What Type Of Government Would You Have..

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

BF - Not everything I said was aimed at you. You might want to slow down and read what other people are posting.

While your at it, drop that divisionist Red State/Blue State bull. Stop thinking that everyone that disagrees with you is a red neck. Really, get over your own prejedice before you start preaching about anyone elses.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Oh common Zhuk.. let me have it.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

If you read all my posts you will note that I believe our money should be backed by Gold, not promises. That should about cover the Federal Reserve.

I also don't beleive we should have to pay Federal Taxes. That would mean we would have to cut all social programs at the Federal level. I'm cool with that. The States would have to take up the slack.

As for the DEA.. well... This is a tough question. I do believe that Meth, Cocaine, Heroine and other highly addictive and dangours drugs should be controlled. I thinkt he DEA should be more concerned with making sure they are not brought into the country rather than arresting citizens.

As I have always said... As much power as possible should be held by the people, but not so much that nothign ever gets done. The Federal government should be as small as possible and nearly invisible tot he common man. Most government functions that directly affect people should be at the State level.

I was talking more along the lines of how neither organization had congressional support in the first place, practice principles that are against our constitutional rights.

[BrassFusion]

BF - Not everything I said was aimed at you. You might want to slow down and read what other people are posting.

While your at it, drop that divisionist Red State/Blue State bull. Stop thinking that everyone that disagrees with you is a red neck. Really, get over your own prejedice before you start preaching about anyone elses.

I'll admit- I'm prejudiced against people who are prejudiced against women, gays, and minorities. I call them rednecks, and there are more of them in what are known as "red states" than there are in "blue states." Not everyone in the "red states" are "rednecks," and not everyone in the "blue states" are... "bluenecks."

[Steven]

I'll admit- I'm prejudiced against people who are prejudiced against women, gays, and minorities. I call them rednecks, and there are more of them in what are known as "red states" than there are in "blue states." Not everyone in the "red states" are "rednecks," and not everyone in the "blue states" are... "bluenecks."

but you so passionately call for tolerance.

like Mark, I also find a conflict here.....

[BrassFusion]

but you so passionately call for tolerance.

like Mark, I also find a conflict here.....

what's the conflict? i don't try to deny rights to those i deem "rednecks" on account of their intolerance. i'm friends with many of them, even. the notion that I'm "intolerant" of rednecks because I don't allow them the right to repress others is completely ludicrous.

[Steven]

what's the conflict? i don't try to deny rights to those i deem "rednecks" on account of their intolerance. i'm friends with many of them, even. the notion that I'm "intolerant" of rednecks because I don't allow them the right to repress others is completely ludicrous.

denial and repression are purely subjective here.

but see I dont walk around with an air of superiority or attempt to reduce them by placing them beneath my feet.

But you have a way of making those who do not value what you do - seem like dumb worthless consumers of oxygen who should only BE so enlightened such as yourself....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

maybe you could just stop talking about people with different values than you in such negative terms. Some people are rather offended by the terms Redneck and Cracker.

crunchy... The Federal Reserve was created by President Woodrow Wilson and a Democratically controlled Congress in 1913. Federal Income Tax was created by Congress in 1913. The DEA was proposed by President Nixon and was passed by Congress in 1973. so um.. what?

[BrassFusion]

denial and repression are purely subjective here.

but see I dont walk around with an air of superiority or attempt to reduce them by placing them beneath my feet.

But you have a way of making those who do not value what you do - seem like dumb worthless consumers of oxygen who should only BE so enlightened such as yourself....

speaking of subjectivity... where do you draw the line between oppressors, traitors, rapists, and murderers and other people who commit lesser crimes against humanity?

i'm not condemning rednecks, much like I do not condemn murderers. i hate the sin, not the sinner.

and i call them rednecks because that's shorter than "people who believe they have valid reasons for denying equal rights to others of a different sexual or perhaps ethnic persuasion, or of a different sexual orientation, regardless whether sexual orientation is decided by genetics and environment or can only be a conscious choice." the term "redneck" also has the benefit of not being particularly culturally offensive. many people proudly wear the badge "redneck," although i'm sure many of them don't willfully oppress homosexuals et al. they're just proud to be "country folk" or however they care to define it.

now, would you care to supply me with a BETTER term? how about "hillbillies?"

