the fake obamafainter...

[Selene]

KacyRay, you still support O'Bama correct?

[Brant Gaede]

KacyRay, you still support O'Bama correct?

Sure he do. But do he support him wrong?

--Brant

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

KacyRay, you still support O'Bama correct?

Sure he do. But do he support him wrong?

--Brant

And to think, I got at least two uses out of this image.

[KacyRay]

Selene,

It would not be accurate to say that I support Obama politically. I would support a viable Libertarian candidate.

It would be accurate to say that I prefer Obama over any of the viable candidates in recent elections.

With that said, it would be accurate to say that I support Obama insofar as he is our President, and unlike the Limbaughs of the world, I recognize that failure on his part equals failure for this country.

Similarly... by the end of Dubya's second term, I loathed the fact that he was my President. However, as President, he had my full support until he left office, and I bear no ill will toward the man. I still think he's a cosmic-level buffoon, but I bear no ill will.

So long as the GOP panders to the Tea Party, alarmists, revisionists, fringe whacko's, warmongers, and theocrats, they will never ever ever have my support. I'd rather have a liberal in office than any of the candidates the GOP fielded last cycle.

The GOP needs to purge itself of the lunatic fringe. When it does, I could potentially see myself supporting the GOP again one day.

Brant - come on brother... let me speak to who and what I support. No need to try to do it for me.

[KacyRay]

It is impossible to be manipulated as long as a person is aware of the deceit operating in others, as well as their own need to believe in the deceit operating within them.

Greg

Agreed. But if you've been convinced that there is a deception going on that isn't... then you've already been manipulated.

If you think that info wars, Free Republic, and Fox News isn't one grand deception, you've been manipulated.

[Robert Baratheon]

So long as the GOP panders to the Tea Party, alarmists, revisionists, fringe whacko's, warmongers, and theocrats, they will never ever ever have my support. I'd rather have a liberal in office than any of the candidates the GOP fielded last cycle.

The GOP needs to purge itself of the lunatic fringe. When it does, I could potentially see myself supporting the GOP again one day.

Kacy,

What do you find so offensive about the Tea Party? Its explicit mission is lower taxes and limited government - values you claim to hold. It is a genuine grassroots movement that is successful converting a corporatist, big-government Republican Party - which most libertarians, back in 2008, lamented was functionally equivalent the Democratic Party - into a party that actually attempts to stand for liberty and limited government. One of the Tea Party's major early successes was getting Scott Brown, a very tempered personality, elected in Massachusetts. In the last election cycle, he was replaced by progressive hero Elizabeth Warren, the most vocally socialist senator since Huey Long.

The Democratic Party has its own "lunatic fringe" - conspicuously absent from your writings - which is more dangerous, corrupt, and anti-libertarian than that of the Republican Party. Bipolar Jesse Jackson, Jr. was recently thrown in prison for misuse of campaign funds, but before that he was a major Democratic player and friend of the President's. Basket-case Patrick Kennedy, son of Ted Kennedy, was my Congressman for many years. Progressive darlings Sheldon Whitehouse and Alan Grayson regularly call their fellow officeholders Nazis, fascists, and KKK members. Progressive Congressman Danny Davis has ties to the Commust Party and accepted a lifetime achievement award from them in 2012. There are countless Democratic officeholders like Senators Boxer and Feinstein in positions of power who spend every waking moment expanding the scope of government and social welfare programs.

Does all of this mean nothing to you as a self-described libertarian? What words do you have for them?

You truly believe Paul Ryan is more of a threat to liberty than these people?

[Brant Gaede]

Brant - come on brother... let me speak to who and what I support. No need to try to do it for me.

I was having fun at Adam's expense. That was too juicy to pass by and that's the nature of this place--I get to roam around and jump in.

--Brant

this is what happens when you mix up the officers and enlisted men

sorry Adam, I didn't grok on the fact you were operating--that initial incision can be a bitch (stand back!)

[KacyRay]

RB: I posted the answer to this in a new thread, but I'll speak to it here too. Also, I've answer this question on multiple occasions in the past.

I hear what you're saying, but the simple reality is that I do not see the level of pure bullshit coming from the left as I do coming from the right. You say its there, but I don't see it.

And I don't just mean the relatively harmless, pot-shop bullshit like the kind you see on the front page of Fox News each day, I'm talking about straight-up sinister, destructive bullshit coming straight from the Tea Party itself.

Yes, that kind of bullshit is absolutely more dangerous. And these calls for action that the Tea Partiers keep putting together, such as effort to shut down traffic in Washington DC, bullshit trials in which the President and members of his cabinet are convicted by "civilian courts", and rallies for a "Second Revolution" complete with a new Declaration of Independence.

