CONGRATS! US HEALTHCARE REFORM PASSES!

[SBaby]

Well it seems to be no point in arguing with you. You are obvious oblivious to the fact that the Republicans are following the most radical voice possible. Even Republicans have said it.

Well, you can live in your own little world all you want. It won't make any of these problems magically go away though. In fact, things are going to get much worse.

As alot of you know, I predicted that there would be a war here in the US by no later than 2016. It might happen before that, but I believe that it will be 2016 at the absolute latest. Now there are already wheels turning toward this (reference the militia members that were just arrested, as well as at least four other groups that are being monitored, all in a period of a few months; those four other groups, as many of you already know, are much larger than the one that WAS arrested). At this point, it'll probably just take one little thing to push one side of the debate over the edge. Just one little police action or federal action that goes too far. Then it will all hit the fan. I can see this happening very soon.

And getting back to the Healthcare bill, I believe this could actually be the catalyst that kicks things off (or at the very least, one of them). It already seems to be having a profound effect on Americans, even before the effects have gone into play. And I hate to say it, because honestly, I still believe that politicians are nothing but trouble (in fact, I hate almost all politicians). But a group of 30,000 people is not a fringe group. It's an army.

You do know that Obama wants to create a civilian police force, right? I think he knows something's about to go down, and he's trying to prepare for it.

 

[Sonikku]

To be honest, I didn't expect this to be passed at all. With so much opposition coming from the Republicans, the chances were very slim. I'm just as surprised as many are.

Yeah right! democrats are almost completly running Ameaica as we speak.(type lol)

 

[lx_theo]

Well, you can live in your own little world all you want. It won't make any of these problems magically go away though. In fact, things are going to get much worse.

:laugh:
Whatever you say. Nothing actually points to any of that. Socialism isn't evil like some would like you to believe, and capitalism isn't all as great as some would like to say. Both are based on very good fundamental ideas, yet have their downsides. In reality the U.S. should take more of a middle road that takes advantage of each sides upside while downplaying their downsides, and I believe this healthcare bill, while not perfect, is a step closer in that direction. So deal with it.

EDIT:

As alot of you know, I predicted that there would be a war here in the US by no later than 2016. It might happen before that, but I believe that it will be 2016 at the absolute latest. Now there are already wheels turning toward this (reference the militia members that were just arrested, as well as at least four other groups that are being monitored, all in a period of a few months; those four other groups, as many of you already know, are much larger than the one that WAS arrested). At this point, it'll probably just take one little thing to push one side of the debate over the edge. Just one little police action or federal action that goes too far. Then it will all hit the fan. I can see this happening very soon.

And getting back to the Healthcare bill, I believe this could actually be the catalyst that kicks things off (or at the very least, one of them). It already seems to be having a profound effect on Americans, even before the effects have gone into play. And I hate to say it, because honestly, I still believe that politicians are nothing but trouble. But a group of 30,000 people is not a fringe group. It's an army.

You do know that Obama wants to create a civilian police force, right? I think he knows something's about to go down, and he's trying to prepare for it.

Wonderful, then let that radical 5% population try to revolt. Glenn Beck shall lead them into battle!

 

[SBaby]

:laugh:
Whatever you say. Nothing actually points to any of that. Socialism isn't evil like some would like you to believe, and capitalism isn't all as great as some would like to say. Both are based on very good fundamental ideas, yet have their downsides. In reality the U.S. should take more of a middle road that takes advantage of each sides upside while downplaying their downsides, and I believe this healthcare bill, while not perfect, is a step closer in that direction. So deal with it.

EDIT:


Wonderful, then let that radical 5% population try to revolt. Glenn Beck shall lead them into battle!

Again, just keep living in your own world. I'll continue to have fun with you. But hey, I got you to give up that you agree that this is Socialism.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

:laugh:
Whatever you say. Nothing actually points to any of that. Socialism isn't evil like some would like you to believe, and capitalism isn't all as great as some would like to say. Both are based on very good fundamental ideas, yet have their downsides. In reality the U.S. should take more of a middle road that takes advantage of each sides upside while downplaying their downsides, and I believe this healthcare bill, while not perfect, is a step closer in that direction. So deal with it.

EDIT:


Wonderful, then let that radical 5% population try to revolt. Glenn Beck shall lead them into battle!

Socialism is the yellow brick road to tyranny.

And ooh, middle road? Don't tell me you're an advocate of fascism! :O Even though fascism is just as tyrannical.

I don't think an actual war revolution will be necessary, but there's going to be a massive political one. SBaby is overshooting himself here even though I agree with his position on the bill.

And don't be stupid. Find me one statement Glenn Beck has made to advocate violence.

 

[SBaby]

Socialism is the yellow brick road to tyranny.

I don't think an actual war revolution will be necessary.

