Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Red States by Phostex Red States by Phostex
This recent grassroots swing to the radical right is toxic. We're seeing it getting people hurt and killed already, and anyone who dares to touch will be stained by it. The Tea Party movement seems like a phenomenon right now, but in a decade, its followers will be seen as the evil twin of the hippies.
Add a Comment:
 
:icongnhtd:
gnhtd Featured By Owner Sep 27, 2014
To be fair :
Both parties -Republicans and Democrates- nowadays don't have that much differences anymore.

In my opinion the USA should become a multi-party-democracy and not stay a 2-party-democracy.
I mean there already are third parties, but they're ants compared to the 2 big parties (one of which can just veto the decisions of the other if they don't like them... *cough* republicans *cough*).
Reply
:iconphostex:
Phostex Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2014
Okay.
Reply
:iconpak2rat:
pak2rat Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2014
Also, if you want to talk about policies that kill, let's talk Democrat. Look at Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, D.C., etc. The places with the most violence are DEMOCRAT controlled. Liberals want to keep all guns from schools to prevent shootings, but the zones don't stop shooters, armed officers already in the school do. Places with gun bans have higher gun violence, concealed carry states have less murder.
Reply
:iconpak2rat:
pak2rat Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2014
Wow... so little tolerance for different views. Tea Party is evil and kills? That is quite a bit of venom. Also makes me wonder is you have ever TALKED FACE TO FACE with a member of the Tea Party. Most of us are just like every one else, so why is there so much hate? Bet you got all your opinions spoon fed to you by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and MSNBC.


Difference between the left and right:

Left: emotional, reactionary, experimental
Right: Logical, proactive, rutined

Both have there disadvantages, like liberals are viewed as foolhardy and conservatives are are viewed as callous, but it is just different world views. The Tea Party is best described as conservative libertarian pragmatism.
Reply
:iconphostex:
Phostex Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2014
I'll bet you can talk about "reactionary," you big hunk of lovin'.

You DO realize that this piece is strictly about electoral politics, not about gun control, right.  You'll notice the elephant shot himself with a teapot, not a gun.  It's a metaphor for how pandering to your base might help get you votes today, but in the long term, you'll shun moderate voters, you base will shrink and die off, and your party will die with them.

Political suicide, if you will.

I accept apologies in the forms of check or paypal.
Reply
:iconsonofchinglu:
SonofChinglu Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2013
We're seeing people get hurt and killed? I honestly can't remember a single instance of violence breaking out at a Tea Party rally, or any major political convention in recent years.
Reply
:iconphostex:
Phostex Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2013
No, the Republican party mortally wounded itself with the tea party in order to gain a permanent voting block in deep red states.  Appealing to their base (AKA shooting themselves in the face) was the fastest, easiest way to "paint the map red" despite the fact that the rest of the country is actually turning bluer on most issues.
Reply
:icondaggercat:
DaggerCat Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2010
Amazing statement and I am just speechless...
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2010
Hey Phostex, perhaps you and SimoneHill can discuss the proper behavior of a debate.
Reply
:iconphostex:
Phostex Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2010
Are you still on about that?

A political cartoon is really only as good as the political climate it encapsulates. If you want me to admit that "Red States" is sensationalistic and over the top, well, yes, it is. But I still believe the Republicans' strategy to score political victories in the short run damages their viability to be taken seriously in the long term.

Do you need this spelled out for you? Feel free to take another three months to respond, because I am currently in no mood for this kind of crap.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2010
Actually, the comment wasn't aimed at you or this piece. Since you and I were able to have a respectable debate without resorting to namecalling, I was hoping you could explain to SimnoeHill how it much better a debate works that way.
Reply
:iconphostex:
Phostex Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2010
Oh. I haven't really taken interest in those posts since I wrote them, so I suppose I should thank you for bringing that to my attention.

That said, lecturing SimnoeHill how to debate interests me even less than opening this particular can of worms again.

Whatever the next federal holiday is, I hope you have a good one.:petting:
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2010
Radical right? Why, because people are angry that big brother isn't listening to them? And please, provide examples of people getting hurt and killed.

