Republican obstructionism has now officially jumped the shark - Page 5

 

That's not what "allows" the be freer. You're confused. You clearly don't understand what freedom is.

I understand what enables it. And mad max anarchy doesn't. If it's too dangerous to leave your house because there are so many poor people around turning to crime out of desperation, you're damn well not free.

 

You obviously do not.

 

 

 

More with you're dystopian conjecture about a world absent official state coercion? You're starting to sound like a one-note sonata.

 

 

 

Agreed. Of course this is not the only way you can be un-free.

Amazing. Just today, you said in argument that you'll just look at history. Now you're ignoring it.

 

Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, most European countries (with the notable exception of Greece and Spain -- go figure) have rejected cuts to welfare and social programs, and they have seen recovery and growth.

 

By the way, what's the gun control status in those states? Isn't that an integral part of what you call "freedom"? Yet you would leave the US for any of those countries?

 

Your misinterpretation and facile analysis* of those situations aside, you apparently are taking my comment out of context and applying to different things. Odd.

 

*I seriously doubt you've done any real analysis besides reading a couple of superficial news articles.

 

I've lived it. Where have you lived outside of the US or some hotel for a week?

 

The episode wherein anecdotal personal experience is equated with thoughtful and objective analysis.

 

 

I lived in Brazil for 2 years.

How Ironic coming from someone who links to ten page essays containing no factual evidence in support of the thesis presented.

 

You don't deny that your argument is anecdotal?

I do deny it. All the countries listed above have more socialist policy than the USA. That's not anecdote. That's fact. Many of them have higher taxes than the USA. That's not anecdote. That's fact. Yet they're all better off economically and politically than the USA. That's arguable to some depending on how you measure success, but you don't seem to be arguing against that assertion.

So I see. Well you glossed right over the fact that you didn't substantiate your claim of Obama's apocalyptic statements. Typical when the burden of proof is with you it's not forthcoming.

 

I see...then it's a correlation/causation assumption.

 

In typical fashion you've ignored a previous post on the subject now that it's off the current page. 

 

But that's just the summarization. How about these:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572703/obama-administration-struggles-to-illustrate-pain-from-sequester/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/obama-sequester-speech_n_2716921.html

 

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=634DE64D-44DE-4B23-AA2B-173C83685525

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/koch-group-shrugs-off-budget-cuts-88412.html

 

Phrases like "meat cleaver" and "eviscerate" not to mention the enumeration of any number of dire results both specific and general (some downright lies) I think demonstrates how badly Obama was trying to spin (propagandize) this.

For what reason did you bring up economic freedom? Your hypocrisy stinks worse than your failed theories.

 

Canada cut social and welfare programs heavily in the 90's to balance its budgets. The cuts were made at the Federal level by Liberals.

(This was back when Liberals still bothered to do things like budgeting.)

 

Those Liberals also never pressured banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford houses, so we didn't have a foreclosure crisis.

 

Also, the 'recovery and growth' you are mentioning is occurring under a federal Conservative government.

 

Regarding gun control, we just burned our federal gun registry, because the Conservatives have acknowledged what is simply obvious: The people going on killing sprees every weekend in urban areas are not the farmers, hunters and sportsmen being tracked by the registry.

 

Because I was pointing out that the countries you mentioned have greater economic freedom than the US. No mystery here.

 

 

 

Your hypocrisy and ignorance stinks worse that your authoritarian compulsions.

Be fully honest. Does Canada have a smaller social program budget now than it did prior to the cuts in the 90's that you mention?

And I was pointing out that the countries I mentioned have more socialist policies than the US. And you called me out for that as "correlation and causation". You see? Hypocrisy at its most blatant. Seriously. You hate authority so much. I'm assuming you own your own business, right? I'm also assuming you're a Christian from your prior posts. How do you deal with that? Do you change churches every time you don't like something the pastor has to say? What do you do if you get a traffic ticket? Your life must be a constant struggle. How sad.

You're now using "authority" the way Americans use "socialism", as if its some kind of insult.

I'm no more authoritarian than the Federalists who helped create our country. I'm far less authoritarian than the HK government, though I'll admit I'm more socialist.

I neither promote authority nor do I condemn it. I do recognize that there are times when it's necessary.

Frank, are concealed pistols, semiautomatic assault rifles and large capacity clips all legal for general sale in Canada now? I'm not being facetious, I honestly want to know.

I sincerely hope not in Canada.
 

 

Yes, because you directly claimed that causal relationship. You directly claimed they were more free because of those things.

 

 

 

Some, yes. Particularly authoritarians, like yourself, who feel they have a right to tell me and other how they can live their lives.

