Oh Rat, the same old crap I thought been away might have given you some time to actually think about the rubbish you push and work out just how rubbish it is. Oh well… Anyway s I’ve pointed out I don’t think Obama is neo-con but he does seem to believe in the idea of American exceptionalism, which I’m afraid means he can be seduced by the same neo-can ideas of US interests. For example, this is from an Obama speech - “This is our moment. This is our time to unite in common purpose, to make this century the next American century. Because when Americans come together, there is no destiny too difficult or too distant for us to reach” Now remember the neo-cons talked of stamping US domination onto the 21st century. They seemed to have dreams of doing it by tapping into the US’s supposed industrial-military dominance and others supposed weaknesses, and it wasn’t that surprising those hubristic fantasies didn’t work out very well. On the other hand Obama seems to be talking of ‘re-imposing’ US domination by exploiting the untapped potential of the American people, through educational and financial investment. The method is far better but it is the goal that has me wondering. Rather than working toward another American century wouldn’t it be better to be working for a better world for everyone? Take the three things he claimed are the major issues to be tackled – the economy, global warming and war. All are basically global issues not purely American ones and would be best dealt with through multinational agreements and actions (even ones that might not be in the US’s short term interests). But if the Obama administration only sees such issues in US-centric terms then they are going to make the same mistakes as past US administrations. The problem is that far too often the idea of exceptionalism has turned to exclusivity, the feeling that one’s own interests are vastly more important than anyone else’s. If the US tries to pursue its own agenda and push it upon the world we are going to be back with the same problems whoever more nicely and softly that agenda might be pursued and push by the Obama camp” http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=336311&f=36 *
And Rat Do you still think people buy into this shit about you being not of the left or right? Your agenda has always been (for as long as I’ve known you) to be of the right wing libertarian variety, hell I remember when you where openly and proud right wing libertarian who was happy to claim be voted Libertarian. Stop trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. The idea that the two major US political party’s are not that politically different from each other has been around for year. However most commentators suggest that they are both of the right only someone like you who is even further to the right than the neo-cons seem to suggest they are both left wing.
Why? It's the same broken record player accusations I have been hearing for years from Balbus. People's opinions and beliefs change and evolve over time. I have already explained why I am not a libertarian and why libertarians are part of the problem and not the solution. So Balbus can continue to accuse me of being something I am not as long as he wants. Why should it bother me? I don't care about what he THINKS I am.
It's your thread anyhow. You should surprise him and assert some of your "left leaning" tendencies and beliefs to disprove his accusations that you're more to the right than a neo-con. (which is what he just said). Throw him off your scent. I don't know. I just think you can easily prove him wrong on this one and can probably get along instead of opposing one another. It's the "us" versus "them" mentality that roadblocks our understandings of one another. You work it out.
As I have said numerous times before, I do not subscribe to that dialectical way of left vs. right thinking. Both the left and right are administered for people to follow to keep them from seeing the big picture. Balbus is obsessed with idiotic labels. I am not.
Also, I have stated how the neocons come from the so-called "left," not the right. That's why they're called neoconservatives. It doesn't really matter, though, because today there is really no difference between the neocon Republicans and the so-called "moderate" Democrats.
He says this is nothing new though and only proves that you use this belief to further your own conspiracy ideologies and push them onto others, when in fact, those views are supported largely from the right and are generated to neutralize any type of organized action. How does a labeless movement succeed anyway? I think Balbus has been trying to highlight this fact to you from some time. The fact that by abstaining from the left vs right thinking altogether, this along does not present itself as a concrete solution to many of the political problems people today are faced with. Apples and oranges. Balbus likes to try and provoke you into coming up with creative answers to defeating the neo-cons. But enough let me be your hands games. Why do you harp on the left more than harping on the right and place the left at fault for infiltrated conservative ideology so much? That's what I would like to know.
