledge that the Syrian opposition was being run by Al Qaeda? After he pulled that same stunt in Lybia (cooperating openly with Al Qaeda to overthrow a dictator that had been friendly to the U.S.)? After Bengahzi? All that shows is that he, at this point, is weaker than Bush was. I guess having an ineffective tyrant is slightly better than having an effective one.
My point exactly. ;)
Also, it looks like Bengahzi was an alphabet maneuver; I don't think El Presidente had much say in that. Again, just my POV.
Ender
01-01-2014, 01:47 PM
It's harder to say with Obama. But Gore was who would have been in office. And I think there's a pretty good chance that he would have gone to war in Iraq. Clinton had already signed a law making the pursuit of regime change there official US policy.
Iraq was a war waiting to happen- just needed the right premise to appeal to the populace.
Tywysog Cymru
01-01-2014, 01:48 PM
I'm pretty sure that one was Obama, unless you're talking about something other than the indefinite detention. Obama signed the patriot act just as much as Bush did, so I feel like that's kind of a wash as well.
That said, Bush did start the war in Iraq. Obama might have too, but we can't really deal in "what ifs". That's the thing that truly makes Bush worse in my mind.
I think Obama is actually worse. Obama is probably smarter than Bush, so he is more guilty. I get the feeling that Dick Cheney was really in control of things and Dubya was just a figurehead. I also get the feeling that Obama is calling the shots, can't imagine Biden being the mastermind of anything. But that's just a theory.
Ender
01-01-2014, 01:50 PM
I think Obama is actually worse. Obama is probably smarter than Bush, so he is more guilty. I get the feeling that Dick Cheney was really in control of things and Dubya was just a figurehead. I also get the feeling that Obama is calling the shots, can't imagine Biden being the mastermind of anything. But that's just a theory.
I think Cheney had a lot of control but I also think W's "dumb" was an act. I think that O is a puppet and is controlled by TPTB.
jmdrake
01-01-2014, 01:56 PM
My point exactly. ;)
Also, it looks like Bengahzi was an alphabet maneuver; I don't think El Presidente had much say in that. Again, just my POV.
My point is that the groundwork for what happened in Bengahzi is directly related to "El Presidente's" willingness to support Al Qaeda in Lybia. Really, it kind of freaks me out a little every time I point this out, but it's the truth. Barack Hussein Obama openly worked with Al Qaeda. Oh...he tried to sugar coat it by saying "Well we're working with the good opposition." Yeah right! :rolleyes: What Obama did was open treason. Yeah....I think the Bush administration did things that were just as bad. But they weren't so blatant about it. And this "ineffective tyrant" has been effective in other ways. Anyway, it's like choosing between smallpox and anthrax.
Christian Liberty
01-01-2014, 01:58 PM
I think Obama is actually worse. Obama is probably smarter than Bush, so he is more guilty. I get the feeling that Dick Cheney was really in control of things and Dubya was just a figurehead. I also get the feeling that Obama is calling the shots, can't imagine Biden being the mastermind of anything. But that's just a theory.
You may be right, but as Ender points out, we don't really know. Its a "What if" though. I can only go by what's in front of me.
@erowe1- I know it would have been Gore, but we were discussing here who is worse between Bush and Obama. I think Bush was better than Gore based on the info that was actually available in 2000, but in reality I don't know if that's the case. I believe strongly that Kerry and Obama were the lesser of evils in 2004 and 2008 respectively, although I'd never, ever support either of them. 2012 is trickier because we don't really know what Romney would have done, he's hard to pin down on anything. McCain would have just been more war.
jmdrake
01-01-2014, 01:58 PM
"Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory."
He is the typical socialist motherfucking liar.
.
So.....how long is he (Obama) supposed to get to try his theory? If the economy still sucks in 2016 do elections need to be suspended so that he'll get a chance to finally "get it right?" And it's funny that he talks about the "postwar booms" when he's forever starting new wars.
Christian Liberty
01-01-2014, 01:58 PM
My point is that the groundwork for what happened in Bengahzi is directly related to "El Presidente's" willingness to support Al Qaeda in Lybia. Really, it kind of freaks me out a little every time I point this out, but it's the truth. Barack Hussein Obama openly worked with Al Qaeda. Oh...he tried to sugar coat it by saying "Well we're working with the good opposition." Yeah right! :rolleyes: What Obama did was open treason. Yeah....I think the Bush administration did things that were just as bad. But they weren't so blatant about it. And this "ineffective tyrant" has been effective in other ways. Anyway, it's like choosing between smallpox and anthrax.
