Elections in Virginia (or how Dems cheat)

[Jacob]

Siegy, if you're going to post retarded far right dad-spam pictures please have them be more of the "cute girls in vaguely implied bondage" rather than "grainy pictures of Obama".

Thanks!

[Razgovory]

I remember when Siege was a proud "tribal socialist".

[Siege]

Raz, this is my answer to your crazy liberalism:

Rush Limbaugh advises 14-year-old on dealing with teachers who indoctrinate liberalism

Rush Limbaugh (10/18/13): "They think that they are utterly, totally normal, that there is nothing biased about them, nothing ideological about them at all. They talk about 'tolerance'... "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48

I'm not going to listen to 23 minutes of Rush Limbaugh on youtube.

Yeah well. Then maybe stop talking shit you don't know shit about.
I listen to NPR and CNN from time to time.
You clearly have no knowledge of what the conservative movement stands for.
You just repeat what the liberal media tells you conservatism means.
Whatever dude.

I'm told by conservatives (on this board no less) that Rush Limbaugh is not a news source, that's he's an entertainer.  As such he's hardly comparable to say CNN.  I have an idea, how about you tell me what the conservative movement stands for.  What does being a conservative mean?

We are Americans.  So for the Founding Fathers, individual liberty was not possible without private property rights.  For the Founding Fathers, the only legitimate government was not only one that was instituted with the consent of the people, but one that would preserve and protect the individual's right to property.  Jefferson talked about it, talked about 'tyranny of the legislature.'  So the consent of the governed is only part of it.

But the government never has the authority to be tyrannical; it never has the authority to seize your property illegitimately.  Private property represents the individual's labor, your labor, your initiative, your industriousness, your ambition, and so forth.  We all have an equal right, an unalienable right as they wrote in the Declaration to pursue happiness.  That especially involves the pursuit of property and wealth – not that materialism makes you happy, the point was so you can at least subsist, but even more expand your wealth and improve your lifestyle and that of your family.  We do not have a "right" to equal results and outcomes.  And this is the battle – we do not have a right to make demands on the labor and property and wealth of another individual, for that individual also has unalienable rights.

The purpose of government in the United States of America, according to the Founders is first and foremost to protect and preserve the individual's unalienable rights.  These rights are God-given natural rights: no man, no government has the authority to deny them or destroy them.  That is not to say that we as a community or society ought not look out for our fellow man; we did this even before there was a massive, leviathan State.  We did this through good works, through charity, through churches and synagogues, through volunteerism, through good acts all the time.  Most of us do not mind being taxed at a rational level to help take care of those who are truly incapable of survival due to physical or mental disabilities.  That is different than redistributing the wealth.  That is different than "spreading the wealth."  That is different than class warfare.

Our Constitution is intended to protect us from a central government that would take advantage of us as individuals.  It does not grant power to the federal government to violate our unalienable rights.  It does not authorize the federal government to take the fruits of our labor, whether physical or intellectual, to "spread the wealth" for "economic justice" or anything of the sort.  The Constitution does not empower anyone, especially the President of the United States, to take our labor, our property, our wealth from us and our families in order to equalize economic outcomes.  I don't care what you are worth.  To say that some person has a right to another person's labor simply because one person demands it, or because a politician thinks it can be put to better use, or because a group of people think it can be put to better use and vote that way, does not make it Constitutional nor does it make it moral, and it clearly violates the unalienable rights of the person who is being targeted.  When the government seizes the power to take what you have earned with your own labor and put it to an illegitimate use, then government has power that is not recognized in the Declaration or the Constitution.

Since property rights are inextricably tied to an individual's liberty, the government is expanding its power not only over your labor, but over you, as a human being.  This is exactly what is happening today.  This is exactly what you hear Obama saying in these speeches.  He is claiming a power he does not have.  That is, the power to decide whose labor is to be protected by the government, and whose labor is to be seized by the government.  Obama is saying that the government has the power to take whatever it needs from an individual, thereby punishing that individual and rewarding some other individual who has not earned it.  They call this "a right."  You have a "right" to health care, a "right" to go to school; you have a "right" to this, a "right" to that.  But somebody else is losing their liberty, in support of this politician who is stealing from one to give to another.  And by the way, not altruistically either, but for power and votes.  This is said to be "just"; this is said to be "fair."  This is said to be "compassionate," yet it violates the individual's unalienable rights and the limits the Constitution places on the federal government.  There is nothing fair, just, or compassionate about it.

The reason why liberals cannot tell you 'what are the limits of this new power' is because there are not any limits.  The government identifies what's unequal, what program it wants to fund or create, what "entitlement" it wants to create or expand, calls it a "right" and then plunders individuals that it targets.  You might think 'why do I care?  Let me have my piece.' ... Your children are also, under God granted unalienable rights, recognized by our Declaration.  Your children, and their labor, and their motivation, and their ambition, and their industry, and who they want to be, and how they want to be, is also protected by the United States Constitution.  If Obama and people like him, people of this alien ideology who reject unalienable rights, who reject the limits of the Constitution are successful, then what are you?  What are your children?  They will not have the freedom that your parents and grandparents had.  They will not have the ability to be successful, to pursue opportunities, to improve their lifestyles, to take care of their families the way that you, your parents, and your grandparents have.  This is fundamental ladies and gentlemen...we need to get back to first principles. ... What is an American?  What is the American society?  What is the American culture?  It's completely different; it's the opposite of what you hear Obama saying day in and day out.

– Mark Levin, The Mark Levin Show, 4/19/2011  ~2:00-10:30

[Siege]

Siegy, if you're going to post retarded far right dad-spam pictures please have them be more of the "cute girls in vaguely implied bondage" rather than "grainy pictures of Obama".