And the freaks of the sixties performed riots, not organized protests like the Tea Party movement. You'll notice that the National Guard hasn't had to be called out and there aren't police in riot gear at the meetings.
Reply
:iconphostex:
Phostex Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2010
I always enjoy a debate, and I can do it well.

First: semantics. Who's Big Brother? The administration that wants to provide health care to all American citizens, or the Administration that said torture is okay, if we think you're a terrorist?

Second: generalizations. People in the 60s protested publicly for human rights issues, like voting, anti-discrimination laws, women's lib, and sound environmental policy.
Today, I see birthers, secessionists, and gun collectors likening the President to Hitler because of minor political differences.

Third: History. I remember from history class two times the National Guard was called out. The first was to desegregate southern schools and protect black students from the kind of racists who today think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist who wasn't born in the country.
The other was Kent State, where the National Guard shot and killed 4 students, who were peacefully protesting the invasion of Cambodia.
If the National Guard hasn't been called out "this time" it might be because Tea Partiers, are, for the most part, middle-aged and white. It's much easier, politically, to point guns at ethnically diverse college students with crazy long hair.

Fourth: examples. I do believe that the fellow who shot a security guard in the Holocaust museum last year wasn't a Democrat. Neither was the guy who brought a machine gun to an anti-Obama rally. Oh, and the fellow who crashed his plane into the IRS building? The same kind of Libertarian that tea parties attract. Ditto the fellow who shot two security guards outside the Pentagon last week. And to give you a mulligan, I won't name all the acts of violence and discrimination made against gay folk for the past sixty years.

The Final Burn: the entire bloody point of the piece is that the Tea Party is based on empty fury, and a notable absence of facts. Politicians who ally themselves with misinformed kooks will find themselves on the short end of the stick, every time.

Rebuttal, amigo?
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2010
"First: semantics. Who's Big Brother? The administration that wants to provide health care to all American citizens, or the Administration that said torture is okay, if we think you're a terrorist?"

Big brother is just what I use to refer to the government. And healthcare is man-made service, so it cannot be a right as there can be no right to enslave (anyone who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave), plus where in the Constitution is government given any say in healthcare? And if you read the Geneva convention, it outlines what is required to be considered a POW and thus protected, and the terrorists we're fighting violate every part of it.

"generalizations. People in the 60s protested publicly for human rights issues, like voting, anti-discrimination laws, women's lib, and sound environmental policy.
Today, I see birthers, secessionists, and gun collectors likening the President to Hitler because of minor political differences."

And in most cases, their protests resulted in damage to public and private property and injury to the police, whereas the Tea Party protests are generally peaceful and require little if any intervention by the authorities.

And for your education, I present the definition of fascism from the American College dictionary: a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.).

Look at how much Obama has grown the government, look at how much he plans to grow it more, look at how he and his supporters react to those who oppose him (remember that national security memo that came out right after he was elected, suggesting that anyone who pretty much disagreed with him was a potential right-wing terrorist?) and tell me he doesn't fall under that definition.

"Third: History. I remember from history class two times the National Guard was called out. The first was to desegregate southern schools and protect black students from the kind of racists who today think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist who wasn't born in the country."

LOL, thank you so much for showing the "tolerance" that Obama encourages. I seem to recall, during the Bush administration, that dissent was called the highest form of patriotism by the very party that is now in office. How nice of you to demonstrate said party's hypocrisy. Oh, and if racism means holding both black and white presidents to the same standards, then I wear that title with pride.

"The other was Kent State, where the National Guard shot and killed 4 students, who were peacefully protesting the invasion of Cambodia."

Do reread your history and learn why the National Guard was called out in the first place and exactly how "peaceful" the protests were:

[link]

"If the National Guard hasn't been called out "this time" it might be because Tea Partiers, are, for the most part, middle-aged and white. It's much easier, politically, to point guns at ethnically diverse college students with crazy long hair."

Or, as rational people would say, perhaps it is because they are peaceful protests.

"Fourth: examples. I do believe that the fellow who shot a security guard in the Holocaust museum last year wasn't a Democrat."

