|
Post by antichrist on Apr 11, 2009 21:44:45 GMT -5
BTW which president was it that sold the US ports to Dubai?
|
|
|
Post by theamericancowboy on Apr 12, 2009 8:23:55 GMT -5
BTW which president was it that sold the US ports to Dubai? I guess I should clarify my position. Although I am a conservative, I am NOT a Republican; I am an independent and tend to vote with the Libertarian and Constitution parties. I believe in a small, limited government whose powers are defined by a strict interpretation of the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I believe that the government's role is to defend the homeland, enforce basic laws, and ensure reasonable fair play in the free market. That's it. No handouts, no humanitarian aid, no meddling in people's private lives or getting involved with foreign politics, except where U.S. interests are concerned. The government is there to ensure that every person has a fair shot at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; it is NOT there to make everyone happy, but to ensure that you have an equal opportunity to be happy if you so choose. I do not consider Bush a conservative president or the GOP a conservative party.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Apr 12, 2009 8:29:29 GMT -5
I guess I should clarify my position. Although I am a conservative, I am NOT a Republican; I am an independent and tend to vote with the Libertarian and Constitution parties. I believe in a small, limited government whose powers are defined by a strict interpretation of the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I believe that the government's role is to defend the homeland, enforce basic laws, and ensure reasonable fair play in the free market. That's it. No handouts, no humanitarian aid, no meddling in people's private lives or getting involved with foreign politics, except where U.S. interests are concerned. The government is there to ensure that every person has a fair shot at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; it is NOT there to make everyone happy, but to ensure that you have an equal opportunity to be happy if you so choose. I do not consider Bush a conservative president or the GOP a conservative party. Umm, you know that the whole concept of a military to defend the society as a whole is not something that would constitute as a 'small government' thing. Also, considering how much the US spends on the military, it is far from being 'small' at all. And why no humanitarian aid? What is so bad about helping people for the greater good?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Apr 12, 2009 8:30:07 GMT -5
Theamericancowboy... can you explain how American slavery was not directly an English construct when the slaves were bought in Africa by Englishmen, transported by Englishmen, delivered to English governed colonies, protected by English naval vessels and regulated under English law?
Seems sort of like claiming Cigarette manufacturers aren't responsible for cigarettes, because its the tobacco farmers that cause the problem
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Apr 12, 2009 8:31:24 GMT -5
Good question... if the military protecting the greater good is acceptible, why isn't public health care?
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 12, 2009 9:06:48 GMT -5
I guess I should clarify my position. Although I am a conservative, I am NOT a Republican; I am an independent and tend to vote with the Libertarian and Constitution parties. I believe in a small, limited government whose powers are defined by a strict interpretation of the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I believe that the government's role is to defend the homeland, enforce basic laws, and ensure reasonable fair play in the free market. That's it. No handouts, no humanitarian aid, no meddling in people's private lives or getting involved with foreign politics, except where U.S. interests are concerned. The government is there to ensure that every person has a fair shot at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; it is NOT there to make everyone happy, but to ensure that you have an equal opportunity to be happy if you so choose. I do not consider Bush a conservative president or the GOP a conservative party. Umm, you know that the whole concept of a military to defend the society as a whole is not something that would constitute as a 'small government' thing. Also, considering how much the US spends on the military, it is far from being 'small' at all. And why no humanitarian aid? What is so bad about helping people for the greater good? They ain't good white folk like him
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 12, 2009 11:55:39 GMT -5
Proof?
-George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. -Andrew Jackson led a campaign of genocide against the Native Americans. -Woodrow Wilson would only hire white people and often told "darky jokes" at cabinet meetings. He also said everything in D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" film was true. -Richard Nixon despised the Jews, and made no secret of that.
Yeah, the most racist first family my aching ass. All you have for Obama is a small "guilt by association" problem which really doesn't hold up.
Proof or it didn't happen. (And even if it did, so what?)
Not much of a history buff, are you? Greeks and Romans also held slaves in the same manner as Africans--people captured in warfare. This is still not the same as chattel slavery, the time of slavery used by the English, Spanish, Americans, etc.
So your big hang-up is that Obama has shitty taste in gifts?
Because the bust was not a gift you twit, it was on loan from a British art museum. Obama declined to hold onto it for another four years....
We have the birth certificate-we win.
Oh yes it is.
Yet you've shown no concrete evidence for this.
He bowed as a sign of respect. So fucking what?
That he shows respect for world leaders.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Apr 12, 2009 13:01:13 GMT -5
The Obamas have a deep-seated hatred for the English and for white people in general That would be weird considering that Obama has English in his own ancenstry and is half white. But I suppose you could be going for the whole "All Black People Hate Whites Because They Know Whites Are Better Than Them And Secretly Hate Themselves For That Reason, Too" thing. Really? You're making the contenction that the half-black, half-white, raised in multiple foreign cultures, Barack Obama is the head of the "most racist first family in American history?" Really? We're just going to ignore all the slave-owning first families? Okaaaayyyyyy..... Wow. Now, dude, i could see you blaming the Portugese for slavery...but to make the outright statement that slavery as it was practiced in North America was "a uniquely negro institution," and that it was created by Africans themselves for the purpose of selling their own people into slavery? You have done only one thing here: utterly solidified yourself as nothing but a pure troll. Seriously? You are claiming that it is well-docmented that Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen? Really? Now you just look like a fool as well as a troll. I don't even know why I'm responding to this. It's so obviously Poe trolling.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 12, 2009 13:54:40 GMT -5
I dunno, maybe he really is a racist moron.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 12, 2009 16:54:12 GMT -5
I dunno, maybe he really is a racist moron. I suspect he's a klansman or dreams of the day when he can be. Most racists are morons by default, they'll ignore anything and twist anything (like religion) to suit what they want to say. He'll just take the next step here, one of three choices, drop the thread and move to a new one to repeat this tripe, insult, or lie some more Racists tick me off more than anything because they hate with such a loud mouth and a blind mind, they hate others for no reason other than they're not the same as them
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 12, 2009 17:09:00 GMT -5
Good question... if the military protecting the greater good is acceptible, why isn't public health care? Indeed, wouldn't that fall under the promoting the general welfare part of the constitution? I mean a country that puts lot of money into it's military but meanwhile it's people are not getting what they need... doesn't that also describe North Korea?