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

until you get enough people to beleive that Gay marrige is right, no crime is being commited... except when you start spouting your hate speach against anyone who opposes it.

Do your part. Draft a petition for an admendment to the constitution. get a few thousand signitures. Send it to Dave Camp. get him to Draft a Bill to admend the Constitution to allow gay marrige. If the majority of the country beleive it to be a Right as you do, then it will pass with no problem.

Or

Sit on your ass, smoke your pot and bitch your ass off.

your choice.

I, have things to do.

[BrassFusion]

until you get enough people to beleive that Gay marrige is right, no crime is being commited... except when you start spouting your hate speach against anyone who opposes it.

Do your part. Draft a petition for an admendment to the constitution. get a few thousand signitures. Send it to Dave Camp. get him to Draft a Bill to admend the Constitution to allow gay marrige. If the majority of the country beleive it to be a Right as you do, then it will pass with no problem.

Or

Sit on your ass, smoke your pot and bitch your ass off.

your choice.

I, have things to do.

that's pretty hypocritical of you, man. since when are you too busy to get high and defend controversial viewpoints on a message board?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I didn't say what my things to do were.

My point was... you have these views on what is and is not a Right. Thats cool. i respect that. it does not make them beleifs true. If you want to change things, then do something. Bitching to me isn't going to change anything as I hold simular views.

I was also making another point.

You want a to be a tyrant. Where what you say goes and nothing any one else thinks matters. You are going to have to kill a great many people to make that happen. Same with phee and his Socialism... See Stalin, Hitler and other socialist governments from history. They all start out with phee's ideal socialism and degrade into your tyranny with a fair amount of blood greesing the wheels.

and.. I'm tired. and you really don;t seem to understand anyones point of view but your own. thats common. rednecks think like that too.

[BrassFusion]

I didn't say what my things to do were.

My point was... you have these views on what is and is not a Right. Thats cool. i respect that. it does not make them beleifs true. If you want to change things, then do something. Bitching to me isn't going to change anything as I hold simular views.

I was also making another point.

You want a to be a tyrant. Where what you say goes and nothing any one else thinks matters. You are going to have to kill a great many people to make that happen. Same with phee and his Socialism... See Stalin, Hitler and other socialist governments from history. They all start out with phee's ideal socialism and degrade into your tyranny with a fair amount of blood greesing the wheels.

and.. I'm tired. and you really don;t seem to understand anyones point of view but your own. thats common. rednecks think like that too.

lol... damn... i said if i was given the option to be a tyrant (was that what this thread was supposed to be about?) i would take it. right now i'm not corrupt, but if i was corrupted by my power, by that point i obviously wouldn't care about making the world a better place for everyone else.

i don't understand your point of view because your m.o. seems to be all about telling everyone else why their ideas are wrong and evil and would never work when i'm sure no one else in this thread really thinks they'll ever have the opportunity to implement their own form of government on the world. lighten up please!

[Fierce Critter]

I don't think there is any one right answer.

I tend to think like Phee. My father has admitted that he's pretty socialist in thinking. And I find myself following his line of thought more and more.

The older I get and the more I see good people struggle and work and put honest effort into bettering their lives - and yet still get shit kicked in their face, the more I believe in an even playing field across the board.

But I know there's no real good example of socialism really working in the world. None. It's great in theory, but never works.

Because of one simple thing. People are greedy.

I'm so tired of greed. I'm so tired of seing unworthy people get things handed to them on silver platters.

2nd to Phee, I go with Marc. Fuck us all and start again.

[Steven]

speaking of subjectivity... where do you draw the line between oppressors, traitors, rapists, and murderers and other people who commit lesser crimes against humanity?

i'm not condemning rednecks, much like I do not condemn murderers. i hate the sin, not the sinner.

and i call them rednecks because that's shorter than "people who believe they have valid reasons for denying equal rights to others of a different sexual or perhaps ethnic persuasion, or of a different sexual orientation, regardless whether sexual orientation is decided by genetics and environment or can only be a conscious choice." the term "redneck" also has the benefit of not being particularly culturally offensive. many people proudly wear the badge "redneck," although i'm sure many of them don't willfully oppress homosexuals et al. they're just proud to be "country folk" or however they care to define it.

now, would you care to supply me with a BETTER term? how about "hillbillies?"

