AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Free Dating

Politics through a mirror.

posted 11/28/2009 12:02:33 AM |
0 kudosgive kudos what's this?
    report abuse
tagged: politics, government
  ShadowMale

Many have blogged about politics, and added their points of view. As always, many more post comments adding their points of views as well. Generally a fight ensues and it gets to the point where it is no longer a civil discussion.

Well here is a topic that is probably going to attract some pretty opinionated people from all walks of life. Try and keep it civil, but I will only delete those who are completely off topic or obviously trolling.

So, many people have asked me through the years what my political beliefs are. I have been known to make jokes and negative comments on many polititians, which has made people wonder.... "is this guy saying that because he is a democrat", or "because he is a republican" depending on who I spoke about. Too many times I have been asked the famous question, "who did you vote for?" To this I usually give a vague reply. Many of those that know me, know that I generally dislike political debates, and debaters try to bait you with the ole who did you vote for bit. Another favorite is the "are you a democrat or republican?" question. So there are only two choices? Since when were there only two choices? Did I miss the meeting where we decided to take away freedom of choice?

So what am I many might be asking? None of the above. The answer, might suprise a few. It suprised my ex. Said I didn't seem like the type. Boy did she not know me well

The answer is, anarchist. Not a full fledged government should be abolished anarchist. No, just a person that thinks the government has way to much control, and needs to be spanked and put in the corner for a while.

This country was founded by people that thought the government had to much control, and now people are giving the control back to the government. To top it off... they then complain the government is screwing things up. Well hell yea... you let them do it.

Well... feel free to chime in on what you believe and I will add more of my thoughts.

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by ShadowMale:
What makes you say OH?
The Blog of Rights.
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SAINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pre-Game Chant..
News headline: AMD supports Trolls.
Politics through a mirror.
Hey Boudreaux!
Happy Thanksgiving!
I can't help it. I know the team sucks.... but I just have too....
And once again....


Comments:

post a comment!

selectusername

Nov 28 @ 1:20AM  
I tend to agree with your viewpoint and if I never get in another
conversation with some whineyassed crybaby who is bitching
and complaining about the U.S. government, it will be too soon.
Anyone who doesn't like our country or yes, even our bloated,
dangerously indebted, wasteful, corruption ridden, socialist,
gargantuan behemoth of a government should just pack their
shit and move to China or Cuba. Then they won't have human
rights or freedom of the press and they really will have something

to complain about instead of just bitching because they felt like it.

I don't listen to politicians, I read economic reports instead. It may sound
dry and unexciting but I prefer facts and data instead of some gasbag

bullshit artist blowing smoke up my ass.
ShadowMale

Nov 28 @ 1:27AM  
I do say the number of far left leaning actors and singers is a bit irritating. Especially because they feel the need to tell America how stupid they are for not agreeing with them.

Fuck the artist! Anarchy!....
KitKat25

Nov 28 @ 5:29AM  
No, just a person that thinks the government has way to much control, and needs to be spanked and put in the corner for a while.

I agree, but whose going to do the spanking...and whose going to enforce "time out" in the corner? It's easier said than done.

This country was founded by people that thought the government had to much control, and now people are giving the control back to the government. To top it off... they then complain the government is screwing things up. Well hell yea... you let them do it.

Yep...we did that and now we're in a world of hurt. It's easy to turn things over to the government, but it's a nightmare trying to regain that control once you don't like their way of doing things. I really feel certain things (like healthcare) should remain separate from government control. I can already see a "grass is greener" mentality down the road and it won't be pretty. JMHO.
ShadowMale

Nov 28 @ 6:23AM  
I agree, but whose going to do the spanking...and whose going to enforce "time out" in the corner? It's easier said than done.
And that is a good question. But the answer is in the Constitution. All power not given to the federal government is given to the states, and to the people. This is basic anarchy, and the government would love to have you believe you have no control.

Problem is today, everyone seems to believe it should all be handed to them, so when it comes time to take it, they don't know how. This is by design, and is the very reason thousands kneeled to a king in the first place. They didn't know what to do without his lord's word. People got smart and realized it didn't have to be that way. Then they got lazy and left it to them, and the vicious circle has repeated itself throught history.

Call the government what you want, but it doesn't change it. It's like saying we can't call them terrorist anymore. Does it change what they are doing? No.. the still terrorize. Change a kings name to president and change nothign else, and does it mean you have created a democratic nation? No. Does having a king mean they aren't democratic? No. What gives them absolute power is the same thing that takes it away. The people.

"When people fear the government there is tyranny, but when the government fears the people, there is democracy." Thomas Jefferson.