|
|
|
Post by theamericancowboy on Apr 12, 2009 17:12:20 GMT -5
[quote author=theamericancowboy board=pg That would be weird considering that Obama has English in his own ancenstry and is half white. But I suppose you could be going for the whole "All Black People Hate Whites Because They Know Whites Are Better Than Them And Secretly Hate Themselves For That Reason, Too" thing. And yet, Obama writes in his memoirs about how he was ashamed of his white heritage as a boy and how he chose to identify with his black heritage and shun white culture. Go figure. Black-on-black slavery continues to exist today, long after white nations have moved on from the issue - in the Sudan, it is common for black Muslims to own black Christian slaves. Here's a good documentary to look up: www.pbs.org/wonders/Episodes/Epi3/slave_2.htm
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 12, 2009 17:15:28 GMT -5
BTW which president was it that sold the US ports to Dubai? I guess I should clarify my position. Although I am a conservative, I am NOT a Republican; I am an independent and tend to vote with the Libertarian and Constitution parties. If you support the 'party of no principle' (libertards) than you are no conservative. Conservatives want to conserve what we have now, not dismantle it. But be happy being part of the fastest shrinking party in America! I believe that the government's role is to defend the homeland, enforce basic laws, and ensure reasonable fair play in the free market. That system doesn't work. It's unfair, it's got very high unemployment, it's very unstable and it's a matter of time before it destroys itself. And people can be owned by corporations. It's also not very innovative, except in very narrow lines. Ask any competent economist (Chicago/Austrian school are right out). They will tell you that the market is both inefficient and a social construct, and should therefore be made efficient by an external regulatory and interventionary institution called a government, where it isn't banned altogether as unnecessary. That's it. No handouts, no humanitarian aid, no meddling in people's private lives or getting involved with foreign politics, except where U.S. interests are concerned. The government is there to ensure that every person has a fair shot at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; it is NOT there to make everyone happy, but to ensure that you have an equal opportunity to be happy if you so choose. No meddling in other people's politics, except if we want to, no respect of basic economic rights, a massive siphon of money to the already wealthy, and bullshit moralisation about your mass murder using the words of an irrelevent non-legal document. Sounds like a neo-con to me! I do not consider Bush a conservative president or the GOP a conservative party. Belief doesn't make truth.
|
|
|
Post by theamericancowboy on Apr 12, 2009 17:17:49 GMT -5
Umm, you know that the whole concept of a military to defend the society as a whole is not something that would constitute as a 'small government' thing. You know, I hadn't thought about that before, but you raise a very valid point. It seems that the earliest models of national defense relied on state militias and an armed civilian population, rather than a federally funded national army. In fact, the concept of a national army really wasn't solidified until the civil war, when Abraham Lincoln conscripted the northern states into his "grand army of the republic" in an effort to erode and finally crush the rights of the confederate states. What are your thoughts on citizen-run state militias, bluefinger? Nothing - in fact, voluntary humanitarian aid is a good thing. However, it's not the government's place to decide when, how, or if you will contribute to charitable causes. Humanitarian aid should be supplied by private initiatives that are genuinely moved to compassion for their fellow men, rather than by a governmental machine that attempts to "enforce" compassion on the population.
|
|
|
Post by theamericancowboy on Apr 12, 2009 17:24:36 GMT -5
If you support the 'party of no principle' (libertards) than you are no conservative. Conservatives want to conserve what we have now, not dismantle it. But be happy being part of the fastest shrinking party in America! "Conservative" has been redefined in recent years by the Bush administration and segments of the religious right. However, classical conservatism is simply small government, fiscally responsible politics, which are represented by many Libertarian and Constitutionalist candidates today. BTW, last I checked, the Libertarian party is growing. Your boy Obama and his socialist policies are giving small government conservatism a boost ;D Since when is it the government's job to be "innovative?" That's what the private sector and the free market are for. Sounds like your "competent" economists are simply socialist college professors. "Banned" as "altogether unnecessary" - have you been reading Marx? Give me a break. Socialism has never worked, and never will. It looks good on paper, but fails in practice. I can show you just as many economists who will tell you flat out that Keynesian Economics (the economic worldview OBama subscribes to) is an utter failure that will only sink this country further into the hole of debt and poverty. What the holy ****, man! Are you seriously referring to the Constitution of the United States as "an irrelevent non-legal document?" Sounds you like you and Obama have been to the same college classes, considering Obama thinks the Constitution is an impediment to the "redistribution of wealth." There you have it, folks - straight from the donkey's mouth. Liberals think our Constitution is "an irrelevent non-legal document."
|
|