I don't think it's necessary either. In fact, I don't want it happening at all. I just said that I predict it will happen.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

I don't think it's necessary either. In fact, I don't want it happening at all. I just said that I predict it will happen.

Doubtful. I'm curious about what got you thinking that, though.

 

[SBaby]

Doubtful. I'm curious about what got you thinking that, though.

It's probably partially because of all the things that are happening in the world now. I just have a gut feeling that we're really close to some kind of major war. And I believe it will at least in part be domestic. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I've got a feeling that I might be right.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

It's probably partially because of all the things that are happening in the world now. I just have a gut feeling that we're really close to some kind of major war. And I believe it will at least in part be domestic. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I've got a feeling that I might be right.

I don't think it's domestic. I think it's going to be the final world war that revolves around Israel and its allies and those who are against it, namely, the Islamic states as a whole and other various dictatorships.

 

[lx_theo]

Socialism is the yellow brick road to tyranny.

And ooh, middle road? Don't tell me you're an advocate of fascism! :O Even though fascism is just as tyrannical.

I don't think an actual war revolution will be necessary, but there's going to be a massive political one. SBaby is overshooting himself here even though I agree with his position on the bill.

And don't be stupid. Find me one statement Glenn Beck has made to advocate violence.

How is the idea of trying to create equality a road to tyranny? You are sounding like Glenn Beck right now.

Guess what. The opposite, or the Republican's way leads to police states and dictorial theocracy. MUCH BETTER.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

How is the idea of trying to create equality a road to tyranny? You are sounding like Glenn Beck right now.

Guess what. The opposite, or the Republican's way leads to police states and dictorial theocracy. MUCH BETTER.

You really need to do some research, buddy. I support liberty and equal opportunity, as opposed to government control and equal results. You're really distorting the constitutional meaning of equality. I want a level playing field, not to have everything be reapportioned by some arrogant government body that thinks it knows best what I need. Equal results creates tyranny because it places one mediator with all the power. On a perfect world, this would work, but the evil in human nature is too prone to greed and control.

https://www.pokecommunity.com/posts/5644160/ (read point #3)

https://www.pokecommunity.com/posts/5644241/

https://www.pokecommunity.com/posts/5644373/

https://www.pokecommunity.com/posts/5644468/

If anything, police states come about due to socialism. Both the fascist and communist totalitarian states sprung from the core tenets of socialism. And since when do conservatives want to strip anyone of their rights to practice religion? Do explain your argument.

 

[lx_theo]

You really need to do some research, buddy. I support liberty and equal opportunity, as opposed to government control and equal results. You're really distorting the constitutional meaning of equality. I want a level playing field, not to have everything be reapportioned by some arrogant government body that thinks it knows best what I need. Equal results creates tyranny because it places one mediator with all the power. On a perfect world, this would work, but the evil in human nature is too prone to greed and control.

https://www.pokecommunity.com/posts/5644160/

https://www.pokecommunity.com/posts/5644241/

https://www.pokecommunity.com/posts/5644373/

https://www.pokecommunity.com/posts/5644468/

And since when do conservatives want to strip anyone of their rights to practice religion? Do explain your argument.

Capitalism has the same problem for in a perfect world, but when you take conservatisms to its radical natures like you've been doing to liberalism, then you find that it leads to police states and dictorial theocracy. I'm not saying that Republicans want to do that, I'm just showing proof you're unfairly grouping any real sort of socialism as the most radical as possible. Its just as slippery of a slope as its foil. Why do you think I want middle of the road? Then again it must be my fault for attempting to look at things from unbiased viewpoints.

Edit:
And it works more like this:

All equal tyranny(Communism) ___________________________Middle Ground______________________Class System Tyranny (Capitalism, theocracy)
We, as a country, are about...------------------------------------------------------------^Here

 

[Prince_of_Light]

Capitalism has the same problem for in a perfect world, but when you take conservatisms to its radical natures like you've been doing to liberalism, then you find that it leads to police states and dictorial theocracy. I'm not saying that Republicans want to do that, I'm just showing proof you're unfairly grouping any real sort of socialism as the most radical as possible. Its just as slippery of a slope as its foil. Why do you think I want middle of the road? Then again it must be my fault for attempting to look at things from unbiased viewpoints.


Edit:
And it works more like this:

All equal tyranny(Communism) ___________________________Middle Ground______________________Class System Tyranny (Capitalism, theocracy)
We, as a country, are about...------------------------------------------------------------^Here

You missed my edit.

If anything, police states come about due to socialism. Both the fascist and communist totalitarian states sprung from the core tenets of socialism. And since when do conservatives want to strip anyone of their rights to practice religion? Do explain your argument.

