House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@OmSigDAVID,

You seem to be defining something!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

@okie,

okie wrote:

I was wondering if the libs have yet bothered to apologize for their misguided and misplaced accusations against conservatives and the Tea Party for the shooting. I think there is ample evidence by now that Loughner was a radical leftist if he was anything besides a mixed up kid with mental problems. The press should also apologize for their accusations as well, but we conservatives have learned they have never demonstrated honesty or a conscience about their fraudulant reporting.

That is right... Leftists always shoot liberals in an attempt to gain them undeserved sympathy... How could I have ever been so blind as to think that the first people to incite to violence, and to arm themselves, and to justify hatred of their fellow citizens as well as complete irresponsibility for the support of their country would ever be behind the shooting of a democrate...

We both know that to see a leftists through a cross of any sort, even crosshairs- wards off the evil influence of intelligence... There are two ways of seeing leftists... One is in the center of a bulls eye, and the other is through a key hole; but the key hole does not protect a reactionary from the evil, perversive influence of godless sin that can only exist in the privacy of a bedroom... You know that God hates leftist, and it is for this reason that god saw his own son nailed to a cross... Jesus was just too left for his time, his place, and the prevailing sentiments... Cross off every leftist... Kill them all and let God sort them out... Put them all in one state, and nuke every last one of them... That will teach them to kll liberal democrats... Perhaps you are wrong to decry leftists... Maybe you should do all in your power to have leftists kill liberals, and then you would only have leftists to kill when it is all said and done... What do you think

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

reasoning logic wrote:
Okie we all get it wrong at times! Are we not all conservatives and socialist the same?
We are all {both conservative and socialist.}
Let the record indicate that I am anti-socialist.
I oppose the national ones, the international ones and all the other kinds.

David

All right... Davids going to stay off the public roads and out of public hospitals because he is anti-socialist... I wanna bet that he is just blowing sand up every ass, and that if he were ready to retire he would take advantage of social security, and use public hospitals, and use the public highway to get there even though these public properties supported by tax dollars smack to heaven of socialism... In other words: David is full of **** and really likes socialism so long as he can baffle himself about the nature of it... Now we have the socialism of poverty, and there is nothing in that to love... What we need is the socialism of wealth... We need to take back the commonwealth while we still have an inch of it to stand on...

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Much of what you write is anti-social, david, indeed it is. And you accuse JTT of being irrational!

Here's a towel, wipe the egg off your face!

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

What a brilliant note, reasoning!

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I like your new avatar. Cats are awesome.

(Maybe it's not new -- I've only posted sporadically lately -- but I just noticed it.)

(Apologies to everyone for the off-topic post.)

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Now we have the socialism of poverty, and there is nothing in that to love... What we need is the socialism of wealth... We need to take back the commonwealth while we still have an inch of it to stand on...

Unfortunately, ultra or radical socialism always leads to shared misery instead of shared wealth. All you have to do in order to understand this is to note what has happened in places like Stalin's Russia, Castro's Cuba, Kim-Jong-il's North Korea, or Pol Pot's Cambodia.

You cannot pick and choose the part of radical socialism that you think is wonderful. When you buy into it, you get it all. Sort of like choosing to go to the bars every night. You not only make the choice for what you expect to be fun, you also receive the consequences of your actions.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Thanks, orally. It is new. The cat is my 17 or 18 year old cat, who had belonged to my daughter before she left to live in Europe, then go to college. The cat has never forgiven my daughter! When she visits, kittie at first wants to be petted. Once she's petted, she snarls at my daughter.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Unfortunately, ultra or radical socialism always leads to shared misery instead of shared wealth. All you have to do in order to understand this is to note what has happened in places like Stalin's Russia, Castro's Cuba, Kim-Jong-il's North Korea, or Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Radical socialism or radical capitalism are equally bad but that is not the only two choices we happen to have.

There is nothing that state that setting up the society so that no one starve to death or no one go without basic health care or that two percent of the total population do not control over half the wealth mean that we need to go to a system of radical socialism.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

I understand that we already have some socialism in our system. In fact, I think virtually any government is socialistic to a degree, because any government seeks to attain some commonality in what is done. Plus it is in our nature to desire government to provide a safety net for the very poor or unfortunate, which we have done.

The political debate revolves around what degree of socialism is desirable or acceptable in a country like ours that recognizes the importance of personal freedom and responsibility. I think we should be able to have a reasonable debate about that, without having to be dishonest about our beliefs and intentions. That has been one of my primary problems with the Obama administration, because I see the president as not being totally honest or forthright with his agenda. If you want an example, he promised transparency, but even Pelosi said we had to pass Obamacare to find out what was in the bill. I find that insulting to the American people.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

The political debate revolves around what degree of socialism is desirable or acceptable in a country like ours that recognizes the importance of personal freedom and responsibility.

That's the debate okie? Since when were you only arguing how MUCH of a socialist was OK? You have repeatedly seemed to imply that all socialism is bad.

Quote:

I think the very idea of turning America into a socialist country is un-American at its very core.

2 Replies

@parados,

I do think you are on to something! I do wonder how many people are afraid to answer this question!

Do you think that you are a social species?

I guess that I will know how many people are afraid to answer this question by the count of all who did not answer it!

3 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
The political debate revolves around what degree of socialism is desirable or acceptable in a country like ours that recognizes the importance of personal freedom and responsibility.

That's the debate okie? Since when were you only arguing how MUCH of a socialist was OK? You have repeatedly seemed to imply that all socialism is bad.
Quote:
I think the very idea of turning America into a socialist country is un-American at its very core.

I not only imply, but I believe that the idea of turning American into a completely socialist country is un-American. We do have a degree of socialism in the way of some socialist type programs, but that does not translate us into a quote unquote socialist country. We have traditionally been and we still are a capitalist free market society based upon individual freedom and responsibility.

I hope you are both smart enough and honest enough to comprehend the truth of what I have written.

3 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Do you think that you are a social species?

I belong to a social species.

I don't know that I would consider myself to be the species but humans are social.

0 Replies

@okie,

So you are all for semi-socialism.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

I do think you are on to something! I do wonder how many people are afraid to answer this question!

Do you think that you are a social species?

I guess that I will know how many people are afraid to answer this question by the count of all who did not answer it!

We are a social species, but the basic framework or foundation upon which our social interaction is based is probably our disagreement. In America, we tradtionally base our social structure around small groups of individuals or families, not around government. Our rights and responsibilities are also viewed as we have them individually.

1 Reply

@okie,

Ok I can some what see what you mean.

Is there a possibility that we come together and recognize it is in our best interest to get along even though we may disagree at times but when it comes to being socialist we can see through our studies of other animals and science that there is no better system to follow?

Your quote: In America, we tradtionally base our social structure around small groups of individuals or families, not around government.

Is there a possibility that we may need to expand our ethical radius as we have done from time to time in our evolutionary process?

0 Replies

@okie,

Sigh

0 Replies

@parados,

Is semi-socialism like semi-soft cheese?

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

You seem to be defining something!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

I got a few chuckles from that.
Some of it corresponds to me, on an intermittent basis.

Anyway, I will remain an Originalist American,
faithful to libertarianism, hedonism, Individualism and laissez faire capitalism!

David

2 Replies

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know