Government IS Force, Violence, and Murder.

[billcoe]

Classic anti-science demagoguery by know-nothing right-wingers. The money spent on that research will not only provide answers as to how we affect the marine environment we depend on for resources but it is much better economic stimulus than tax cuts for the 1% (or the 99% for that matter).

No sense of humor. I loved some of the comments. So, as this is your first post, getting all cranked on the shrimp issue, we assume you agree with the origonal poster when he said:

The government is a psychopathic murderer. It uses force to take what it wants, and enforces the desires of the few onto the majority. And by the way, you're not allowed to kidnap, torture, and murder, but the government allows itself to do so - legally! The U.S. government attracts a cold-hearted few to the eye of the political pyramaid, from which they engineer ice-cold calculation to take give the government more power, always rendering you more helpless than you were a moment before. The government wants to make decisions for you. Because if you had the power to make your own decisions, then you'd be a threat to the government. Take back what's yours, and do NOT support a system rooted in violence, greed, hate, and fear.

 

Not that anyone gives a shit, but it's interesting you don't breath a word about it and only jump on the thread sounding butt hurt about the shrimp thing. For myself, I don't agree with the mans statement about goverment. Furthermore, we spend a shitload on science, some of it is stupid and wasteful, some of it is beneficial to the entire world and adds to the worlds knowledge base. All large systems have inefficiencies. We should be able to laugh at the former, and bow in respect and awe to those who are in the latter. Most of the time, no one really knows which side pure science is on, it just is. I know a guy who just discovered a new planet. A new planet. Think of that. You paid for it too, wait, OK, those of us paying taxes paid for it. So that's in that last category...for now. In either case, lighten up Francis.

[j_b]

as if anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-government demagoguery wasn't the bread and butter of right wing propaganda.

 

Time for you to put your glasses on because I already answered that vulture creature for whatever his drivel was worth.

Edited December 29, 2011 by j_b

[billcoe]

as if anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-government demagoguery wasn't the bread and butter of right wing propaganda.

 

Time for you to put your glasses on because I already answered that vulture creature for whatever his drivel was worth.

 

There's only ONE way to rock. Have a nice day.

[j_b]

Is there any doubt that the purpose of that cesspool known as cnsnews in putting out that blurb was to incite the neanderthals to bash government spending on "frivolous" research?

[ivan]

took a very hungover hike this morning, and shortly after half-hurling up a partially digested sausage biscuit, suddenly realized this thread was lacking washington's pertinent point of the subject, which perhaps you were alluding to?

 

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."

[VultureVision]

Government IS force.

I'll throw in another one while we're at it:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -

Thomas Jefferson

 

Well, looks like we're almost there. Thanks, Jefferson!

In the mean time, feel free to understand how voting works:

 

[video:youtube]

[rob]

Government IS force.

I'll throw in another one while we're at it:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -

Thomas Jefferson

 

Well, looks like we're almost there. Thanks, Jefferson!

In the mean time, feel free to understand how voting works:

 

 

I love it when anarchists cherry-pick quotes from non-anarchists to try and prove their point. It's like an atheist quoting the pope.

 

Are you sure you're not kevbone?

[j_b]

The government is a psychopathic murderer but Ron Paul who believes that "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime" loves freeeedumb

(sorry for injecting facts in the middle of this deluded rant)

[Crux]

But Ron Paul isn't government. Ron Paul is a warm, fuzzy, wonderful person who just wants everything nice. Why do you think dead is not nice? Are you afraid of dead? Maybe you just need therapy for your reptilian limbic system, so you won't be so reactively stupid all the time. Now, have you any other questions? What? WHAT? You want to know why I've got a big rotting dick hanging out of my ass? WTF! LET ME TELL YOU WHAT MOFO, I WON'T VOTE! OK, OK, GOD FUCKING DAMMIT -- I'LL PAY MY TAXES!!! OK!! BUT AT LEAST I GOT MY PRIDE YOU PSYCHOPATHIC SHIT-BALL CRETIN!!!!!! SO FUCK OFFFFF!

[kevbone]

 

Are you sure you're not kevbone?

 

 

Heres the deal guys and gals. If you vote for Perry, Romney, Bachmann, Newt or Obama.....NOTHING WILL CHANGE. IT WILL BE THE SAME OR SHIT, THE SAME STATUS QUO. It is utterly disturbing that you are not getting this. Do you think by voting for Obama again that we as a people will be better off? Wake the fuck up. I believe it is time to move in an entirely different direction.