The "Right," as it is traditionally known, is irrelevant because the idea of limited, decentralized government and the preservation of individuality and individual freedoms no longer exists outside of a few so-called "fringe" groups that are often marginalized as "kooks." The two parties work according to a globalist/socialist/corporatist agenda that seeks to redistribute the wealth from the people to the corporate-controlled state -- to build their police state and exercise increasingly more control over the people -- while eliminating national sovereignty to make way for a totalitarian one world government. Today the only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the rhetoric. Both answer to the same corporate/banking interests that ultimately control the political process and hence are leading the people in the same direction. (This is why you have someone like Obama promoting many of the same policies put forward under Bush, who is supposedly at the opposite end of the political spectrum.) The biggest tool of the global elite is socialism, as this leads to a consolidation of power and control in the hands of the all-powerful state, gradually removing the independent wealth of the people. Capitalism in its true form has not existed in a long time, and certainly not since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. However, one of their goals has been to convince us that corporate socialism and state/cartel/crony capitalism (which is what we have today) is in fact "capitalism," which then creates the belief in people that we need even more state management of the economy, on top of what we have had all along (designed to further control and manage the lives of the people). So when you say I never attack the right, well, other than the "right" that's portrayed in the media (which I AM critical of) -- the Republican right (which are NOT conservatives) -- there is no real "right wing" in this country, and many of them who subscribe to these far right ideologies are themselves off the mark in many ways. What does "infiltrated conservative ideology" mean? What is your definition of conservative? Today's conservatives are really simply government-loving corporate fascists who use a lot of mumbo-jumbo to convince people they're really old school conservatives, when they're as much to the left (and sometimes further) as their Democrat "opponents" and pushing many of the exact same policies. Fiscally speaking, George Bush is much further to the left than Bill Clinton.
Rat No, that vacation from the site wasn’t spent in contemplation was it Rat. All we get is the same old rhetoric and unsupported assertions. And worst of all the doublespeak and deceit are still very much present. The false claims of being unbiased politically (neither of the right or left) while consistently pushing a very right wing libertarian viewpoint, the use of wholly unsubstantiated conspiracy theory to trump any rational or reasoned arguments, and the claims that you’ve answered questions put to you that you never seem to have actually answered. And your methodology is very similar to other extreme groups such as the John Birch Society, in fact even many of the ideas pushed by you resemble those of that far right wing group. I mean it might be instructive to look at the ultraconservative JBS more closely. It is libertarian leaning, very anti-socialist, seeks to limit the power of government, and pushes the idea of ‘true’ capitalism (that is complete laissez faire) it strongly opposes socialist ideas such as wealth redistribution, economic interventionism. And its members hate the idea of a ‘one world government’ which it claims is a socialist plot. Yes the members also seem to have a predilection to fall back on conspiracy theory to counter those that argue against them. Sound familiar Another thing about JBS members, they’re encourage to spread the ‘truth’ as much as possible through writing letters to politicians and newspapers, getting on media broadcasts and of course posting on web forums.
Most people like to think they are the state and that they have power. They DO have power, but this power has to ultimately be exercised from OUTSIDE the system/state. You cannot change the system from inside the system... that is one of the biggest cons of all-time.
Balbus... no matter what a person's beliefs are, somebody is always going to attempt to label them left or right. I pay no attention to this. I only go by what I know is the truth. If people want to throw labels around, why should it affect me?
Word. I agree to this. Damn the system. I do think a state of some sort is necessary to regulate order and provide justice. I support shared ownership of the state, by the people. The state belongs to the people, because we created it, not the other way around.
The people's taxes created it and keep it going. But if the state belonged to the people, you think that state would work in the people's best interests, no? When you have the corporations running the state, it's hard to say it belongs to anyone but the people who are running it for their own interests, that pay the politicians off to work for them.
And that is exactly what I want to know - in what way you think the system should be changed. So far when asked you claim it isn’t for you to tell people then in other posts you argue for things like smaller, weaker governments and the other things of the right wing libertarian agenda. ** But a system/state isn’t just a government; it consists of the whole thing – the environment, the people, the laws, the politics, the economy etc. To be ‘outside’ of a system/state you have to be cut off from all of that, contribute nothing to it and take nothing away, don’t interact with other people, don’t abide by any laws while not breaking any, don’t get involved in any political action whatsoever, and have no economic impact or interaction either through growing or making anything or by barter or monetary exchange. Oh and leave the country. Rat you clear don’t do that. What you are basically suggesting is that to oppose the wealthy elite people should stop opposing them. Ooooh yes that will teach them, I bet they’re really quaking in there boots. **
Now people have written thousands of books on the subject of the state and I could write a long post about it, but to keep things short - basically to me a good state would be one were the interests of every section of society were addressed. Now a state in perfect balance would I presume be a kind of utopia. Thing is that in reality all states are unbalanced to some degree or other. In my opinion in the US the imbalances gives too much power and influence to wealth and that can only be countered by people working together to tackle the issue. The problem I see with Rat’s ideas (the right wing libertarian ones and the opt-out ones) is that they would give even more power to wealth. I’ve pointed this out and explained why at length but while he is completely incapable of actually defending these ideas from criticism (and now refuses to even discuss them) he continues to express them. I’ll ask again why does he shout so loudly about wanting to counter the power of wealth while all the time trying to push ideas that would increase the power of wealth.