The words unitied we stand, and divided we fall comes from Rome, where the legions were trained to stand in tight lines to avoid being divided. Once you divide the legions, their shields and tactics were far weaker. It is always easier to deal with smaller groups at a time, and the whole idea of dividing the people into seperate parties comes from this age old battle tactic.

There is nowhere in the Constitution that says we are to have two or more parties. In fact, the first presidents were elected through the electoral votes, and the second highest votes became vice president. This ensured that the two most popular ideals were repersented. This is democracy. Having it rammed down yuor throat at full force by making people declare parties started to become popular after Madison. George Washington was strictly against having parties, saying that it would only serve to divide the public, and sway the balance of power. Not that that ever happened...

Now, there are two major parties, and very few officially recognized parties. Don't fall into one of these? Don't get a canidate. You become a write in or barely mentionable. Certainly don't get a debate. Nor airtime on TV. Unless you can pool together the same amount of cash as the two major parties, you're not likely to be heard at all. Wait... are you saying money is the key factor here? Yes. And that is what Washington meant. With the invention of parties, it was realized one could sway the results of an election by simply putting enough money in the pockets of the canidate you want to win. It's a gamble still, but history has shown that outside of the two money making parties, you don't get a voice. The only voice ever heard outside of these two was Ross Perot as an independent. Why? He had money.

The party system invites corruption, isn't constitutional, and only serves to divide the people.

I really feel certain things (like healthcare) should remain separate from government control. I can already see a "grass is greener" mentality down the road and it won't be pretty. JMHO.

Most certainly. If our government actually operated effectively, and without corruption, I'd say let them have at it. They can't deliver the mail without major losses. They can't operate their own federal reserve. The head fo the IRS can't pay his own taxes. Judges in our highest courts don't know its not their job to make laws, but rather to simply enforce them. The speaker of the house spends more time calling people stupid, and spouting off about right wingers being crazy because they don't agree with her. The president thinks unions will save the country from job loss (there is another story). And they serious think we should buy this bullshit they can run a healthcare system ON TOP of the failing crap they have neglected for decades?

If they really want to help the people be healthy, they'd create jobs first, so people could afford healthcare in the first place. Then, put caps and regulations on the price of insurance instead of letting the insurance companies lobby the commissions like they do now.

People need to wake up before it's too late. Anarchy is safer than a democracy that leans uncontrolablely to one side. No... not the left or the right. To the government. That is where it leans now, and if you think they give a shit if you are left or right, then you have fallen into their trap.
JustAnAvatar

Nov 29 @ 2:07PM  
This country was founded by people that thought the government had to much control, and now people are giving the control back to the government. To top it off... they then complain the government is screwing things up.

Uh... how do you square your quote above with your quote below?

If they really want to help the people be healthy, they'd create jobs first, so people could afford healthcare in the first place. Then, put caps and regulations on the price of insurance instead of letting the insurance companies lobby the commissions like they do now.

You're waiting for the government to create jobs, and you want it impose price controls on private insurance companies.

That's some strange kind of "anarchy" you advocate, buddy.
ShadowMale

Nov 29 @ 3:37PM  
This country was founded by people that thought the government had to much control, and now people are giving the control back to the government. To top it off... they then complain the government is screwing things up.


Uh... how do you square your quote above with your quote below?


If they really want to help the people be healthy, they'd create jobs first, so people could afford healthcare in the first place. Then, put caps and regulations on the price of insurance instead of letting the insurance companies lobby the commissions like they do now.

You're waiting for the government to create jobs, and you want it impose price controls on private insurance companies.

That's some strange kind of "anarchy" you advocate, buddy.

It's really simple. I think they do have to much control. But do I really think they will give up that control? No. The have never shown any indication of doing so in the past. So if they DO really want to help, they would use the control they have already used in the past on the phone companies and other industries they have regulated. But they won't. Why won't they? They actually make money off of how much insurance companies charge, so the only way they can make up the difference if they charge less, is if they dip their hand straight into the pot. Hence government option.

I don't advocate total anarchy. I present in the blog my views that anarchy has its merit, but in reality, I feel that like any other political view, it should not be taken to the extreme.

It is this extremism that got us in the hole in the first place. Anymore questions?
JustAnAvatar

Nov 29 @ 4:11PM  
I don't advocate total anarchy. I present in the blog my views that anarchy has its merit, but in reality, I feel that like any other political view, it should not be taken to the extreme.

So you're a "moderate anarchist." Whoa, that's heavy, dude.

An oxymoron perhaps, but heavy nonetheless.
ShadowMale

Nov 29 @ 4:28PM  
So you're a "moderate anarchist." Whoa, that's heavy, dude.