He wasn't a republican either. He was an INDIVIDUAL. You just essentially said racism is wrong. Well, explain to me the difference between saying all blacks are inferior because a few of them are criminals and saying all Republicans are guilty because of the action of a few radicals?

"Neither was the guy who brought a machine gun to an anti-Obama rally."

LOL again, it was a semi-automatic rifle (automatic weapons are illegal). Please my friend, ignorance and hysteria are not the way to win a debate. And last I checked, there's no law forbidding that (in fact, there's a law that allows such an act called "open-carry". Many states have them).

"Oh, and the fellow who crashed his plane into the IRS building? The same kind of Libertarian that tea parties attract."

Why don't you read the whole letter of "the fellow who crashed his plan into the IRS building." (By the way, if you believe only right wingers are anti-government, look up Ho Chi Minh, Che, Fidel Castro, and Mao Zedong. All of them launched violent campaigns against governments) By the way, in light of your support for collective guilt, do I get to blame you for all crimes committed by your political group, gender, and/or race?

"Ditto the fellow who shot two security guards outside the Pentagon last week."

You mean this fellow:

[link]

[link]

"And to give you a mulligan, I won't name all the acts of violence and discrimination made against gay folk for the past sixty years."

So those were wrong, yet there's nothing wrong with labeling gun owners as right-wing terrorists, gun nuts, killers, etc and going after them everytime there's a shooting?

"The Final Burn: the entire bloody point of the piece is that the Tea Party is based on empty fury, and a notable absence of facts. Politicians who ally themselves with misinformed kooks will find themselves on the short end of the stick, every time."

Fact: The Tenth Amendment clearly states that any powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution belong to the people or the states.

Fact: There is nothing in the Constitution granting the government authority to bail out banks or businesses and there is nothing in it giving government any say in healthcare.

Fact: The Tea Partiers are protesting against out of control government growth and based on the above two facts, their protests are more than justified.

Rebuttal served.
Reply
:iconphostex:
Phostex Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2010
Good, this getting fun. The last guy who tried this ended up just calling me names. Let me try to boil things down, while making a point at the same time.

1. Calling all government "Big Brother" is gross over-generalization on your part. Even a government as fat and bogged down as ours provides a number of good public services, and, unlike Orwell's Britain, it does not continuously monitor us in our homes, arrest people for thought crime, or torture people with face-chewing rats. Of course, if it does, I'd be first in line to protest.
2. Frankly, if you weigh a few overturned cars and broken windows against the right of millions of Americans to vote and be treated as equals (the separate but equal laws varied by STATE, remember), I'll take the repair bill.
3. I present the Merriam Webster definition of Fascism: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" I don't think America is Fascist just because it's trying to tell banks to stop scamming people.
4. The growth of the government is a legitimate concern. Our system is weighed down by its own massiveness, which hinders its ability to actually help and protect people, in this country and in others. On the other hand, what about people like Bernie Madoff? What about Bears Sterns and Blackwater and Goldman Sachhs (sic)? For every good-natured person who doesn't need a law to tell him what's wrong, there's another individual or company who will push the boundaries of decency and steal and suck people dry for all they're worth. And the government comes in and makes laws to stop them. And they try to find loopholes. And the government makes more laws.
If you want a smaller government, you have to change the society that necessitates such a huge fucking government. And of course, if the government tried to do that (being the only entity large enough to attempt to) that would be Fascism. No win.
5. Apologies about the semi-automatic rifle. I forgot that those only semi-kill people.
6. There are different kinds of violence from beating someone with a baseball bat. Threats, like semi-automatics and signs demanding "The blood of tyrants" seem to promote violence. Those town hall meetings with Congressmen weren't exactly peaceful. People were calling speakers Communist, and shouting down their answers, and shutting down meaningful debate. I have no qualm about meaningful debate. But a lot of these people just seem to want to yell at "the system". I did that too, when I was 17.
7. I would not go after gun owners after every psychopathic shooting spree. I simply think that many of our country's gun laws are (ironically) too liberal. When it comes to machines used solely for killing, there should be strict laws to keep the lone nuts from hurting innocents. I don't think background checks and limits of 1 gun a month is too much.
8. The Constitution, in the Preamble, promises "a more perfect union,... justice,... domestic tranquility,... the common defense,... the general welfare, and.. the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." I'd say that universal health care might fall under more perfect union, general welfare, and domestic tranquility.
9. Yes, there is nothing in the Constitution about all those things you mentioned. There is also no mention of the government NOT doing all those things. The Constitution does not give us the power to torture foreigners, either. For several years, the Constitution said that a black man was worth 3/5 of a white man. The U.S. Constitution, while invaluable, is not the end-all, be-all of law and justice. Lots of countries have Constitutions, and frankly, maybe we could learn a little from them. Maybe they could learn a little from us. Laws need to reflect the society we live in, and right now, we live in a very greedy, corrupt, and angry society.
10. I was confused by your Ho Chi Minh reference. Are the tea partiers like Ho Chi Minh? Is the IRS bomber? Is President Obama?
11. This is getting long anyway. Suffice to say, I wish people would stop likening everything they don't agree with to Hitler or Stalin. When you get people's blood going like that, they start to talk about crazy things like the blood of tyrants, and secession.

