What is more crazy?

By Liberal Anthropologist

To believe tyranny is a threat or to believe that tyranny cannot rise? To believe that small arms are ineffective against the US Army or to believe that they are? Watch this debate between Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan.

Anyone who ignores the lessons of history should not pretend to superior rationality. Benevolent governments have many times become tyrannies. Great armies have been harassed and forced to retreat by dedicated fighters with little in the way of sophisticated weaponry. Even the Roman legions were stopped by barbarians. The US military has been seriously harassed and weakened by far less sophisticated opponents many times throughout its history.

These two lessons – well understood by the founders – are why we should not remove small arms of any sort from the responsible citizen.


Comments

  • NateDogg614 says:

    I also happen to think that the idea that the gravy tain will continue to run forever so long as those rich people are taxed more, is extreme left-wing nuttery. ;)

  • edmundburkenator says:

    What is the “gravy train” Nate?

  • NateDogg614 says:

    A metaphorical reference to all of those government programs out there that so many Obama voters have come to rely on for assistance. It also includes a huge number of programs, including both civilian and defense, that are arguably defunct, obsolute and could be defunded or eliminated.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    LA, I don’t think you are a right wing nut. Just for the record. I think you are an idealistic libertarian and a bit of an ideologue that has a penchant for getting yourself into rhetorical corners (i.e. “extreme leftist”).

    By the way, I don’t subscribe to some of BO’s Nut Job Determination Matrix (TM), although there are some things there that ring true.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    *obsolete.

    Again, that’s just my opinion on the matter. But as I say, the idea that just “asking the rich to pay a little more” is ridiculous and is not going to slow down the rate at which the government spends money.

    To me, it just smacks of class warfare rhetoric, which is designed to invoke envy, resentment, hatred, and so forth. That’s why it sounds like Obama is out to punish achievers and downplay individual hard work and innovation (again you can reference “You Didn’t Build That.” Speaks to his worldview — that collective public good trumps the individual).

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Ahh… the “gravy train” is spending you don’t like.

    Gotcha.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

    By that logic, can I assume that you are of the opinion that the Government should just keep spending money hand over fist, not caring a wit for any level of accountability whatsoever, knowing full well that the successful people in this country can foot the bill for the lazy people who just don’t feel like working?

    Or should I not just assume that and instead rely more on what you’ve actually said on the site?

  • FedUp says:

    “Well, one measure (and a pretty good one, imo) of the recovery is corporate profits. At 171%…”

    As this graph indicates, the timing of the beginning of Obama’s term could not have been better. It was right after the corporate earnings cycle hit rock bottom, with nowhere to go but up:

    http://ycharts.com/indicators/corporate_profits

    Why the large corporate profits? The article
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/corporate-profits-soar-as-executives-attack-obama-policy.html
    Troll linked to before says:

    “Business leaders cite low labor costs in an era of high unemployment, the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policies, and their own management savvy for the profit boom. Prosperity has come in spite of the president, not because of him, they say. “

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    ” In context revenues are taxes.”

    No they are not BO. If you really think that, then you are not listening. I am saying that most Republicans and even libertarians would accept more ACTUAL REVENUE as part of any budget related deal, as long as there are real (and irreversible) cuts and a REAL plan to get rid of most of the debt.

    And by ACTUAL REVENUE, I mean actually insuring the government receives more in 2013 than 2012 through taxes (but not through rates). And by REAL cuts, I mean immediate cuts and I mean language that modifies the future in a way that would be almost impossible to effectively change.

    The debt ceiling is such a device. It is appropriate to require the Democrats to have a real plan that they will sign their names to that ACTUALLY and NOW solves the problem.

    There is no such plan from them. There is vague promises of the future.

    But going back to my point. You mischaracterize (lie) about what Republican’s want when you say revenues are off the table when they are – in fact – on the table. They were put on the table by the Republicans in the last drama, and I am sure they will put them up at the upcoming drama.

    Will you characterize them then as well as not allowing for more revenue?

    By the way, even more revenue from the Rich. But not higher rates. Higher rates are meaningless. The raise in taxes that just occurred will not bring more money to the treasury for more than a year and will hurt job growth. It was a political stunt. Not a solution.