I think most of us here agree that "Lesser of evils" is not a valid strategy.
Ender
01-01-2014, 04:58 PM
My point is that the groundwork for what happened in Bengahzi is directly related to "El Presidente's" willingness to support Al Qaeda in Lybia. Really, it kind of freaks me out a little every time I point this out, but it's the truth. Barack Hussein Obama openly worked with Al Qaeda. Oh...he tried to sugar coat it by saying "Well we're working with the good opposition." Yeah right! :rolleyes: What Obama did was open treason. Yeah....I think the Bush administration did things that were just as bad. But they weren't so blatant about it. And this "ineffective tyrant" has been effective in other ways. Anyway, it's like choosing between smallpox and anthrax.
Why is this a surprise? The US invented Al Qaeda; it is now used as a catch-all term for any Islamics .gov doesn't like or want to paint as baaaaad.
FSU63
01-01-2014, 05:06 PM
Misleading title. Negged and hopefully you stop posting propaganda.
He didn't say that. I didn't like what he said, but your quotes imply that he did say that.
jmdrake
01-01-2014, 05:07 PM
Why is this a surprise? The US invented Al Qaeda; it is now used as a catch-all term for any Islamics .gov doesn't like or want to paint as baaaaad.
Oh that the government is working with Al Qaeda isn't a surprise to me at all. I'm a conspiracy theorist remember? That the government would be so in your face about it is a bit of a surprise. That they're so far getting away with it...that there are still people who are otherwise skeptical of government but misuse and abuse "Occam's razor" to pretend the official take on things might possibly be true is surprising and...well...sad.
jmdrake
01-01-2014, 05:09 PM
Misleading title. Negged and hopefully you stop posting propaganda.
He didn't say that. I didn't like what he said, but your quotes imply that he did say that.
I plus repped the OP to offset your stupid neg rep. He took the title form the article. And nobody with half a brain expected the article to have a direct quote of Obama saying that.
FSU63
01-01-2014, 05:10 PM
I plus repped the OP to offset your stupid neg rep. He took the title form the article. And nobody with half a brain expected the article to have a direct quote of Obama saying that.
There was no quotation mark in the title.
And quotations imply that someone directly said something. This is propaganda. Congrats, OP, you're in the company of Fox News and CNN.
FSU63
01-01-2014, 05:17 PM
This would be the equivalent of Ron Paul talking abut getting rid of corporate taxes, and CNN making the headline:
Ron Paul: "I want poor people to die"
jmdrake
01-01-2014, 05:24 PM
There was no quotation mark in the title.
And quotations imply that someone directly said something. This is propaganda. Congrats, OP, you're in the company of Fox News and CNN.
If you are stupid enough to think that was a direct quote than that's your problem.
jmdrake
01-01-2014, 05:25 PM
This would be the equivalent of Ron Paul talking abut getting rid of corporate taxes, and CNN making the headline:
Ron Paul: "I want poor people to die"
And if I saw that on CNN my first thought would be that was CNN's interpretation of what Ron Paul said. My concern would be does the thought of what he said match the quote.
Occam's Banana
01-01-2014, 05:45 PM
Obama To Americans: You Don't Deserve To Be Free
I guess that's what we get for not building that ...
Contumacious
01-01-2014, 07:11 PM
So.....how long is he (Obama) supposed to get to try his theory? If the economy still sucks in 2016 do elections need to be suspended so that he'll get a chance to finally "get it right?" And it's funny that he talks about the "postwar booms" when he's forever starting new wars.
It will lsts as long as Americans believe that they will have a chance to outnumber the parasites in general elections.
.
Anti Federalist
01-02-2014, 01:00 AM
Obama to Americans "you don't deserve to be free. "
Upon reflection...can't argue with that.
Christian Liberty
01-02-2014, 01:02 AM
I plus repped the OP to offset your stupid neg rep. He took the title form the article. And nobody with half a brain expected the article to have a direct quote of Obama saying that.