Last point: I doubt I can convince you of anything, and you can't me. If you chose to reply, narrow your talking points to topics directly represented in the piece. This might not be fair to you, but there's nothing in the Constitution about it, so I think I'm legally in the clear.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2010
"8. The Constitution, in the Preamble, promises "a more perfect union,... justice,... domestic tranquility,... the common defense,... the general welfare, and.. the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." I'd say that universal health care might fall under more perfect union, general welfare, and domestic tranquility."

It also says governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. Last I checked, there's a great majority of people not wanting Obama's universal healthcare, yet he insists on shoving it down our throats.

If you look further into the general welfare clause, there is a part of it setting a specific list of what falls under "general welfare". Also, the one part of the Constitution cannot be used to violate another part (eg, the Tenth Amendment).

And again, healthcare is man-made service and I already pointed out how forcing someone to produce while another person disposes of his product is slavery, which I believe we already have laws against. Are you now telling me that the government has authority to force a doctor to provide his skills to anyone who demands them, regardless of their ability to pay for them, with the threat of the law aimed at them if they refuse to comply? How is that not slavery?

"9. Yes, there is nothing in the Constitution about all those things you mentioned. There is also no mention of the government NOT doing all those things."

I repeat, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that anything not granted to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved for the people or the states. Please do not ignore my words as it is not only irritating (I have a very BIIIG pet peeve when it comes to repeating myself) but also poor debating behavior.

"The Constitution does not give us the power to torture foreigners, either."

It doesn't protect them either. What would you have us do? Put them back on the battlefield to continue killing?

"For several years, the Constitution said that a black man was worth 3/5 of a white man."

My friend, you REALLY need to learn your history. That was put into the Constitution to limit the power of the slave-owning south, who wanted their slaves to count as full people to increase their power in Congress.

"The U.S. Constitution, while invaluable, is not the end-all, be-all of law and justice."

So who and by what right gets to decide when it does and doesn't apply? It's not perfect, but it's the best document of its kind at limiting what the government can do. I certainly don't think giving government a blank check on power is the answer to its flaws.

"Lots of countries have Constitutions, and frankly, maybe we could learn a little from them. Maybe they could learn a little from us. Laws need to reflect the society we live in, and right now, we live in a very greedy, corrupt, and angry society."

Greed is defined as excessive desire. Who and by what right gets to define what is excessive?

Corrupt I'll grant you, though it is the government that is corrup as it is not doing its job (eg, safeguarding the rights of its citizens).

And people do tend to get angry when reasonable requests are ignored.

"10. I was confused by your Ho Chi Minh reference. Are the tea partiers like Ho Chi Minh? Is the IRS bomber? Is President Obama?"

Nowadays, the assumption is that if somone is anti-government, they must be right-wing (eg, republican, conservative, etc). My naming of those four men was to show that even left wingers are against governments that don't follow their views.