    I can promise you. The rich… will adjust their income streams to insure they pay less. They already due. The only thing that will make them pay more is simplification.

    I suggest taxing consumption and providing a simple credit to the poorest of society. Get rid of every other tax and credit. The rich will pay the most by far and the true poor will pay nothing.

  • liberal anthropologist says:

    One other quick note. Obama is much like most of my friends including my long time best friend. They also would make terrible presidents. But I still like them. I feel no hate for Obama.

    It is unfair that people who disagree with him are branded racists or haters. Strong language in political discussion is a part of our culture. That does not mean they hate.

    Same with people who oppose gay marraige. I am fine with it. But just because someone is not does not mean they hate gay people. They are – in my mind – wrong, but like most people on most things, they are not driven by hate.

    Same with Obama. I don’t think he hates America. I don’t think he thinks in those terms. I think he thinks he is doing good things. He is also wrong.

  • Elder Berry says:

    LA, too many people do express their dislike for Obama in racist and “hater” terms. Nonambiguously racist and hater and too many people like you refuse to publicly disavow those views.

    Same with gay marriage. Having a religious objection to it is between you and your religion. Generally objecting to it is denying part of the population their civil rights, since imposing your religious views on others is contrary to the US Constitution.

    And between your views and Obama’s about what is good for this country, I’ll pick his not yours most of the time, based on what you write here. I do agree with you that a consumption tax, properly designed, would be better than our complicated and easily manipulated current income tax system, but chances of that kind of reform ever happening are nil.

  • Elder Berry says:

    Going back a bit: Nate, the problem seems to be that you do not see nuance in anything.

    I also believe abortion should be limited: limited to the times when a woman and her doctor agree it is the best solution to the physical health or emotional health problems she faces.

    I also believe in the second amendment: I believe that commonsense regulation of gun ownership and gun safety does not abridge anyone’s right to bear arms.

    I also believe in traditional marriage (that is, marriage sanctioned by the government): I believe it is a civil right that should be available to all consenting adults under the law regardless of gender.

  • Yes, Elder, to find the racism on the right you have to read code and nuance, kind of like finding abortion written in the Constitution, and that requires much of creative effort. That’s why it’s always refreshing to see how openly racism and hatred is expressed by the left:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc

    http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/justice-thomas-dissents-left-hurls-vile-racial-slurs-house-nigga-uncle-tom/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OB_OMlHTBUo

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    “Yes, Elder, to find the racism on the right you have to read code and nuance,”

    Westboro Baptist Church

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    So no need to read code or nuance at all.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    My point point about nutty left and nutty right made upthread is further supported.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    I’m talking about racism being used on both sides of any political “debate”.

  • Elder Berry says:

    The delusion that Westboro is leftist needs to be shut down. Occupy is leftist. Westboro is just crazy ugly.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    EB, my point is that Westboro is rightwing not leftwing. Once again proving that TDP is completely incorrect in his assertions..

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    for once, I agree with elderberry, one one discrete item: Westboro is crazy.

    They are neither left nor right wing, but the idea that Fred Phelps is a “Democrat” is given legs by the fact that he has run for office numerous times in Kansas, always on the D ticket.

    I’m not saying that “makes him” a Dem, simply that he has filed as one.

    And that’s something for the Dems in Kansas to deal with, if they want to (which should resonate with those here who like to prescribe for places they don’t live about people they don’t like :D )

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    Anti-gay protests, anti-Obama protests, hardcore “Christian” beliefs. Those things aren’t leftwing, they (if anything) are rightwing. But I will agree that Westboro members are just sick scum and representative of neither party. But that is just the point. The fringes are NEVER representative of either party. The Tea Party attracts a lot of fringe elements, however, and overt racism is one side effect of this attraction. But the leftwing is certainly not immune to its own form of racism. The Tea Party fringe element, however, has more influence on the Republican party these days than the left fringe has on the Dems. Hopefully, that is changing after the rejection of this last election.

  • BlackOut says:

    I agree Fred and the rest of Westboro are down right crazy. Crazy isn’t exclusive to any political persuasion. More than crazy I also would add they are dangerous. One of the reasons they have been certified as a hate group by the SPLC.

Leave Comment