Jump to content
Fox is the problem.
No doubt about it. John is right.
It's all the fault of Fox News.
It has nothing to do with the federal gubbamint flailing at its citizens like a bull in a china shoppe.
The fact that Uncle Scam is wire-tapping the press, flying drones over your house, inflating your currency, running intimidation campaigns against its opposition, and covering up not one but 2 gun-running operations both south of the border and in Libya, has NOTHING to do with it.
It's all about how Fox News is just plain crazy, along with all its viewers.
Mister Rodgers is a National Hero while the taxpayers who got the financial equivilent of water-boarded by the IRS are just a bunch of a-holes anyway.
And if they are all "crazy" anyway, then, well, then, hell, they must "deserve" to get such treatment.
After all, the "American expiriment in democracy" can "continue" without the input of an entire segment of the population that John thinks is "special"; his nice little nasty way of calling them "stupid" and therefore justifying their abuse, and eviction from what he hails as the "expiriment in democracy".
How, exactly does one have a "democracy" if everyone who disagrees with John and Barack Obama is too scared to vote??
"The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable."
--F. Bastiat, The Law
Are you talking about G. Wiggins or The Obama Administration, Bill???
Not clear what you're talking about. Want to elaborate? Then I'll know if I'm in the club or not...
I wonder how many folks who want to have tons more weed than they "need" are among those who don't want me to have guns that I don't "need"??
Whenever I hear someone saying that it is ok to prohibit something because it is not "needed" my first and only thought is what a completely hopeless IDIOT that person must be.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO INTRODUCE INTO A SOCIETY, A PHILOSOPHY MORE DEADLY TO PERSONAL LIBERTY THAN THAT OF PRESCRIBING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF "NEED". One need only visit the nearest zoo to see the end of such thinking.
How well did Dostoevsky speak of the American Sheeple when he penned these words:
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us." [...] Receiving bread from us, they will see clearly that we take the bread made by their hands from them, to give it to them, without any miracle. [...] in truth they will be more thankful for taking it from our hands than for the bread itself. [...] They will marvel at us and will be awe-stricken before us, and will be proud at our being so powerful and clever that we have been able to subdue such a turbulent flock of thousands of millions."
--Fyodor Dostoevsky, "The Grand Inquisitor"
"The guys that thoght they could sell pot on Craigslist deserve life..."
I suppose they should get a cell right next to the guy who killed and injured dozens in the theatre or the monster who killed 20 kids?
The stupid shines through in the "anti-death penalty" crowd when you consider how, without the death penalty, their version of "punishment" is life in prison for pot or for killing 20 kids.
Either crime carries equal punishment?
I should spend less time labeling people?
And I'm sure the "spades" would appreciate the break too.
The founders were statists? Really? You mean the same kind of statists I'm talking about ?
Now, let's see... Statism is the OPPOSITE of Libertarianism; and what was it that Patrick Henry,one of our founders said?? Was it "Give me STATISM or give me death."??
Did Ben Franklin say, "Any people that would give up STATISm for a little temporary safety deserve niether."??
"If you love wealth more than STATISM, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of STATISM, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." ???
- Samuel Adams
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our STATISM than standing armies..."- Thomas Jefferson
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of STATISM."????
- Thomas Jefferson
These are the times that try men's souls.... and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as STATISM should not be highly rated." ????
- Thomas Paine
Did they say that??? NO! They did not.
They said THIS:
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
- Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
- James Madison
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
I agree, Steve. In some cases liberals ARE on my side. And far too often there are so-called "conservatives" who are all too willing to use government as a club for THEIR interests just like many on the left.
Frankly, that's why I'm a libertarian.
But far too often the lions share of the state that's being shoved down my throat is championed by statists of a far LEFT leaning variety.
So, pardon the hell outta me if I tend to do a bit too much "lumping" but if it quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck...
"Respect for government allows room to respect the individual."
I completely disagree. With the position this government takes toward individual rights I simply do not believe that at all.
The Patriot Act, Drones over my house, IRS reading your e-mails without a warrant, entry into homes without warrant OR probable cause, robbing the individual with confiscatory taxes AND by inflating the individuals currency, etc, etc... No Sir, no respect is to be afforded an entity that positions itself thusly against the individual.
In the military they teach you that respect is EARNED. Perhaps if the government was constrained to its proper role, and sized accordingly at a maximum of about 1/3 of its present mass, then it might be respected by more Americans.
Respect for THIS government is not something I am capable of. It is my FIRM opinion that this government we have today is in no way, shape, or form, worthy of one damned speck of respect. Do I fear it? Yes. Do I obey it? Pretty much. Do I respect it? NO WAY IN HELL.
Furthermore, I believe that anyone who deems todays government respectable has highly questionable motives, or extremely low intelligence.
I believe that life, liberty and property do not exist because men have come together and made laws (ie formed government)> I believe that life, liberty, and property existed BEFORE government and THAT FACT is what caused men to form government.
I further believe that the law only has the authority to do collectively what the individual had the right to do on his own. For example: You do not have the right to put a gun to your neighbors head and take his property and give it to another. Therefore, government, being NOTHING MORE than a collection of individuals, also DOES NOT have the right to do this.
Yet it does. It does that and much more.
Last login: Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.