Yes, yes, and yes. A thousand times yes. This sort of New-John-Birch Society, theocratic, openly subversive behavior complete with a mainstream propaganda machine and powerful funding is absolutely more of a threat to liberty.

What, are you afraid the liberals are going to feed everyone to death?

Do you know why it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater? It's because a lie which prompts people into panicked behavior is dangerous. In fact, its so dangerous that its the archetypal example of a limitation on one of our most sacred rights - freedom of speech.

Expend that, in principle, to an entire political movement. Do you realize how many people in here honestly believe that the end is right around the corner? Just ask Dennis May, who is certain that his assassination is only a few years away. Do you think maybe that belief is influenced by Glenn Beck, who has for years been saying that the government is coming to kill him "soon" (it's always "soon", isn't it?). Or by guys like Ted Nugent, who said that if Obama was elected that within a year he'd be either dead or in prison? (Of course, being a conspiracy theorist means never having to admit that were wrong... because all your contentions were unfalsifiable to begin with).

For Christ's sake, just look at the World Net Daily, and realize that people take this bullshit seriously!!!

Do you know how long the "They're coming after our guns!!!" siren has been going off?

Do you know how long the "Obama is going to declare himself dictator" siren has been sounding?

Do you know how long the fantasy Obama boogeyman has been looming over terrified right-wingers? What do you think happens when average American, non-critical thinker, mom-and-pop store owners do when they believe that total destruction is right around the corner? That their government has been infiltrated by someone who is simultaneously a radical Muslim fundamentalist and a homosexual atheist? That death panels have just been signed into law? That Sharia Law is on the way? That Obamacare is so oppressive that people have already started committing suicide?

Well, they start building bomb shelters, buying gold, stockpiling guns, planning for the coming revolution, and going to church. And the fearmongers fleece the credulous by selling Armageddon survival kits and overpriced gold. Nice, huh?

And then you get someone like Ted Cruz who convinces the House that defunding Obamacare is more important than funding the government. That killing the disease is worth murdering the body.

Yes, it's dangerous. I absolutely, unreservedly believe that the hard right fringe is a threat not just to our liberties, but to the security of our nation as a whole.

The left is just more of an annoyance.

[Selene]

Selene,

It would not be accurate to say that I support Obama politically. I would support a viable Libertarian candidate.

It would be accurate to say that I prefer Obama over any of the viable candidates in recent elections.

So long as the GOP panders to the Tea Party, alarmists, revisionists, fringe whacko's, warmongers, and theocrats, they will never ever ever have my support. I'd rather have a liberal in office than any of the candidates the GOP fielded last cycle.

The GOP needs to purge itself of the lunatic fringe. When it does, I could potentially see myself supporting the GOP again one day.

KacyRay:

Did, your preference for O'bama over McCain, or, Romney cause you to vote for O'bama in the last two (2) elections?

As Robert B. pointed out in post # 56 above, the Democratic Party supporting O'bama, contains more than enough "fringes" to point too. However, the modern marxist left is firmly entrenched under O'bama and fully enforces a rigid support of that agenda.

Do you recall what happened to Joe Lieberman, a competent liberal who you could have a decent conversation with?

A...

[Brant Gaede]

I didn't know the hard right was so loony for I don't go to those Web sites. I don't listen to any talk radio either.

--Brant

the "soft" left rules this country

[Robert Baratheon]

Kacy,

There is no top-down command structure in the Tea Party movement. There is nobody in charge of it and nobody approving or filtering what goes out under its title. It is a grassroots movement explicitly based on the values of liberty, low taxes, and limited government. It is nothing more and nothing less than a shared expression of these values - everything else comes from the individual level. Some individuals who unilaterally choose to identify with the movement are fringe conspiracy theorists. The vast majority are not like these people, and are entirely sane, functioning, contributing members of their communities. Your attempts to tar the entire organization, composed of millions of people, based on the few fringe examples you dredge up online is a thinly veiled exercise in partisan warfare.

You see more "bullshit" coming from the right because that is where you choose to focus your attention. If you seriously examined the progressive/socialist movement in the United States, you would find conspiracy theories, alarmism, and junk science galore. Big Agriculture is poisoning your food. Charter schools are a Wall Street conspiracy. The "War on Women." Prisons enslaving African Americans for profit. Israel engaging in ethnic cleansing. Oil companies killing renewable energy. Birth defects caused by fill-in-the-blank household item. None of this makes your personal radar because it doesn't reinforce your carefully cultivated sense of political identity. The ironic part is you're playing the same game as Fox News and you don't even realize it.