"11. This is getting long anyway. Suffice to say, I wish people would stop likening everything they don't agree with to Hitler or Stalin. When you get people's blood going like that, they start to talk about crazy things like the blood of tyrants, and secession."

I assume you were saying that when people were using it in reference to the Bush administration (when people were outright calling for his assissination)?

"When it comes to machines used solely for killing, there should be strict laws to keep the lone nuts from hurting innocents."

Who decides what constitutes "strict laws" (by the way, gun rights organizations like the NRA are at the forefront in getting tougher laws and punishment against criminals.) Who decides who falls under "lone nuts"?

"I don't think background checks and limits of 1 gun a month is too much."

I do. By what right do you force your views on me?

"On the other hand, what about people like Bernie Madoff? What about Bears Sterns and Blackwater and Goldman Sachhs (sic)? For every good-natured person who doesn't need a law to tell him what's wrong, there's another individual or company who will push the boundaries of decency and steal and suck people dry for all they're worth. And the government comes in and makes laws to stop them. And they try to find loopholes. And the government makes more laws."

In a free market (which we don't have), such people would be put out of their jobs when their services become unpopular. It is only by government help that such people can continue to prosper.

Also, in such situations, the government's job is to come in and, like a police officer, only go after those who did the crime, not pass laws that essentially punish all businessmen, whether guilty or innocent (just like passing more gun laws in the wake of a shooting lumps legit gun owners into the same group as the person who committed the actual crime).
Reply
:iconphostex:
Phostex Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2010
Sounds like you are a Libertarian, or whatever passes for Libertarian these days. If I've read these screeds right, you believe in a smaller government and fewer laws limits freedom. The logical extrapolation of this would be anarchy, in which each person governs themselves with utter freedom. A nice idea, if everyone was well-educated, logical, moral, and capable of wielding power over their own sovereign nation.

BUT. You cannot deny that there are vast numbers of people (pointing to no group) who behave immorally, or stupidly, and who would take advantage of complete freedom to completely devastate and subjugate those around them. It is for these people that we have laws, and it is for the sake of justice that they are required to apply to everyone, not just "bad people." When these laws are no longer needed (say, when they stop being broken) I'm all for rescinding them. Until then, I philosophically must demand the existence of government to keep society intact. blah,blah, you don't agree.

Now! Your points! Very short this time!

The majority voted for Obama! 53%! All of them knew he wanted health care reform!

Any one poll can say whatever you want. I've found many reputable polls that show that when you explain what health care reform would actually do, majorities approve of it. And only [link] 4% don't want the system changed at all.

I did not know there was a clause to the Preamble. Huh.

Doctors are already obliged to provide health care to everyone who seeks it. Hippocratic Oath. Emergency rooms. What happens is that because they have no insurance (being each rejected or unemployed) they go into massive debt. Morally, I find it reprehensible that if you get sick, you need to be rich to get better.

Tell me again about the tenth amendment. It sounds so mellifluous when you say it.

Sigh. Would it shock you if I said I don't really care what the Constitution says? I'll leave all of that for the Justices to rule out (this is why we have a court system, to define what "excessive" and other things actually mean. They aren't always right, but it's the best system we have.) I'm more concerned with actual people. If people are suffering needlessly, then we should stop it. I consider this justice. Innocents should not suffer needlessly. Those that cause suffering should be stopped. Can you see reason in this, or are you simply, sociopathically, opposed to anything I say because I'm liberal?

I too, dislike, and act against, unjust governments.

No one should compare anyone to Hitler unless that person commits genocide. Robert Mugabe is like Hitler. Barack Obama is not. Bush 2 was at best a Herbert Hoover, or a James Buchanan.

Stop nitpicking me on guns. I don't like them.

Stronger punishments don't do anything but waste taxpayer dollars on cement criminal training academies.

We tried free markets. Regulations were cut during the Clinton and Bush years. People were very happy about all those sub-Prime mortgages, until it all went bust. At which point there was no one left to fire the kingpins except the people making lots and lots of money off of the misfortune of naive middle class Americans.

