The Republican Primary is a Sham!?

[durangotang]

I am a libertarian, minarchist, anarcho-capitalist. I would like to dismantle almost all of the state. In the absence of that, I'll settle for Ron Paul.

 

[Deluge]

I have a question. When is the last time any of you changed anybody's mind about anything talking politics? If any of you really want anything to change you would be advised to support a 3rd party whether that be the tea party, occupy movement, or something in between.

I'm a Ron Paul guy. I think G is, too.

In America, that makes you "left wing."

I read a funny comment elsewhere that is true: "Republicans would rather have Obama in the White House than Ron Paul. This shows you what Republican's true priorities are."

I believe if you polled every ron paul supporter and told them they had to choose either democrat or republican, 50% + 1 would choose republicans. I cannot agree with your statement that being a Ron Paul guy makes others perceive you as left wing. I'm a Ron Paul guy too and nobody would consider me left wing.

Ron Paul is on the right. That's more or less concrete. However, he has a huge appeal to the left side of the spectrum (hardcore anti-war among other things), as well as being the best bet to save the economy (which is the only thing people give a shit about right now). In short, he's on the right, but he has a lot more left wing appeal than other Republican candidates.

 

[Samseau]

Guys.


The left-wing/right-wing debate is pathetic shit.


You're tooling yourself if you consider yourself on either "wing".


There is no left-wing. There is no right-wing.

These are constructs used to control the masses. Stop using these fucking labels, for fucks sake. Stop being sheep.


Ron Paul isn't left-wing, or right-wing. He's a conservative (in the sense of defending old policies) who upholds the virtues established by the U.S. Constitution. This doesn't make him right-wing or left-wing.


The terms right-wing and left-wing were used to describe political parties in the French Revolution. Do your history.

And what did the USA's founding fathers do with the French Revolution?

Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.


So please, everyone, do yourself a favor. Dignify yourself. Stop using the terms "left-wing" or "right-wing".

 

[All or Nothing]

Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

 

[Luvianka]

Jeb Bush is the 'The Best Man'.

 

[durangotang]

Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

No, the left-wing is closely aligned with neo-liberalism and the right-wing is closely aligned with neo-conservatism. In practice both neo-liberals and neo-conservatives love the power of the state and are fascists. Republicans don't cut spending and democrats continue to wage war.

Ron Paul is by definition a classical liberal.

 

[thegmanifesto]

Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

No, the left-wing is closely aligned with neo-liberalism and the right-wing is closely aligned with neo-conservatism. In practice both neo-liberals and neo-conservatives love the power of the state and are fascists. Republicans don't cut spending and democrats continue to wage war.

Ron Paul is by definition a classical liberal.

This is correct.

Bush, Obama and Romney are fascists.

No one seems to realize this.

I like Classic Liberalism:

Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty.

 

[MikeCF]

Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

U mad?

Sam's a smart kid - probably smarter than you.

You've never contributed anything of note to the forum.

Focus on adding value to the group before spitting all over your computer screen.

It doesn't impress anyone. Plus, most regulars have thick skin, so it doesn't even work at offending people.

 

[Samseau]

Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

Man, your reading comprehension sucks ass. Of course meanings behind words change over time. Did I ever deny this?

RIGHT NOW, I want YOU to stop worrying about these pathetic labels and semantics. They're just designed to divide and conquer the masses. Get it?


Instead, just argue in terms of actual policies - i.e. what should or should not be done. Don't say, "We need more left-wing politicians" or "we can't have any more right-wingers!", because then you're a total tool for someone else to manipulate.

The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" are meaningless. Do not be blinded by the sophistry behind these ancient terms.

 

[durangotang]

Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

No, the left-wing is closely aligned with neo-liberalism and the right-wing is closely aligned with neo-conservatism. In practice both neo-liberals and neo-conservatives love the power of the state and are fascists. Republicans don't cut spending and democrats continue to wage war.

Ron Paul is by definition a classical liberal.

This is correct.

Bush, Obama and Romney are fascists.

No one seems to realize this.

I like Classic Liberalism:

Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty.

The added benefit G is that it shouldn't hurt your international swooping a bit! If a chick asks if you are a Republican or conservative, you can answer with "nope, I am a classical liberal."

The world loved a non-interventionist, liberal America.

 

[All or Nothing]

Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

U mad?

Sam's a smart kid - probably smarter than you.

You've never contributed anything of note to the forum.

Focus on adding value to the group before spitting all over your computer screen.

It doesn't impress anyone. Plus, most regulars have thick skin, so it doesn't even work at offending people.

I'm not mad.

Also, I don't really have much to say in the form of game. As someone who was sexually abused multiple times over a sixth month period when I was eight, I have, as a result, avoided things like sexual tension. I'm working on it, but for now, I stay quiet in the game forum since I don't have anything to add. I argue in these political threads from time to time, since I find politics really interesting. Even then, I usually stay quiet. I looked at my "stats" and I only post one out of every three days on average.

I doubt Samseau is smarter than me. If anything, we're around the same level of intelligence.