Thanks!

Roger.

[Siege]

I remember when Siege was a proud "tribal socialist".

The key word here is tribal.
A socialist economic model works at the very lowest level of familiar relationship, within the frame of a larger national free market economy.
Now, this work with traditional sefaradi families with strong values, but I doubt its effectiveness in a western style family.
That's why.

[Razgovory]

No, Siege, I meant what do you think being a conservative means,  not what Mark Levine things about the constitution.  In your own words. Presumably under Levine's definition you'd lose your job.  The military is an organization that is funded by taxes to protect all Americans. By having a military the government is saying that all Americans have a right to safety and protection.  People who are not paying much in taxes get protected just as much as the people who pay a lot in taxes. They are taxing are some of the people to provide a product to all of the people.  That product is security.

I can have fun poking holes in his stuff all day, things about slavery and the tyranny of states and individuals over others, but I want to here what you think the conservative movement is about.

[Siege]

This is a great quote:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

–  Frédéric Bastiat, The Law  — 1850

[Razgovory]

You can think for yourself, can't you?

[Siege]

No, Siege, I meant what do you think being a conservative means,  not what Mark Levine things about the constitution.  In your own words. Presumably under Levine's definition you'd lose your job.  The military is an organization that is funded by taxes to protect all Americans. By having a military the government is saying that all Americans have a right to safety and protection.  People who are not paying much in taxes get protected just as much as the people who pay a lot in taxes. They are taxing are some of the people to provide a product to all of the people.  That product is security.

I can have fun poking holes in his stuff all day, things about slavery and the tyranny of states and individuals over others, but I want to here what you think the conservative movement is about.

Sorry, English is not my first language.
But I can google it for you.

And what the fuck are you talking about slavery and tyrani of state and individuals over others?
Where have you been living for the last 6 years? Fuck that, for the last 25 years.
Everything been about big govermetnt since Reagan.

But the way, it was the Republican Party who fought for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.

This is Reagan's speech in 1964 "A time for choosing".
It is the greatest I have ever heard. I cried when I heard it.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganChoosing1964.html

[The Minsky Moment]

Siege if you really want to know what the Founders thought about private property, look at the Constitution they wrote.  There is no absolute right to private property in there.  Instead they provided for extensive powers to tax and to regulate in various spheres.  They even permitted the government to take private property for public use, provided fair compensation was paid.

If you were right and these second rate entertainers were what the conservative movement stood for, then conservatism would be in a lot of trouble.  In reality its not quite that bad, but it is heading that way because a generation is being raised with the notion that political wisdom can be defined from YouTube videos, talk show screamers, and similar flotsam. 

[garbon]

Oh God, the tired lines of the current generation been worse than their forebearers?

[The Minsky Moment]

But the way, it was the Republican Party who fought for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.

Lincoln was for high tariffs and internal improvements.
Nowadays we call that tax and spend.
Your man Levin OTOH talks about Jeffersonian ideas of property.  And when Jefferson talked about property he didn't just mean land, and silverware, and fancy footwear.  He also meant human beings, a number of which he personally owned,

[Razgovory]

No, Siege, I meant what do you think being a conservative means,  not what Mark Levine things about the constitution.  In your own words. Presumably under Levine's definition you'd lose your job.  The military is an organization that is funded by taxes to protect all Americans. By having a military the government is saying that all Americans have a right to safety and protection.  People who are not paying much in taxes get protected just as much as the people who pay a lot in taxes. They are taxing are some of the people to provide a product to all of the people.  That product is security.

I can have fun poking holes in his stuff all day, things about slavery and the tyranny of states and individuals over others, but I want to here what you think the conservative movement is about.

Sorry, English is not my first language.
But I can google it for you.

And what the fuck are you talking about slavery and tyrani of state and individuals over others?
Where have you been living for the last 6 years? Fuck that, for the last 25 years.
Everything been about big govermetnt since Reagan.

But the way, it was the Republican Party who fought for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.

This is Reagan's speech in 1964 "A time for choosing".
It is the greatest I have ever heard. I cried when I heard it.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganChoosing1964.html

Are you saying that Reagan ushered in Big government?  I'm unclear on that.  I'm aware that Lincoln was a Republican (well for hist first term at least).  He was also a Whig, a political party that predates the GOP.  During the Lincoln presidency the US government increased in size enormously and property was taken away from their owners by government fiat.

When I was talking about states and tyranny by individuals, I was discussing the federal government's role in preserving rights.   For instance, if the state you were in pass a law that prevented Jews from voting, who would stop them? Such things have happened before.

Now you English is good enough you can tell me what being a conservative means, if you actually do know what it means.  You told me

Yeah well. Then maybe stop talking shit you don't know shit about.
I listen to NPR and CNN from time to time.
You clearly have no knowledge of what the conservative movement stands for.
You just repeat what the liberal media tells you conservatism means.
Whatever dude.

But so far you have not been able to tell me what the conservative movement stands for you have been the one repeating what others have said.

[Grinning_Colossus]

But the way, it was the Republican Party who fought for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.

Lincoln was for high tariffs and internal improvements.
Nowadays we call that tax and spend.
Your man Levin OTOH talks about Jeffersonian ideas of property.  And when Jefferson talked about property he didn't just mean land, and silverware, and fancy footwear.  He also meant human beings, a number of which he personally owned,

In some cases he himself even produced said property. By the sweat of his brow.

[jimmy olsen]

Princess Hillary to the rescue!

http://www.today.com/news/artist-responds-mixed-reactions-over-disney-fied-feminist-icons-8C11554114