The attitude you're trying to portray with "police states and dictatorial theocracy" is hardly conservative. The only difference between that tyranny and the tyranny socialism brings is that it believes in god. It is closer in nature to Islamofascism. As I said before, the whole point of the conservative movement is to restore rights, not take them away like you allege.

There may be some wingnut Republican members who believe in such tyranny, but I can tell you from personal experience that isn't the type of motivation for the resurgence of conservatism and the tea party movement.

EDIT: Your modified diagram is a misrepresentation. All forms of tyranny are on one end, and liberty is on the other. From the looks of it what you support is a check between the two kinds of tyranny. I support neither form of tyranny, which means no check is necessary because both tyrannies are gone. Again, historically, this points straight to fascism. Your kind of thinking with that diagram is the exact stuff Hitler and Mussolini spewed to their people. Capitalism when practiced purely results in a level playing field for all people who want to work hard and get involved, and leaves morality to each individual to uphold while trusting the integrity of the people. Like I said before, we're not living under capitalism anymore. It's turned into quasi-socialist corporatist cronyism.

 

[lx_theo]

You missed my edit.

If anything, police states come about due to socialism. Both the fascist and communist totalitarian states sprung from the core tenets of socialism. And since when do conservatives want to strip anyone of their rights to practice religion? Do explain your argument.

The attitude you're trying to portray with "police states and dictatorial theocracy" is hardly conservative. The only difference between that tyranny and the tyranny socialism brings is that it believes in god. It is closer in nature to Islamofascism. As I said before, the whole point of the conservative movement is to restore rights, not take them away like you allege.

There may be some wingnut Republican members who believe in such tyranny, but I can tell you from personal experience that isn't the type of motivation for the resurgence of conservatism and the tea party movement.

EDIT: Your modified diagram is a misrepresentation. All forms of tyranny are on one end, and liberty is on the other. From the looks of it what you support is a check between the two kinds of tyranny. I support neither form of tyranny, which means no check is necessary because both tyrannies are gone. Capitalism when practiced purely results in a level playing field for all people who want to work hard and get involved, and leaves morality to each individual to uphold while trusting the integrity of the people. Like I said before, we're not living under capitalism anymore. It's turned into quasi-socialist corporatist cronyism.

Which shows exactly why you're unable to look at it from an unbiased point of view.

Monarchies, theocracies, and any system of governments with class based tyranny are all on the right side.

You still are unable to comprehend my point of that you don't understand that there are different levels on both sides, and you only treat one with any sort of respect for that fact, a very Glenn Beck type attitude.

Edit: and as for your edit, you're not saying he's a mass murderer, you're just implying.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

Responses in bold once again!

Which shows exactly why you're unable to look at it from an unbiased point of view.

Monarchies, theocracies, and any system of governments with class based tyranny are all on the right side.

MONARCHIES AND THEOCRACIES ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE??? GIVE ME A BREAK. Monarchical tyranny was EXACTLY what the Founders opposed back in the Revolution and they're the fathers of conservatism! Plus theocratic tyranny was the ENTIRE REASON for the pilgrimage to America! Get your history straight!

You still are unable to comprehend my point of that you don't understand that there are different levels on both sides, and you only treat one with any sort of respect for that fact, a very Glenn Beck type attitude.

I do understand there are different levels on both sides. I just group them together. What part of that don't YOU understand?

Edit: and as for your edit, you're not saying he's a mass murderer, you're just implying.

No, I'm not. Reread my post. I made that clear. Enough with the propaganda and the twisting of words.

 

[lx_theo]

Responses in bold once again!

1. Wrong. The founding fathers moved away from the radical right side closer to the middle. Not quite there, but much more so. The right side emphasizes class structure just like capitalism does through the rich and poor. What they did was still keep the ideas of that, but moved left through the adding of equality and such. For their day, the founding fathers were EXTREMELY liberal. Then again, you'd have to actually understand what conservative and liberal mean to understand my last statement.

2. The grouping together part. Why? Because you do unfairly. Thats because one, you group together the good of one side and the bad of the other, while ignoring the bad of one and the good of the other. Thats also because every level has many different types of consequences and that makes it stupid to group entire sides in the first place.


3. Then reword it. Because I've read it five times, and it still sounds like your implying it, then trying to say your not by saying your not.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

1. Wrong. The founding fathers moved away from the radical right side closer to the middle. Not quite there, but much more so. The right side emphasizes class structure just like capitalism does through the rich and poor. What they did was still keep the ideas of that, but moved left through the adding of equality and such. For their day, the founding fathers were EXTREMELY liberal. Them again, you'd have to actually understand what conservative and liberal mean to understand my last statement.

2. The grouping together part. Why? Because you do unfairly. Thats because one, you group together the good of one side and the bad of the other, while ignoring the bad of one and the good of the other. Thats also because every level has many different types of consequences and that makes it stupid to group entire sides in the first place.