Dude I sometimes think that if anyone were ever to actually "prove" you wrong by using your own statements against you then you'd probably die, that's how much you simply cannot bear to be held accountable for your own stuff. I trip on you for that chink in your armor, because for being such a smart girl, all that Brass pride makes me suspiscioius of something else...

(sigh). OK. "NIGGER" isint always as culturally offensive as "Redneck" either if say ...your a black man and saying it on Crenshaw blvd to another black man (Wassup my nigga??). But to many other people, "Nigger" used as an address or to classify a group of people isint such a good idea and it certainly wont open many doors for you. I'd gather to say that the use of the term REDNECK follows suit. I personally, see the term REDNECK as a VERY intentional device used to paint someone as being inbred and ignorant and easily dismmisable. So although you go to lengths to explain its use I simply challange you with a question: HOWZ THAT WORKIN FOR YA?

and now moving on to your use of the phrase "I hate the sin, not the sinner"

(2nd sigh)

that was rather tritely Christianeze and it doesent really jive with the way you often swing for the fences with many of your responses. Using that closing statement regardign condemnation is sort of like me saying something stupid like...."I'm not against homosexuals per se, I just hate FAGS". Please Erin. in fact I think you DO indeed hate the sinner, the sinner being anyone who doesent line up with your point of view. And if I'm wrong, then consider how I got to that conclusion...is there any of YOU in there which may have led me to that decision? Here's the thing Brass, you have the advantage of a very keen mind and wide grasp of theory. Yet you have the disadvantage of a lack of experience. Thats not neccesarily a charge against you, I just hate to see so much un-earned pride in someone so young when they havent really dug any ditches yet - when you finaly do get to that point where you have some miles under you - I'd hate to see your talent wasted because your ego is in the driver's seat. My (former) brother in law is exactly like that - a brilliant asshole, formidable and completely alone with all of his gifts, and therefore completely full of shit. he's got a nice car though and pretty stuff in his livingroom.

unfortunately I dont have time in this thread (and it should be in another thread entrirely) on where and how I draw the line between oppressors, traitors, rapists, and murderers and other people who commit lesser crimes against humanity, suffice it to say I've been pretty consistent with all that fun stuff in past threads.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

lol... damn... i said if i was given the option to be a tyrant (was that what this thread was supposed to be about?) i would take it. right now i'm not corrupt, but if i was corrupted by my power, by that point i obviously wouldn't care about making the world a better place for everyone else.

i don't understand your point of view because your m.o. seems to be all about telling everyone else why their ideas are wrong and evil and would never work when i'm sure no one else in this thread really thinks they'll ever have the opportunity to implement their own form of government on the world. lighten up please!

I'm putting thought behind statement. "What kind of Government would you have..." is a thought provoking question to me. It doesn't say "What kind of government would you have in an ideal world where everyone majically looses thier own free will and bows to your supreme will." So why bring up forms of government that will degrade into something I would not want to be involved with? Why not go for something that would actually work and do some good? I used other peoples choices to show the thought behind my choice.

Dtop looking for something to argue about when you can;t refute what someone else says. For that matter... why not try to just have a conversation rather than an arguement.

[phee]

I tend to think like Phee.

That's Dangerous... but In my country because of that statement, I will make you head of the ASPCA....

[BrassFusion]

I'm putting thought behind statement. "What kind of Government would you have..." is a thought provoking question to me. It doesn't say "What kind of government would you have in an ideal world where everyone majically looses thier own free will and bows to your supreme will." So why bring up forms of government that will degrade into something I would not want to be involved with? Why not go for something that would actually work and do some good? I used other peoples choices to show the thought behind my choice.

Dtop looking for something to argue about when you can;t refute what someone else says. For that matter... why not try to just have a conversation rather than an arguement.

I chose to interpret the question differently. You questioned my reasoning, I defended it, it stays the same. And please, take your own advice.

[torn asunder]

I just hate to see so much un-earned pride in someone so young when they havent really dug any ditches yet - when you finaly do get to that point where you have some miles under you - I'd hate to see your talent wasted because your ego is in the driver's seat.

un-earned pride? sorry to step in with a semi-off topic post, but what does that mean really? miles under you? dig some ditches? is that to imply that if one hasn't experienced things first-hand, their opinions/beliefs are worth less than someone who has? that's a bit condescending. also, what does age have to do with it? i've known "kids" who were decades older than their birthday would imply, and some of the most teen-agey AARP members you'd ever not want to meet. maturity has little to do with chronology.

however, i agree that pride/ego can definitely be a problem, when one won't can't admit one's mistakes...

ok, back to the topic at hand!