What, are you afraid the liberals are going to feed everyone to death?

I'm afraid they are going to do to the United States as a whole what they did to places such as Detroit, MI and Providence, RI under decades of liberal Democratic rule: bankrupt the government with out-of-control social spending and gradually drive out productive enterprise until the economy is crippled and there is nothing but government jobs left. Ridicule all you want, but I watched it happen growing up in a liberal-stronghold state that now brings up the rear of every national ranking for economic health and competitiveness.

[Selene]

Do you know why it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater? It's because a lie which prompts people into panicked behavior is dangerous. In fact, its so dangerous that its the archetypal example of a limitation on one of our most sacred rights - freedom of speech.

The left is just more of an annoyance.

KacyRay:

I will only address your lack of knowledge about the famous, and one of the most misquoted sections of Supreme Court decisions, by Oliver Wendal Holmes.

Your attempt at quoting him, which comes from Schenk v. U.S., is missing a key word.

Holmes opined, as the Court created the "clear and present danger" doctrine, that:

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The paraphrasing does not generally include the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false, as opposed to speech which is truthful but also dangerous.

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

As to your last statement about the left, let me just say that I completly disagree with you, as I would disagree with someone who argued that our little fascist Adolf was just an annoyance.

Statists are by the very nature of their premise that the state is more important than the individual, always hungry for power and always needing to be fed.

I wonder if you have read the Federalist papers? Or, if you have read Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritopia and The Liberty Amendments?

I would suggest you become familiar with them.

A...

[KacyRay]

KacyRay:

Did, your preference for O'bama over McCain, or, Romney cause you to vote for O'bama in the last two (2) elections?

As Robert B. pointed out in post # 56 above, the Democratic Party supporting O'bama, contains more than enough "fringes" to point too. However, the modern marxist left is firmly entrenched under O'bama and fully enforces a rigid support of that agenda.

Do you recall what happened to Joe Lieberman, a competent liberal who you could have a decent conversation with?

A...

I didn't vote in the last two elections. My candidate, Ron Paul, did not make it to the general election. (Note: I can no longer endorse or support Ron Paul and I'm glad he never became President).

Yes, I know there are fringe aspects to the left. There have always been. But left-wing fringes are marginalized to the point that no liberal I ever speak to even takes them seriously. I've met very few true Marxists/Communists in my life.

But on the right, the fringe has become mainstream. It was the Tea Party that made a serious run for congressional seats last cycle, not the communist party. It's the tea party that influences congress to shutting down the government, not the communist party.

The Tea Party is the one doing the damage. Communism has no significant influence in American politics.

[KacyRay]

Do you know why it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater? It's because a lie which prompts people into panicked behavior is dangerous. In fact, its so dangerous that its the archetypal example of a limitation on one of our most sacred rights - freedom of speech.

The left is just more of an annoyance.

KacyRay:

I will only address your lack of knowledge about the famous, and one of the most misquoted sections of Supreme Court decisions, by Oliver Wendal Holmes.

Your attempt at quoting him, which comes from Schenk v. U.S., is missing a key word.

Holmes opined, as the Court created the "clear and present danger" doctrine, that:

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The paraphrasing does not generally include the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false, as opposed to speech which is truthful but also dangerous.

Mea Culpa! I forgot to include the "False" qualifier.

That doesn't mean I lack knowledge. When the Tea Party falsely claims that Obama is trying to nuke the USA, when Fox News falsely claims Obama is trying to feminize the military, when the WND falsely claims that Americans are committing suicide over Obamacare, when Glenn Beck falsely claims that the administration is trying to kill him, and when Tea Partiers falsely claim that the government is coming after their guns... then that meets the criteria of "Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater".

The principle I was speaking of holds. The "false" qualifier was, I thought, obvious.

As to your last statement about the left, let me just say that I completly disagree with you, as I would disagree with someone who argued that our little fascist Adolf was just an annoyance.

Statists are by the very nature of their premise that the state is more important than the individual, always hungry for power and always needing to be fed.

I wonder if you have read the Federalist papers? Or, if you have read Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritopia and The Liberty Amendments?

I would suggest you become familiar with them.

A...

Obama is not a statist, he's just a liberal, and I don't have any illusions about being able to convince you otherwise. I reject the proposition that liberal=statist.

The federal deficit is down, unemployment is down, the economy is healing, the wars are ending, the war on drugs is being relaxed, marriage equality is expending, undeclared wars are being avoided, and military spending is being reduced. I don't care what you call him, I call him better than the last guy.

And no, I haven't read the Federalist Papers. I agree, I should and I will. Before I do, tell me... is anything in the Federalist Papers going to make it alright that the Tea Party puts out alarmist propaganda?