Also, I'll be honest. I don't truly know how to conduct myself on a forum. I've always had trouble with this kind of stuff. Shit, I have trouble properly expressing myself in real life. Last night my pledge brothers were having a serious talk with me about how I am quiet and in this shell. How I act like I have zero confidence. They were telling me how I needed to stand up for myself and be open with them. See, the thing is is that on a daily basis, my mother would say things to me that attacked me on a deep emotional level. On a daily basis she would make me feel like I was worthless. See, this is the problem I have here. I don't really know how to conduct myself in a way that commands respect. Ever since I was a kid I didn't like myself. Now I know I'm going off on a crazy tangent, but I'm just saying this because I've been thinking about it a lot. Mike, I promise you, I'll shut up on this forum for a long time until I've overcome my bullshit if that makes you happy. I need to anyways, since I don't have nearly as much time to fuck around on random websites as I did last semester.

Also, I think you have the wrong picture of me. I bet you think I'm some fat sweaty slob, typing away spitting mad on my computer. In real life, I'm actually 6'1", broad shoulders, wear nice clothes, and I have a good looking face. I'm about 30 or so pounds overweight, so I'm a little bit chubby, but soon enough that weight will be gone, since I've started eating healthier and hitting the gym.

Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

Man, your reading comprehension sucks ass. Of course meanings behind words change over time. Did I ever deny this?

RIGHT NOW, I want YOU to stop worrying about these pathetic labels and semantics. They're just designed to divide and conquer the masses. Get it?


Instead, just argue in terms of actual policies - i.e. what should or should not be done. Don't say, "We need more left-wing politicians" or "we can't have any more right-wingers!", because then you're a total tool for someone else to manipulate.

The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" are meaningless. Do not be blinded by the sophistry behind these ancient terms.

They aren't meaningless. They are based in guiding political ideologies. You act like the party system is some unnatural construct, even when it arose before our government was even in place with the federalists and anti-federalists. Even then, the party system that our country has today arose immediately after George Washington stepped down. This is with Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson being for state's rights and Hamilton being for a strong federal government. Hamilton even went as far as using the military to stamp out a rebellion from the farmer's that were angry with being overtaxed as a show of overarching federal power.

The only real problem I have with our party system is that, a small group of people with extraordinarily large amounts of wealth are able to distort our party system. This coupled with interests groups, truly distort who our government focuses on. This my frustration with the U.S. government. I'll link to Federalist 10 again because it describes better than I could: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm. James Madison warned against "factions" (presently called interest groups) arising and distorting the political system. Lo and behold that is the way things currently work today. I know I'm talking in circles here, but I'll say it again. The party system isn't the problem, it's the people distorting our government for their own selfish desires that is the problem. Our government was designed to take care of the public good. The only problem is that our founding fathers did not foresee how things like media and super wealthy corporations would be able to override safeguards that they put into place.

 

[thegmanifesto]

All or Nothing -

You should contact Mixx for a little of the Lifestyle coaching.

Your post reminds me that I should be more sensitive to other people on here.

 

[MikeCF]

<snip>

All good, bro.

The late teens/early 20's are rough years.

PM if you have any questions or wanna chat.

 

[Samseau]

They aren't meaningless. They are based in guiding political ideologies. You act like the party system is some unnatural construct,

False. The party system has nothing to do with political ideologies. The parties try to label each other with ideologies, but that's just to use tools like you.

 

[durangotang]

They aren't meaningless. They are based in guiding political ideologies. You act like the party system is some unnatural construct,

False. The party system has nothing to do with political ideologies. The parties try to label each other with ideologies, but that's just to use tools like you.

How to get fired in under five minutes:

 

[Anon-A-Moose]

Right wing, left wing, you're still attached to the same fucking bird.

 

[Samseau]

The Republican Primary is a Pump-and-Dump

http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/02/20/white-house-insider-pump-and-dump/

UM: What is…what is a “pump and dump”?

Insider: It’s old school politics. A political tactic. Been around since Jesus was a kid. It’s – now you remember the “McCain the Campaign” thing, right? How he was done then shot up in the polls outta nowhere. Money started pouring in. I know you gotta remember that. A political pump and dump is a version of that…it’s the version. The McCain thing was a bit of a variation but the principle is exactly the same.

UM: And what is the principle? The purpose?

Insider: Chaos. Uncertainty. Infighting. Repress the vote. You notice the stories about low voter turnout? You see that happening? That’s gotta be makin’ the Obama people very-very happy. Godd–mn Republicans are losing this thing. Idiots gonna lose this if they don’t get their sh-t together right quick now.

UM: What low turnout?

Insider: You ain’t seen those stories?

UM: No.

Insider: Well of course not. See there – that’s the kind of thing I’m talkin’ about here. You’re too busy copying the other damn fools in helping with the pump and dump. God—mit!

UM: Explain the numbers – the low turnout. What are you talking about there?

Insider: The primary votes – the turnout. They started strong…been trailing off badly more recently. People are getting…the motivation has been turned off. That’s one of the benefits of the pump and dump. Now you combine that with the bullsh-t stories on the economy and you lower the agitation in the country. And when folks ain’t pissed…the tie goes to the incumbent. That’s the end result. That’s what the Obama team is playin’ for now. The tie goes to the incumbent.