If you are stupid enough to think that was a direct quote than that's your problem.
I honestly wondered if he did say that until I read the article. I was skeptical, but I wondered. I guess we all have our stupid moments:)
Paulbot99
01-02-2014, 01:17 AM
Upon reflection...can't argue with that.
Visit my college campus sometime. So any sheeple... Still, the Young Americans For Liberty Chapter is fun. We chalk I'll the place sometimes. We made sure to chalk "Life, Liberty, and Property" near where the Labor History professor walks to the building he teaches. I wish I could have seen his face when he saw it, even if his Marx beard makes me want to gag.
mrsat_98
01-02-2014, 04:33 AM
There was no quotation mark in the title.
And quotations imply that someone directly said something. This is propaganda. Congrats, OP, you're in the company of Fox News and CNN.
Thank you, I am enjoying every minute. I bet Danke wishes he where here. http://www.foxnewsgirls.com/Fox_News_Girls_Hot_Pictures.html#.UsU_nvRDueQ (http://www.foxnewsgirls.com/Fox_News_Girls_Hot_Pictures.html#.UsU_nvRDueQ)
DamianTV
01-02-2014, 04:46 AM
Upon reflection...can't argue with that.
Many do not want to be free. The only freedom they want is the freedom FROM responsibility. They also fail to understand that along with that responsibility that goes bye bye goes everything else, food, work, money, homes, family, privacy, and most important to them above almost all else, Security. Yeah, Security goes right out the window, like the pants I wear in my family until my wife gets home.
DamianTV
01-02-2014, 04:57 AM
Misleading title. Negged and hopefully you stop posting propaganda.
He didn't say that. I didn't like what he said, but your quotes imply that he did say that.
I think a mere post that points out that he did not directly state that, but implies that addresses the problem. Neg repping for something so trivial is a good way to start a fight.
Trust me, if you start trying to hand out negative reps, you'll have to expect some back in return, and you really dont want people that have a rep power of 20+ points to give you negative rep if you do accidentally do something. Not that rep has any actual value, but it is definitely a reflection of ones character. Would you call the cops on me if my dogs were barking at something in the middle of the night? Why not just talk to me about it so we can work things out? Thats the kind of Character that Im talking about, and rep is a reflection of that.
jmdrake has way more rep power than I do, which means your attempt to -rep has completely backfired.
Point is, seriously, lets not start fighting amongst ourselves over trivial shit. When we start fighting, they win, and we lose. This is what is expected by the Powers that Be. This is not "hey, you cheated at mini golf", this is WWIII is about to start and Im gonna still be upset about someone cheating at mini golf. And we are THIS CLOSE to the Last World War, where we all lose. We lose EVERYTHING. If we can not stop the madness that our world is being lead into because we are infighting over stupid crap, we stand to lose all everything else we hold dear forever.
tod evans
01-02-2014, 05:22 AM
OP got a couple more +rep points.......
jmdrake
01-02-2014, 06:06 AM
I honestly wondered if he did say that until I read the article. I was skeptical, but I wondered. I guess we all have our stupid moments:)
Oh. You're in the "I put nothing past Obama" camp. ;)
tod evans
01-02-2014, 06:08 AM
Oh. You're in the "I put nothing past Obama" camp. ;)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-25Mi5RgN0WI/TZCH_LfzKyI/AAAAAAAABNs/mWZwU_VW4DE/s1600/obama-soros_puppet_strings.jpg
FSU63
01-02-2014, 08:48 AM
I think a mere post that points out that he did not directly state that, but implies that addresses the problem. Neg repping for something so trivial is a good way to start a fight.
If someone quoted Rn Paul on something he didn't say, people would be going absolutely nuts. But, since this misquote serves your agenda, it's okay?
OP had to manually put the quotes there. He did not copy and paste the article's title. It's propaganda, no matter how small. How are people defending OP? Because it happens to be an anti-Obama article?
Once again, how would you react if someone misquoted Ron Paul?
CT4Liberty
01-02-2014, 09:34 AM
I'm so sick of him using the phrase "trickle down." The entire premise of his signature economic stimulus package was that all that corporate welfare he doled out would trickle down.