3. Then reword it. Because I've read it five times, and it still sounds like your implying it, then trying to say your not by saying your not.

1. You're misrepresenting the definitions of "liberal". What you are referring to is classical liberalism, which I and other conservatives support, and that is what the Founders' supported. The definition of conservatism as it is widely known has moved to classical liberalism, and because of that, it no longer encompasses theocratic or monarchical tyranny. In turn, the left wing has made its own move into social liberalism.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism

2. All forms of tyranny are equally evil if human nature remains the same.

3. I made it clear enough, stop twisting it. I'll post it right here.

Don't forget that there was more to fascism than just the eugenics and the Holocaust. As a conservative I can tell you from personal experience that the protesters who use such signs are trying to point out that our President is trying to run a government similar to the fascist government Hitler and Mussolini proposed, not that he is a genocidal totalitarian maniac. The parallels between this administration and the governmental theories and practices of fascism can be argued for strongly on an academic level. Check out a book called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg to see what I mean.

Again, they're not trying to call the President a mass-murderer, they are merely trying to say that the governmental principles of fascism are what Obama supports. I think they could have used a more respectful method to go about it, though.

You can use Hitler's theories of how a government should run without including the eugenics and the mass-murdering.

 

[Luck]

Again, they're not trying to call the President a mass-murderer, they are merely trying to say that the governmental principles of fascism are what Obama supports. I think they could have used a more respectful method to go about it, though.

You can use Hitler's theories of how a government should run without including the eugenics and the mass-murdering.

I thought he was a socialist.

Obama is a totalitarian socialist, you bet your life on it.

Socialism and fascism are two different things. Many scholars today will tell you that.

 

[lx_theo]

1. You're misrepresenting the definitions of "liberal". What you are referring to is classical liberalism, which I and other conservatives support, and that is what the Founders' supported. We have since moved away from that, and the modern definition of conservatism no longer encompasses theocracy or monarchical tyranny.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism

2. All forms of tyranny are equally evil if human nature remains the same.

3. I made it clear enough, stop twisting it. I'll post it right here.

Don't forget that there was more to fascism than just the eugenics and the Holocaust. As a conservative I can tell you from personal experience that the protesters who use such signs are trying to point out that our President is trying to run a government similar to the fascist government Hitler and Mussolini proposed, not that he is a genocidal totalitarian maniac. The parallels between this administration and the governmental theories and practices of fascism can be argued for strongly on an academic level. Check out a book called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg to see what I mean.

Again, they're not trying to call the President a mass-murderer, they are merely trying to say that the governmental principles of fascism are what Obama supports. I think they could have used a more respectful method to go about it, though.

You can use Hitler's theories of how a government should run without including the eugenics and the mass-murdering.

1. Not another person who wants to do the same thing we did 200 years ago! The world changes for Pete's sake! Liberal covers communism and such just as much as conservative cover monarchies and such. You're side shouldn't get special treatment just because you agree with more things on it. I agree with more liberal concepts, but look at what I'm doing!

2. And both sides can to lead to tyranny. If you can not accept that obvious fact, then there is in fact no hope for you.

3. Still getting the implication that you are trying to make him out like Hitler, who is known as one of the worst people in the world

 

[Prince_of_Light]

I thought he was a socialist.



Socialism and fascism are two different things. Many scholars today will tell you that.

They are different. But many scholars today will also tell you Fascism sprang forth from socialism. As a matter of fact, before he invented fascism, Mussolini was an ardent socialist. There are many small differences between the two but the root still remains the same: statist tyranny. That's why I lump them together. I get that they're different but they're still tyrannical.

1. Not another person who wants to do the same thing we did 200 years ago! The world changes for Pete's sake! Liberal covers communism and such just as much as conservative cover monarchies and such. You're side shouldn't get special treatment just because you agree with more things on it. I agree with more liberal concepts, but look at what I'm doing!

2. And both sides can to lead to tyranny. If you can not accept that obvious fact, then there is in fact no hope for you.

3. Still getting the implication that you are trying to make him out like Hitler, who is known as one of the worst people in the world

1. You're darn right I do. Those principles are timeless. And you're still hashing together the definitions of liberalism. You're just another person who thinks no morality is equal, therefore no principle is equal. If there were no morals and principles upheld throughout time then there would only be chaos. That's what makes our constitution so great. It brings together all the influential freedom-creating principles discovered throughout civilization together.

2. You're still missing the point. Conservatives support liberty, with no forms of tyranny. As I said before, pure capitalism is a non-tyrannical system because it gives everyone equal opportunity. I'll say this again too: we're not living in capitalism anymore, we're living in quasi-socialist corporatist cronyism.

3. He follows the same governmental principles as Hitler. That doesn't mean he believes in eugenics and mass-murdering like Hitler did. You keep missing the point of this statement.