An oxymoron perhaps, but heavy nonetheless.

So your view is that people can't take pieces of ideas and paste them together to build a new idea? So you are saying all the forefathers that strung together many different ideals to come up with a new system of government false?

Extremism rares it's ugly head again. You are entitled to your opnion, but so am I.

My opinion is that people like you who think everyone should adopt one idea in totality is what is wrong with this nation. Whether you be liberal, or conservitive, or whatever else, being closed to other ideas is of little use in a system designed to accomodate everyone.

You sir, defeat the idea of free chioce by saying choose one or the other.

Anymore questions?
JustAnAvatar

Nov 29 @ 5:17PM  
Anarchy, by definition, is the absence of rulership or enforced authority. So to suggest that anarchy might include a government imposed price control seems, well, odd. Once you impose a rule on someone, you are no longer an anarchist.

You sir, defeat the idea of free chioce by saying choose one or the other.

No - not at all. I just think you're using the wrong word to describe the idea that government should be limited.

ShadowMale

Nov 29 @ 6:50PM  
Anarchy, by definition, is the absence of rulership or enforced authority. So to suggest that anarchy might include a government imposed price control seems, well, odd. Once you impose a rule on someone, you are no longer an anarchist.

What part of NOT IN TOTALITY do you not understand? Are you that dense? Are you seriously incapable of understanding that not everyone has to stick to literal translations for their guidance?


No - not at all. I just think you're using the wrong word to describe the idea that government should be limited.

You read it, but you did not comprehend. Common sense tells you that the government won't give up control, so they should at least use that control in more meaningful ways. Do I want government regulation? No. I'd like for everyone to be honest and we wouldn't have to worry about it. But people aren't honest, and we do.

My political opinions are wishful, but based on the realities of the world we live in.

Now that we have cleared that up, why not add something useful of your own instead of constantly trying to tell people they don't know what they are talking about.
JustAnAvatar

Nov 29 @ 7:47PM  
In your blog you said:

Try and keep it civil, but I will only delete those who are completely off topic or obviously trolling.

Then, should anyone have the temerity to express another opinion you say:

Are you that dense?

and

Now that we have cleared that up, why not add something useful of your own instead of constantly trying to tell people they don't know what they are talking about.

I'm not even disagreeing with your opinion. I'm suggesting "anarchy" is not the word you mean. And I thought I was doing it in a civil manner.


ShadowMale

Nov 29 @ 8:27PM  
Try and keep it civil, but I will only delete those who are completely off topic or obviously trolling.

Then, should anyone have the temerity to express another opinion you say:

Are you that dense?

And I explained my reasons, yet you continue on this path of redundancy. People get tired of explaining their opinions to others.


Now that we have cleared that up, why not add something useful of your own instead of constantly trying to tell people they don't know what they are talking about.

I'm not even disagreeing with your opinion. I'm suggesting "anarchy" is not the word you mean. And I thought I was doing it in a civil manner.

And I explained why I used the word and that I did not intend it in totality. Let me make it more clear. Just because one is a democrat doesn't mean they believe in ALL of their ideas. Same as with republican. I don't subscribe completely to any one paticular ideal.

Now its time to move on, because you are not adding anything of value.

You are like Bill Clinton arguing of the meaning of the word is. Nothing but a distraction from what is really wrong.
JustAnAvatar

Nov 29 @ 8:39PM  
Let me try again.

Great blog!

Better?
ShadowMale

Nov 29 @ 8:44PM  
Let me try again.

Great blog!

Better?

Frankly I don't give a shit if anyone likes my blog or not. I wrote it for me to express my opinion.

I just don't like people that fel the need to spend so much time on arguing on why I choose a certain word.

If you are that inflexible that you feel anarchy has to be used on when expressing anarchy in totality, then you are truely missing the point.

Had you argued the point instead of the word usage, I would have been more receptive to your opinion.
JustAnAvatar

Nov 29 @ 11:51PM  
If you are that inflexible that you feel anarchy has to be used on when expressing anarchy in totality, then you are truely missing the point.

I get it. Anarchy with rules just means you have partial anarchy.

Just like a virgin who fucks has partial virginity.
ShadowMale

Nov 29 @ 11:56PM  
I get it. Anarchy with rules just means you have partial anarchy.

Just like a virgin who fucks has partial virginity

So you are that dense. You had to insist on dragging this bullshit out. Bye fucker.

People that exist only to throw a wrench in the works are trolls, and I do not allow trolling on my blogs. You are blocked.

free dating | mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | 2257 | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2014 Online Singles, LLC.
OS-WEB01
Politics through a mirror.