We should be able to use this to our advantage... wait for them to spout off how "trickle down" economics doesnt work...then blast them with "You're right, why do you support it then, lets abolish the income tax and give the money directly to the people... anything else must "trickle down" either from the rich to the poor or corporations to employees or the government to the citizens... if you truly believe that it wont trickle down then you must let people keep their money."
Whenever I think about neg repping someone...I just close the window. I'm happy to have never neg repped anyone. I just go overboard with plus rep to counter it.
I question whether the OP did it intentionally? You assume he did. I was thinking that he meant to put a quote at the beginning and put the colon where the first quote is...as the title of the article had it, that way it was a quote of the article title. If you knew for sure he tried to misrepresent it then I could agree with the neg rep.
I don't think you can edit your title unless you are an admin so even if he wanted to fix it he couldn't.
erowe1
01-02-2014, 10:17 AM
Upon reflection...can't argue with that.
Good point.
Lucille
01-02-2014, 01:54 PM
Does Anyone Pay Attention to What Obama Says?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/does-anyone-pay-attention-to-what-obama-says/
...Binswanger has put forth a clever article on Forbes; “Obama to Americans: You Don’t Deserve to be Free.” He has nicely deconstructed (and appropriately reconstructed) two paragraphs from ObamaLand, a place where fiction and historical cock-and-bull are the norm. Binswanger is not exaggerating when he calls the text of this speech “a remarkable document.” It’s astonishing to think that, for the most part, these statements went unchallenged in the general media. Here is a link to Obama’s speech in both video and transcript format.
Binswanger takes the simple approach and looks at the underlying fundamentals of markets vs government: “Capitalism means freedom. Government means force.” I will take a step back to explain how government equals force.
All government is necessarily established, administered, and influenced by politics. It is politics that controls all elections, governance, and where the achievement of power resides. Power is achieved only at the expense of others who are subjected to that power without having any choice to opt out of the regime’s rules and actions over enforcement. The political system, played out in the form of an oligarchical structure, props up an artificial entity known as the state, and it is the state that coerces individuals via its random decrees, institutions, and arbitrarily empowered packs of elites. Politics is thus necessarily defined as coercion. Coercion is force. Forcing someone to do something against their will is a crime. Your government is an institution of criminality.
Binswanger has shown how the propagandists in ObamaLand produce fuzzy-sounding, historical falsehoods and then proceed to tell us why that history didn’t work. Then comes the speech from His Majesty on how the government can right historical wrongs that never occurred. This gives rise to sanction for yet another layer of central planning, courtesy of our thieves writ large. But who in the audience has a clue about the lies, let alone the truth?
DamianTV
01-02-2014, 04:53 PM
If someone quoted Rn Paul on something he didn't say, people would be going absolutely nuts. But, since this misquote serves your agenda, it's okay?
OP had to manually put the quotes there. He did not copy and paste the article's title. It's propaganda, no matter how small. How are people defending OP? Because it happens to be an anti-Obama article?
Once again, how would you react if someone misquoted Ron Paul?
I'd offer a correction, but not a -rep.
During the elections, people purposefully misquoted RP all the time. Most were MSM. A few around here, but they didnt last long. But they'd get called out for misquoting, and taking stuff out of context. They'd get kicked out when they would purposefully start fighting. Remember the Ron Paul "is a Racist" issue? That came up a lot. It wasnt just misinterpretation. And people would stand by their claim of racism and explain themselves in such a way that there was no misinterpretation. They fought with other members and did not support the principles of Liberty.
And sure, we all want everyones support. We all bias information. But none of us want to feel like we are alone in this situation, which is why we do it. This shit is scary. End of the world is terrifying. Police State, terrifying. The thing is, by now we should all know that everyone expresses certain biases, intentional or not. With whats at stake, this is petty. So whether someone tries to summarize an intent as a quote, interpretation as a quote, or quotes literally, its the same bias we're all guilty of expressing in one way or another. Ron Paul - Banks are Pure Evil. Probably never actually said that, but we can see it as a summarized interpretive non literal quote. "Jefferson - Banks Will OWN You If You Let Them". TJ didnt say that ver batim, but his real statement (even some contention over that) was too long to fit into a simple forum Thread Title.