[Brant Gaede]

There aren't many communists running around this country, but the Marxists--that's another matter. For good reason few that are say they are. It's intellectually superficial, but psychologically runs quite deep. They are entrenched in academia and their offspring are entrenched in the big media, archetypically The New York Times, The Washington Post, the big three broadcast networks and some cable. They are responsible for Obama getting a free pass as a presidential candidate and as President, although some cracks in that are appearing at last.

The nutty right cannot rule this country, but can participate in its breaking up into red and blue chunks. The extreme political division into safe Congressional districts is helping that along with one part of the national legislature at the throat of the other and vice versa. The cramming of Obamacare down Republican throats has exacerbated this conflict.

The only right the nutty right knows about or is concerned about is "the right to life." It does not exist therein in the context of individual rights theorizing, only in the context that it came from God. Essentially, this anti-intellectual bullheadedness is what makes them dangerous for they cannot be talked or reasoned down, but they will shoot if it comes to that.

--Brant

[Selene]

KacyRay:

Did, your preference for O'bama over McCain, or, Romney cause you to vote for O'bama in the last two (2) elections?

As Robert B. pointed out in post # 56 above, the Democratic Party supporting O'bama, contains more than enough "fringes" to point too. However, the modern marxist left is firmly entrenched under O'bama and fully enforces a rigid support of that agenda.

Do you recall what happened to Joe Lieberman, a competent liberal who you could have a decent conversation with?

A...

The Tea Party is the one doing the damage. Communism has no significant influence in American politics.

KacyRay:

I will ignore your statements about the Tea Party, since you apparently know nothing about it's membership and structure.

Secondly, only 17% of the "government" was shut down and basically, noone would have noticed had not the administration chosen to close the WW II monument to WW II veterans.

Did you support that?

Are you aware that the

Do you know why it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater? It's because a lie which prompts people into panicked behavior is dangerous. In fact, its so dangerous that its the archetypal example of a limitation on one of our most sacred rights - freedom of speech.

The left is just more of an annoyance.

KacyRay:

I will only address your lack of knowledge about the famous, and one of the most misquoted sections of Supreme Court decisions, by Oliver Wendal Holmes.

Your attempt at quoting him, which comes from Schenk v. U.S., is missing a key word.

Holmes opined, as the Court created the "clear and present danger" doctrine, that:

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The paraphrasing does not generally include the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false, as opposed to speech which is truthful but also dangerous.

Mea Culpa! I forgot to include the "False" qualifier.

That doesn't mean I lack knowledge. When the Tea Party falsely claims that Obama is trying to nuke the USA, when Fox News falsely claims Obama is trying to feminize the military, when the WND falsely claims that Americans are committing suicide over Obamacare, when Glenn Beck falsely claims that the administration is trying to kill him, and when Tea Partiers falsely claim that the government is coming after their guns... then that meets the criteria of "Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater".

The principle I was speaking of holds. The "false" qualifier was, I thought, obvious.

As to your last statement about the left, let me just say that I completly disagree with you, as I would disagree with someone who argued that our little fascist Adolf was just an annoyance.

Statists are by the very nature of their premise that the state is more important than the individual, always hungry for power and always needing to be fed.

I wonder if you have read the Federalist papers? Or, if you have read Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritopia and The Liberty Amendments?

I would suggest you become familiar with them.

A...

Obama is not a statist, he's just a liberal, and I don't have any illusions about being able to convince you otherwise. I reject the proposition that liberal=statist.

The federal deficit is down, unemployment is down, the economy is healing, the wars are ending, the war on drugs is being relaxed, marriage equality is expending, undeclared wars are being avoided, and military spending is being reduced. I don't care what you call him, I call him better than the last guy.

And no, I haven't read those documents. I agree, I should and I will. Before I do, tell me... is anything in the Federalist Papers going to make it alright that the Tea Party puts out alarmist propaganda?

There are those that claim to be part of the Tea Party and those that are part of the Tea Party.

The sites that you are trying to ram into your concept of the Tea Party are not.

The distinction is that you apparently do not know the difference.

I only added Communist to marxist to give you a reference point.

Are you aware, that there were real Communist agents in the Roosevelt administration [FDR]? Alger Hiss ring a bell? The Rosenbergs?

O'bama is no liberal. He is a dedicated marxist. His past was carefully obscured by one of the best political campaigns ever run in America.

Look up the backrounds on Valerie Jarret and David Axelrod. When you are finished with that search, I will provide you with other names directly connected to O'bama's upbringing in a certain political ideology that is not liberal.