 

Sarcastic reply from Rob in 3......2.....1

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Sound logic, Bone. I'm going to step in front of a speeding train this morning. Just need some radical change, you know?

 

 

[rob]

 

Are you sure you're not kevbone?

 

 

Heres the deal guys and gals. If you vote for Perry, Romney, Bachmann, Newt or Obama.....NOTHING WILL CHANGE. IT WILL BE THE SAME OR SHIT, THE SAME STATUS QUO. It is utterly disturbing that you are not getting this. Do you think by voting for Obama again that we as a people will be better off? Wake the fuck up. I believe it is time to move in an entirely different direction.

 

Sarcastic reply from Rob in 3......2.....1

 

 

Hi Kev, I'll give you a non-sarcastic reply, but just one.

 

a) if Ron Paul is elected, lots of BAD change will happen. EPA, etc. In fact, pretty much the only new control he'll have is to do bad things (i.e. abolish the FDA). He won't have any new power to change existing legislation, other than veto power I guess, but even then against a united congress he is impotent.

 

b) he's already part of the establishment. I'm not impressed with his voting record, and am offended by his previous conduct. I understand that you aren't, but I am.

 

c) If he REALLY wants to change things, he should focus on gaining power in the congress. He should move to the Senate. He should recruit others. Remember what the Republicans in the 90's did behind Newt Gingrich? Moving to president isn't going to give him much control to "Abolish the fed" and all of these other things that turn you on.

 

d) so in the end, you get all of the BAD parts of Ron Paul (the parts he has the power to change i.e. EPA, FDA) and none of the good parts (because he can't just change legislation and his veto would probably would get defeated by a united congress on anything important). I mean, i suppose there would be some other benefits because some of his ideas would hold congress in check I guess, but it's not worth abolishing the EPA and FTC and FDA...)

 

e)Look how unified the establishment is against him. You think they'll have any trouble over-riding a veto? And even if they can't over ride any of his vetos, he can't just erase existing laws. So again, all of the BAD paul, and none of the good.

 

f) so if you think he's really going to change anything either, you're being pretty naive. This game has been over for a long time. Ron Paul is part of the enemy, and he's using honey to attract honest people like you, but he's a Republican, kevbone. He voted to go to war in Afganistan. He's been in congress for a while now. Look at his record. If he really wanted to change things, he's gonna fail because the guy just can't get anyone onto his side because of the crazy-ass shit that comes out of his mouth when nobody is looking.

 

Sorry, kev, but you'll never get my love of Ron Paul, because I see through the charade.

 

I agree with you though that Obama won't fix anything. But I'm hoping he will at least do less damage than whoever the Republicans offer up. The EPA and the FDA and FTC et.al. are flawed, but they do A LOT more good than nothing.

Edited December 30, 2011 by rob

[tvashtarkatena]

I do think the best way to free ourselves from the grip of existing oligarchy/oorporatocracy is to abolish the very agencies that regulate them.

 

It's a no brainer.

[kevbone]

I do think the best way to free ourselves from the grip of existing oligarchy/oorporatocracy is to abolish the very agencies that regulate them.

 

 

I get your sarcasm but it is a joke to think that actual regulation is taking place.

[kevbone]

 

Are you sure you're not kevbone?

 

 

Heres the deal guys and gals. If you vote for Perry, Romney, Bachmann, Newt or Obama.....NOTHING WILL CHANGE. IT WILL BE THE SAME OR SHIT, THE SAME STATUS QUO. It is utterly disturbing that you are not getting this. Do you think by voting for Obama again that we as a people will be better off? Wake the fuck up. I believe it is time to move in an entirely different direction.

 

Sarcastic reply from Rob in 3......2.....1

 

 

Hi Kev, I'll give you a non-sarcastic reply, but just one.

 

a) if Ron Paul is elected, lots of BAD change will happen. EPA, etc. In fact, pretty much the only new control he'll have is to do bad things (i.e. abolish the FDA). He won't have any new power to change existing legislation, other than veto power I guess, but even then against a united congress he is impotent.

 

b) he's already part of the establishment. I'm not impressed with his voting record, and am offended by his previous conduct. I understand that you aren't, but I am.

 

c) If he REALLY wants to change things, he should focus on gaining power in the congress. He should move to the Senate. He should recruit others. Remember what the Republicans in the 90's did behind Newt Gingrich? Moving to president isn't going to give him much control to "Abolish the fed" and all of these other things that turn you on.