You're absolutely right. America is not capitalist. GOOD! A completely capitalist America would look like South Africa, with McMansions next to slums, and nothing in between. Regulations mean that banks have to keep enough money to cover their depositors, and that they can't gamble away your assets on risky investments. It means they can't sell people things that have no value, and it means that they can't charge you for things written in 2 pt. font on the 34th page of the credit card contract that didn't arrive in your mailbox until a week after the due date, meaning they also can charge you 75% interest and a crippling late fee. These are things that banks have done, and would do, if they weren't regulated. If capitalism means screwing innocent people for your own fat bonus check, count me out.

One last fucking thing.
"I don't think background checks and limits of 1 gun a month is too much."

I do. By what right do you force your views on me?

This pissed me off. Read what I wrote. "I don't think..." I am EXPRESSING an OPINION. I don't have you strapped to a chair. you're not in a headlock. I'm not forcing anything. If you think that I am, don't let the door hit you on the way out. I find these debates amusing, but if you're going to continue to act like a lout and put words in my mouth, I'm afraid you're not going to be welcome here anymore.

Any other Constitutional issues you'd like to press?
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2010
"Sounds like you are a Libertarian, or whatever passes for Libertarian these days. If I've read these screeds right, you believe in a smaller government and fewer laws limits freedom. The logical extrapolation of this would be anarchy, in which each person governs themselves with utter freedom. A nice idea, if everyone was well-educated, logical, moral, and capable of wielding power over their own sovereign nation"

Read Ayn Rand's "Rights of Man" and "The Nature of Government" if you want my views, as well as an explanation why such things would not be anarchy.

"The majority voted for Obama! 53%! All of them knew he wanted health care reform!"

That doesn't give him a blank check on power. He swore to uphold the Constitution when he took office.

"No one should compare anyone to Hitler unless that person commits genocide. Robert Mugabe is like Hitler. Barack Obama is not. Bush 2 was at best a Herbert Hoover, or a James Buchanan."

Adolf Hitler is the most recognized symbol of fascism, hence why he is used in that comparison.

"Stronger punishments don't do anything but waste taxpayer dollars on cement criminal training academies."

By stronger punishments, they mean the death penalty too. And our prisons would not be full if we didn't have so many victimless-crime laws in effect.


"We tried free markets. Regulations were cut during the Clinton and Bush years. People were very happy about all those sub-Prime mortgages, until it all went bust. At which point there was no one left to fire the kingpins except the people making lots and lots of money off of the misfortune of naive middle class Americans."

No, we didn't. Free market means the government acts only as a police officer to protect people from the use of physical force, which it does via the police (protection from domestic use of force), the military (protection from foreign use of force), and the courts (settle disputes). It means no social security, no medicaid, no medicare, no unemployment, no federal reserve, no government handouts of any kind, which even during the years where government was limited have not been abolished. We've come very close to free market capitalism, but we've never gone the required distance, which is complete laissez-faire capitalism.

Also, if you're referring to what played a large role in our present recession, that was forced on banks by the government. Banks were forced or encouraged to give loans to risky people regardless of their ability to pay them back. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why any self-respecting bank would loan money to someone who they knew couldn't pay it back?

"You're absolutely right. America is not capitalist. GOOD! A completely capitalist America would look like South Africa, with McMansions next to slums, and nothing in between. Regulations mean that banks have to keep enough money to cover their depositors, and that they can't gamble away your assets on risky investments. It means they can't sell people things that have no value, and it means that they can't charge you for things written in 2 pt. font on the 34th page of the credit card contract that didn't arrive in your mailbox until a week after the due date, meaning they also can charge you 75% interest and a crippling late fee. These are things that banks have done, and would do, if they weren't regulated. If capitalism means screwing innocent people for your own fat bonus check, count me out."

My friend, I point you to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand for a true view of what capitalism is. Believe me when I say that you are pointing the finger at the wrong culprit and your understanding of capitalism is incorrect.

Also, if what you say on banks is true, how did we go over a hundred years without the Federal Reserve?