A...

[Robert Baratheon]

I didn't vote in the last two elections. My candidate, Ron Paul, did not make it to the general election. (Note: I can no longer endorse or support Ron Paul and I'm glad he never became President).

Yes, I know there are fringe aspects to the left. There have always been. But left-wing fringes are marginalized to the point that no liberal I ever speak to even takes them seriously. I've met very few true Marxists/Communists in my life.

But on the right, the fringe has become mainstream. It was the Tea Party that made a serious run for congressional seats last cycle, not the communist party. It's the tea party that influences congress to shutting down the government, not the communist party.

The Tea Party is the one doing the damage. Communism has no significant influence in American politics.

Not getting into the fact that there are currently serving Democratic Congressmen with open ties to the Communist Party, the Black Panthers, and international socialist organizations (I provided some examples earlier and could provide more, but I don't believe you're actually interested in having that discussion), there are problems with your simplistic narrative that you fail to acknowledge. The most glaring is that, if it's true that the Tea Party is *the* overriding problem with the United States, then aside from not having any of the same political problems prior to the movement's genesis in 2009-2010, areas of the country controlled for decades by liberal Democrats (Detroit, Providence, California) should be thriving while Republican-controlled areas with active tea party elements (New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida) should be suffering. This isn't what we see in reality.

The recurring theme I notice in your posts is you're a perfectionist to the extreme with respect to libertarian and conservative candidates - to the extent where I doubt you could support any living human being supporting such values - but you don't apply the same standard to politicans from the statist/progressive end of the political spectrum and implicitly accept their agenda by removing their less-bad opposition for them.

[Brant Gaede]

Obama is a statist. You don't try to throw 17 percent of the economy into the hands of the government and not be one.

--Brant

but he's not the only one

[Brant Gaede]

Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is not a right for it's a fraud inducing panic threatening lives. It's in the same category as actually setting a fire and not shouting "Fire!" and/or shouting "Fire!" Your (no, not "you") despicable choice.

--Brant

[PDS]

Come on guys, are we all going to be subjected to another Kacy against the World rerun?

Is there anything more rehashed than the question of whether liberals are more hamful than conservatives? Or vice-versa?

[Robert Baratheon]

The federal deficit is down, unemployment is down, the economy is healing, the wars are ending, the war on drugs is being relaxed, marriage equality is expending, undeclared wars are being avoided, and military spending is being reduced. I don't care what you call him, I call him better than the last guy.

Kacy,

You might be surprised to learn that the Tea Party was substantially formed in response to the Bush bailouts and expansion of government that occurred before Obama took office. Few, if anybody, in the Tea Party is calling for a return to the Bush era, so yours is a strawman argument. What they are explicitly calling for is a transformation of the Republican Party *away* from its big-government conservativism of the past.

The federal deficit is down (thanks in part to the Tea Party you despise so much), but the federal debt continues to grow and remains a major problem. Nominal unemployment is down, but the labor force has also shrunk and is at its lowest precentage of working-age adults in United States history - it would be over 10% if that factor were taken into account. The economy is barely healing in a disappointing and prolonged recovery. The wars were not ended on the timescales Obama promised to get elected, i.e., he lied. Military spending is down because of the sequester that never would have happened without the Tea Party movement. Marriage equality (I notice you use the progressive branding) in a few more states - whatever, who really gives a shit? The takeaway is you've made a bunch of statements that are literally true but lack important context that cuts against the original points you are trying to make.

[moralist]

It is impossible to be manipulated as long as a person is aware of the deceit operating in others, as well as their own need to believe in the deceit operating within them.

Greg

Agreed. But if you've been convinced that there is a deception going on that isn't... then you've already been manipulated.

That's the same as believing in the lie that there isn't deception when there is. And that's where objective reality comes in. It's purpose is to reveal truth and lies. And each individual freely chooses what they will love... truth or lies.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Love those lies! Love hacking through the jungles of deceit.

--Brant

looking for the gold of truth, hack, hack, hack!

[KacyRay]

Come on guys, are we all going to be subjected to another Kacy against the World rerun?

Is there anything more rehashed than the question of whether liberals are more hamful than conservatives? Or vice-versa?

Everyone here vs. me... not exactly a fair match, is it?

They might want to call in some reinforcements. You know... even up the odds a bit. ;)

[Selene]

Come on guys, are we all going to be subjected to another Kacy against the World rerun?

Is there anything more rehashed than the question of whether liberals are more hamful than conservatives? Or vice-versa?

Everyone here vs. me... not exactly a fair match, is it?

They might want to call in some reinforcements. You know... even up the odds a bit. ;)

Bring it.