 

d) so in the end, you get all of the BAD parts of Ron Paul (the parts he has the power to change i.e. EPA, FDA) and none of the good parts (because he can't just change legislation and his veto would probably would get defeated by a united congress on anything important). I mean, i suppose there would be some other benefits because some of his ideas would hold congress in check I guess, but it's not worth abolishing the EPA and FTC and FDA...)

 

e)Look how unified the establishment is against him. You think they'll have any trouble over-riding a veto? And even if they can't over ride any of his vetos, he can't just erase existing laws. So again, all of the BAD paul, and none of the good.

 

f) so if you think he's really going to change anything either, you're being pretty naive. This game has been over for a long time. Ron Paul is part of the enemy, and he's using honey to attract honest people like you, but he's a Republican, kevbone. He voted to go to war in Afganistan. He's been in congress for a while now. Look at his record. If he really wanted to change things, he's gonna fail because the guy just can't get anyone onto his side because of the crazy-ass shit that comes out of his mouth when nobody is looking.

 

Sorry, kev, but you'll never get my love of Ron Paul, because I see through the charade.

 

I agree with you though that Obama won't fix anything. But I'm hoping he will at least do less damage than whoever the Republicans offer up. The EPA and the FDA and FTC et.al. are flawed, but they do A LOT more good than nothing.

 

If you dont think the president has real power, then you must have been asleep from 2000-20008 when bush was in power. He did what he wanted. He ignored the people. He was a bully.

[rob]

Actually, kev, most of the bad things from the Bush era came from congress. Like I said, Ron paul's veto would be interesting, but not at the cost of regulating wall street. And his veto couldn't undo existing damage.

[kevbone]

Actually, kev, most of the bad things from the Bush era came from congress. Like I said, Ron paul's veto would be interesting, but not at the cost of regulating wall street. And his veto couldn't undo existing damage.

 

bush signed more executive orders than all the past presidents combined. How is that a "congress" thing?

[rob]

Actually, kev, most of the bad things from the Bush era came from congress. Like I said, Ron paul's veto would be interesting, but not at the cost of regulating wall street. And his veto couldn't undo existing damage.

 

bush signed more executive orders than all the past presidents combined. How is that a "congress" thing?

 

And do you know what they are? The real nasty stuff allcame through congress. Iraq, Afghanistan, tax breaks for the rich, patriot act.

 

Ironically, bushes executive orders mimicked Ron Paul: less regulation, etc.

 

You should consider taking some pol science classes at the U. I'm not being a dick, im serious -- you sound interested.

Edited December 30, 2011 by rob

[tvashtarkatena]

I do think the best way to free ourselves from the grip of existing oligarchy/oorporatocracy is to abolish the very agencies that regulate them.

 

 

I get your sarcasm but it is a joke to think that actual regulation is taking place.

 

Well, Bone, I suppose you'd have to be somewhat knowledgeable about what these agencies have and have not done, in some detail, to make that call.

 

You're not.

 

 

[j_b]

Kev is right that effective regulation often isn't taking place but that's no reflection on the existence and effectiveness of regulations. It only shows that regulators aren't doing their job, which isn't surprising considering the free-marketeer ideology embraced by most elected officials.

[tvashtarkatena]

"legislation?" That's just wordy shit. You know: fetish.

[kevbone]

Actually, kev, most of the bad things from the Bush era came from congress. Like I said, Ron paul's veto would be interesting, but not at the cost of regulating wall street. And his veto couldn't undo existing damage.

 

bush signed more executive orders than all the past presidents combined. How is that a "congress" thing?

 

And do you know what they are? The real nasty stuff allcame through congress. Iraq, Afghanistan, tax breaks for the rich, patriot act.

 

Ironically, bushes executive orders mimicked Ron Paul: less regulation, etc.

 

You should consider taking some pol science classes at the U. I'm not being a dick, im serious -- you sound interested.

 

So what do you purpose? Should I give my vote to Obama and just hope he makes better decisions? Seriously....what should I do?

[Pete_H]

You're fucked. Like the rest of us.

[ivan]

You're fucked. Like the rest of us.

ha! was gonna write the same thing, fucking word for word, 6 hrs ago, but decided i was already too goddamn cynical for my own good today

[ElectricEric]

Government IS force.

I'll throw in another one while we're at it:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -

Thomas Jefferson

False Jefferson quote. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

 

Bam! Sorry, petpev of mine when people wrongly quote people.