A look at what life was like before said government agency:

[link]

"This pissed me off. Readwhat I wrote. "I don't think..." I am EXPRESSING an OPINION. I don't have you strapped to a chair. you're not in a headlock. I'm not forcing anything. If you think that I am, don't let the door hit you on the way out. I find these debates amusing, but if you're going to continue to act like a lout and put words in my mouth, I'm afraid you're not going to be welcome here anymore."

I'm sorry if I offended you, but I don't meet very many people against guns who are content to just not own them; many of them also vote their views into law.

Also, have you voted in favor of such measures or similar ones? If so, you're forcing your views on others in regards to something that is not any of your business (forcing your views on others doesn't always mean you yourself are doing it. It also refers to when someone is doing it on your behalf). And if you haven't, then consider what I said to be me bringing up what you should think about if and when you are asked for your support on such a measure.
Reply
:iconsimonehill:
SimoneHill Featured By Owner Jul 30, 2010
One point. The president doesn't have a blank check. Congress has to approve of everything he proposes.

Health Care Reform was not rammed down anybody's throat. It's just that the Republicans didn't like the fact that they were not able to quietly kill the bill and sweep the whole thing beneath the rug without the public knowing. The bill was getting lots of attention and so the Republicans had to come up with a strategy to make the bill look bad. Hence saying things like "ObamaCare is being rammed down our thoats!" and "Obama is going to pull the plug on your grandmother!" As long as they are fighting it, their corporate sponsors are happy i.e. Big Insurance, drug industry, etc.

I seriously doubt that most of the tea party protesters even read the bill. They just turned on the radio and listened to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc...

These were all people who have said they hope Obama fails from the moment he was elected. Essentially saying they hope the country fails.

And people like you reacted with a cheer before the man had even set foot in office.

So I don't take much stock in anything you or your party say because it's nothing hate fueled right wing propaganda crap!
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconphostex:
Phostex Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2010
Reading Ayn Rand is like reading dry toast. It's amazing how she was so right that very few actual economists take the trouble to agree with her ideas.

Confusion: It's fascist if a polled majority of Americans don't want the Health Care Bill (note: I saw the Rasmussen poll, and if you broke down each component of reform, a majority of people actually wanted these king of laws passed,=. They just don't like the bill) and it's passed by a majority in Congress anyway.

BUT, if a voting majority passes laws for gun control, they are forcing their views down your throat. Democracy doesn't just work when you agree with the results. And when Congress passes laws, that doesn't make it Hitleresque. Stop watering down Hitler to mark everything you don't like! Be creative! No one ever says, "___ is like Kublai Khan!"

I'm not sure how completely deregulating the economy would prevent unemployment.

I'm also not sure how the government forced banks to create sub-prime loans.

Here's how sub-primes worked, by the way. Banks would sell people these incredible deals they couldn't really afford. They would bundle the loans, and sell them to investors. Investors would take that promise of money and sell it to other investors, and so on. By the time the person can't pay his/her loan, everyone else has made a assload of money selling something that doesn't exist.
This kind of thing is now supposed to be against the law.

The hundred years before the Fed were apeshit. The economy looked like a roller coaster, the only stability coming from the gold standard. (The gold standard wouldn't work today because there isn't enough gold to sustain our population. It would cause massive deflation of the dollar. In a global economy, no other country would touch us.) The dollar today is basically a social contract, and Fed maintains its stability.

Gun laws: if I don't own a gun, how am I supposed to protect myself against someone with a gun? Gun control is preventive care, to ensure that guns are only bought and used responsibly.

So tell me, aesthetically, what do you think of my art?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2010
"At which point there was no one left to fire the kingpins except the people making lots and lots of money off of the misfortune of naive middle class Americans."

I missed this part.

Actually, there was a proper response to that: let the banks that participated in the act fall.

But, what did government do instead? Essentially reward them with taxpayer money. The blame rests with the goverment that didn't allow the laws of nature to take effect, not with a system that wouldn't have allowed such an act in the first place.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2010
One more thing on the Pentagon shooter:

[link]

Go to the very bottom of the article.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
March 6, 2010
Image Size
484 KB
Resolution
858×569
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,849
Favourites
12 (who?)
Comments
30
Downloads
32
×