The emotional attachment you have is exactly what is expected. US Govt wants violence with the people. It is planned and provoked. They're gonna keep doing the same thing until people snap. Most people will snap at different times. And that gives them the advantage. It is that emotional response to their provocation of fighting that allows them to get what they want. They want violence, and are provoking it because they are A: good at it, and B: it leads to the next step, Martial Law. Say you're emotionally attached to a Teddy Bear (hypothetical). Govt comes along and purposefully takes it away, and denies any responsibility for repairing or replacing your Teddy Bear. Emotional attachment creates an illogical but expected emotional response.
Propoganda in and of itself is a tool, it is how it is used that determines whether or not it is good or evil. Im not advocating propoganda, but try to constantly use propoganda, and point out that I am so that we can build up a resistance to propoganda. We see it for what it is. I purposefully mislead people and tell them I am purposefully trying to mislead them so they can recognize it when someone else tries to do it. I dont always tell the truth, I tell people what they need to hear. I might not believe, or know if you have a pure heart, but I'll tell you that you have a pure heart as a form of encouragement. And instead of just giving you "fish", I try to teach "how to fish". I encourage disobedience but not infighting. I try to encourage people to question everything, especially everything I say, so when they do, I cant resent it. Why? I'd prefer to be on the same side as someone because my ideas have been challenged and not blindly agreed with. I feel that if I have the support of people that have challenged the same ideas that I have and similar conclusions that I've drawn, I have real support. I dont need to buy people off because we have the same goals. I am very guilty of being manipulative and constantly play devils advocate as a means of persuading people to question EVERYTHING they are told. So when people stick to only one perspective, I have to alter what I say as a means of getting people to challenge their own beliefs that they hold on to. People want to express support for something, I sometimes show support for that same something in a very twisted version of it so they challenge their own beliefs. Its not about changing their beliefs so they suit mine, but teach to question everything, expand their ability to percieve things the way that others do, just so they understand them. Once you know how your opponent thinks, you know what to expect. The expansion of perspective through these constant challenges enables people the power of foresight. This is why many of us conclude that what is being provoked is a mass conflict between the citizens and the Police. The intent and goal is that we start the fight, and they're the heroes when they declare Martial Law. If they attack us first en masse, a lot of people will show support for us, which is what they do not want.
Look, we're all with you and feel your frustration against the abuses by the Status Quo. This genuine anger needs to be aimed at them, not us, so it can be made to be useful for Liberty. Anger at its purest form is Energy. Potential Energy. Its a resource. And resources can be consumed and wasted, or used for something productive. Problem with Anger as Energy is it is difficult to encourage and maintain control. Much like gasoline. Gasoline wants to consume itself as much as possible until it is gone. Hold on to that anger and try to focus it in a more useful direction. Give it a "slow burn", like a pilot light on a flamethrower. Dont let it all go off too early and only hold on to what you can control. Too much makes it dangerous to yourself, like trying to carry too much in a backpack fuel supply for a flamethrower, but too little and you lose motivation. It needs balance. The Powers that Be know this situation is a powder keg, and every conflict, every abuse, every action is a spark that they are trying to set off the powder keg. This is what they're good at. They dont bother directly conflicting with their enemies, they get their enemies to take themselves out. Its why they funded the Syrian Rebels. They're playing to control both sides of the chessboard. They want you to blow your lid at us, because it is "more efficient" than direct conflict, although direct conflict is planned and provoked. They want to fight an enemy that has weakened itself by fighting with itself. They've destablized the entire middle east so all these waring factions attack each other, then they come in, play the part of the heroes, and in the process, steal their resources. First part of the plan is to encourage us to fight about everything. If you arent a christian and I am, we are supposed to fight about that. If you like peanut butter and I like chocolate, we're supposed to fight about that too. When we start fighting, they have an excuse to take away guns from everyone.
We know what we are being told is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. They want you to feel guilty over a lot of things that are beyond any measure of control. Once you understand that you are supposed to feel guilty about these things, do you still feel guilty?
Yeah, that was a bit long winded, but hopefully, its a valid explanation. It should challenge some of your perspectives, and on some of those perspectives, I am actually hoping to lose any arguments. Its not a rant and I'm not trying to go off on you as happens a lot of times with big posts, but the goal is to help people to understand themselves, and recognize who are the people that are really causing problems. We all need to recognize the source of the problems and how they work if we are to overcome them, lest we become the same evil that we are trying to defeat.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.