[torn asunder]

I chose to interpret the question differently. You questioned my reasoning, I defended it, it stays the same. And please, take your own advice.

you seem to be considering a utopian condition, whereas gaf is thinking more along the lines of practical reality in today's world. both are valid viewpoints, (in the context of this topic) they just aren't going to coincide... what's the big deal?

[BrassFusion]

you seem to be considering a utopian condition, whereas gaf is thinking more along the lines of practical reality in today's world. both are valid viewpoints, (in the context of this topic) they just aren't going to coincide... what's the big deal?

i dunno. i think it got hairy when i said i think state's rights is diversionary bs. but that really is a whole nother topic

[Steven]

un-earned pride? sorry to step in with a semi-off topic post, but what does that mean really? miles under you? dig some ditches? is that to imply that if one hasn't experienced things first-hand, their opinions/beliefs are worth less than someone who has? that's a bit condescending. also, what does age have to do with it? i've known "kids" who were decades older than their birthday would imply, and some of the most teen-agey AARP members you'd ever not want to meet. maturity has little to do with chronology.

however, i agree that pride/ego can definitely be a problem, when one won't can't admit one's mistakes...

ok, back to the topic at hand!

Hey - nobody is trying to be condescending here. and Im not making an argument for chronology, save for the fact that with time comes opportunity and therefore experience. Old souls and ditch diggers are not the same thing.

[the eternal]

Luckily I decided againt joining this argument (and edited my one and only statment to leave out all the snarky comments)

I second that, brother.

Oh common Zhuk.. let me have it.

No, you mean let Erin have it. He may be more moderate, but you know where Zhukov's sympathies lie.

denial and repression are purely subjective here.

but see I dont walk around with an air of superiority or attempt to reduce them by placing them beneath my feet.

But you have a way of making those who do not value what you do - seem like dumb worthless consumers of oxygen who should only BE so enlightened such as yourself....

Normally, I would agree with you. Erin can be condescending, oftentimes about the weirdest things.

That said, Gaf pretty much has the monopoly on condescending insensitivity when it comes to politics.

I'm sorry but you do.

I like you outside of this forum. I do. You seem like an honest person and good family man. But when it comes to politics, you always have this air that everyone else is stupid and uninformed, and you take the faux high ground by acting elitist.

One of your many tactics is to throw out obscure information which will impress the uninformed, but simply bores people like myself, who've actually been involved in a political campaign or two.

Not everyone has your historical knowledge, but that doesn't mean they can't assess a situation as well as, if not better than, a dogmatic ideologue with their head so far up their own ass they have no idea their shit does, on occasion stink.

You criticize who you view to be simpletons, yet your views are often times just as simplistic and ripe for critique as theirs are.

In other words, as much as you want to place yourself above others (though I'm sure you'll claim otherwise), you really ARE on a level playing field, it's simply that they don't know it.

It would be easy to take on the shortcomings of your arguments, and then elucidate how your views, however nice-sounding and idealistic, are rife with flaws and shortcomings.

But it's not worth my time fighting about it.

Not today, anyway.

until you get enough people to beleive that Gay marrige is right, no crime is being commited... except when you start spouting your hate speach against anyone who opposes it.

Do your part. Draft a petition for an admendment to the constitution. get a few thousand signitures. Send it to Dave Camp. get him to Draft a Bill to admend the Constitution to allow gay marrige. If the majority of the country beleive it to be a Right as you do, then it will pass with no problem.

Or

Sit on your ass, smoke your pot and bitch your ass off.

your choice.

I, have things to do.

What were you saying again, Steven about "making those who do not value what you do - seem like dumb worthless consumers of oxygen?"

I think it was more apt with Gaf this go around. In fact, if you go back to old threads, it's USUALLY more apt with Gaf.

We don't notice as readily because Gaf's never too rough around the edges.

Instead of ground assault on all cylinders he chooses to wrap his venom-tipped tongue in layers of conceit and mock humility

The HL Mencken to Erin's UAW stewart.