 

 

 

Nope. Completely different situation. First, this is voluntarily relationship, not one imposed on me. Second, the authority has limits and, if those limits are exceeded I can easily ignore what comes from the attempt to expand authority beyond the boundaries it has. Finally, if and when the authority proceeds in any kind of immoral manner, the authority is essentially and effectively rescinded. None of these are true of state authority, particularly with the US. The larger and broader the claimed authority, the less true these things are.

 

 

 

Not really.

 

How is any of this relevant. Is this another attempt to change the subject to be about me? Sure smells like it.

 

 

 

Authoritarian. Yes.

 

 

 

I would disagree.

 

 

 

Bullshit.

Edited by MJ1970 - 3/13/13 at 7:00am

"Yes, because you directly claimed that causal relationship. You directly claimed they were more free because of those things."

 

And the only reason to post about "economic freedom" was to indirectly claim causality, that those countries were less fucked up because of those things. See how this works? That's hypocritical.

 

 

More hypocrisy.

 

 

I'm not telling you what you think. I'm characterizing what you have openly said, advocated, supported and promoted. There's a difference.

As was I each time you objected.

 

So you are changing the subject. Now it is about things I've said ("don't tell me what I think") and equating that to the present situation without evidence to support that equivalency. OK. 

Dude. You're the one who said I was bullshitting when I said I don't promote authority. Now go away and stop trolling.

 

You have stated more than once that you believe it is necessary to force other people - via the mechanism of government - to do what you want. If that is not promoting authority I don't know what is.

 

Yes, because that claim is bullshit based on your body of posts here alone.

 

 

 

You first.

Show me one example of where I've ever said we need MORE authority than we have under the current system. You can't. Your lies about what I think are hypocritical.

 

I'm not going to play along with your moving goal posts and straw men.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm not promoting authority. You're the one accusing me of doing so.

 

Yes you are. Yes you are. Yes I am (based on the facts of your body or writings here on this site.)

Jesus. Are you drunk? Seriously? I'm not trying to insult by saying that. I really want to know.

 

You said I'm promoting authority, as in PROMOTING, as in saying we would be better with more of it.

 

I said no, I'm not.

 

You said yes I am, based on what I've posted.

 

I said show me one post where I've done so.

 

You said I'm moving the goal posts.

 

A blurb about tools in a shed and sharpness comes to mind.

 

Are you an ignorant asshole? Seriously? I'm not trying to insult by saying that. I really want to know.

 

 

 

Correct. Recalling the sum total of your posts here, you clearly are an authoritarian, a supporter and promoter of authority. Not just present levels but additional levels. But even if not supporting additional levels (which you have) the goal post moving was WRT to the claim that I specifically said you were promoting more authority. I said you are an authoritarian. You support and promote authoritarianism in varying degrees (including expanding it). Or it at least you have in the past. If you've changed and no longer do, I'm pleased by that improvement.

 

 

 

Of course it does because, with you, disagreement must always evolve to questioning your rival's intelligence.

Quote:

So supporting the American system of government as it has stood for 200 years is now not just "authoritarian", but "promoting authority"? I guess Ronald Reagan was a Socialist more than Obama is because Reagan raised taxes more, and he's also more fascist because he put into place stricter gun control laws. Talk about moving the goal posts.

 

Don't be so modest (and dishonest) about what you support and advocate. You clearly support authoritarian policies and government activity that goes beyond the boundaries of the constitutional federal republican form of government. Please don't deny that you favor broader and stronger powers for the central government to enable them to construct your Utopian society. Please don't deny that you favor expanded use of those powers to make people do what you think they should do and to take more property from (some) people to pay for your many Utopian dreams.

 

 

 

 Now you're pulling out non sequiturs?

Edited by MJ1970 - 3/14/13 at 9:55am

Ok I've gone through all of your links and have only seen statements from Obama Like " Pain " and " Dumb ". So far from those links the only ones who were using terms even close to " Apocalyptic " were the Republicans ( of course ). Perhaps you could point something more substantial for me. And the previous post is all your opinion. That certainly didn't come from Obama. You'll have to do better than that MJ.

 

So the "meat cleaver" and "eviscerate" comments not to mention the parade of all of the terrible things that would need to be cut if this happened and how badly so many people would be affected...you're right...Obama was just calmly laying out the facts and the Republicans were screaming the sky is falling.

 

Whatever.

 

No. That's hardly " Apocalyptic ". It's just unnecessary and as he would put it " Dumb ". A meat clever instead of a scalpel.  Also since these cuts just started we haven't felt the full effect yet. You know that but you'd rather make up your own scenario that is pure speculation on your part and hasn't come to past yet. You can't wiggle out of this MJ. Please give me a quote from Obama that reflects your ( or the Republicans rhetoric ) statements that Obama was predicting the Apocalypse. Otherwise it's clear you're just editorializing and it means nothing but your own skewed opinion.

Edited by jimmac - 3/16/13 at 11:40am