I'm putting thought behind statement. "What kind of Government would you have..." is a thought provoking question to me. It doesn't say "What kind of government would you have in an ideal world where everyone majically looses thier own free will and bows to your supreme will." So why bring up forms of government that will degrade into something I would not want to be involved with? Why not go for something that would actually work and do some good? I used other peoples choices to show the thought behind my choice.

Stop looking for something to argue about when you can't refute what someone else says. For that matter... why not try to just have a conversation rather than an arguement.

This, ladies and gentleman, is a classic Dark/Gaf move.

Once, he has exhausted belittling others arguments (Phee/Erin)

dispensing with some 19th century political history he copied and pasted from a right wing blog (calm down now, I'm sure it was from a reliable source that you can rattle off the top of your head),

baited whoever dares to question his all-knowing supremacy through feigned outrage at such stupidity continued with laughing at any/all thoughts of that person,

personally attack the person,

tells the person to keep their thoughts to themself or shut up (a desperate move if you ask me),

for the coup de grace,

he finishes up by having the nerve to ask the other party he just decimated to maintain an air of civility,

HA!

Pot, let me introduce you to kettle

THAT is why I won't join in this time.

To enter this now, I'd simply be reduced to your level on your terms, and it's not worth it.

Besides, I'm grooving to the Cocteau Twins

I mean, really, how can anyone get too upset while listening to something called Pearly Dewdrops?

So, I decided it better to sit back and make observations.

I've seen this play out the same way so many times.

(For the others here)

Save this post for future reference.

He may mix up the formula, but the same ingredients will be going into his mixing bowl of conceit and arrogance, every...single...time.

My .02

PS (DON'T WORRY. I look forward to your response accusing me of the same thing, as well as playing the innocent puppy dog who just wanted to have a civil conversation, until the big bad wolf---Eternal, Crunchy Pickle, Brass Fusion... came in and turned it nasty)

[Fierce Critter]

un-earned pride? sorry to step in with a semi-off topic post, but what does that mean really? miles under you? dig some ditches? is that to imply that if one hasn't experienced things first-hand, their opinions/beliefs are worth less than someone who has? that's a bit condescending. also, what does age have to do with it? i've known "kids" who were decades older than their birthday would imply, and some of the most teen-agey AARP members you'd ever not want to meet. maturity has little to do with chronology.

however, i agree that pride/ego can definitely be a problem, when one won't can't admit one's mistakes...

ok, back to the topic at hand!

This is going to be REALLY hard for me to get across. Because I'm going to be trying to convince people of a certain age group that no matter how much they've experienced, how much they've studied, how much they're SURE they know, no matter HOW mature they they think they are, they can't really have the same understanding of some things that people of a certain OLDER age do. I'm basically going to be speaking to deaf ears who are SURE they know just as much, if not more than I do. Sigh.

So, here goes.

Steven, myself, and a few others on the board are around the same age. Late 30's, early 40's, some older.

The older I get - and I think Steven is at the same point in his life - the more I can clearly see what's going on in the world around me. Maybe not see EVERYTHING, but definitely have my eyes open through time & experience & the kind of wisdom that only comes with age.

I repeat only comes with age.

Scoff, rejoin, doubt, give me "examples" of how "wrong" I am, go ahead.

But when you are about a decade older - then, and only then, will you be able to see where we "were" coming from when we say things like this.

It's the old "I'm sick of my parents/grandparents/etc acting like they know everything" reaction. I'm not very far past that, to be honest.

But it's valid. The older I get, the more TRUE life struggles I go through, the more I've had to rely upon ONLY myself for any kind of safety net, the more impact others have had on me - the more I respect those who have come before me and the more I say to myself, "Damn, they were right."

I don't care how many books one reads. I don't care if a person has been on their own since 12 years old and lived in everything from a highway overpass to a burned-out-car to a tenament to subsidized housing. I don't care how high the IQ, or how self-assured one is.

Without the experience of age, there's still a lot one just plain does NOT know.

And yes, some of that is important knowledge/experience that eventually will - WILL, not MIGHT - affect a person's opinion and insight.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled doubts, scoffing, and certainty that me, Steven, and even Gaf & others are full of shit.

[Head Wreck]

i like our system. just a shame no one bothers with the democratic process but whines when the wrong people get voted in (new labour, now headed by that "stalinist loon" in differance to the "grinning cunt").

oh. coffee would also be a class B substance