[Badamson]

(12-11-2014 04:16 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

I also don't understand what this entire argument about obamacare being anti-freedom is about. Do you have the freedom to not be sick?

It's anti-freedom because by law you're forced to purchase health insurance or pay a huge fine....but of course poor people get exempt from having to pay the fine so working class stiffs like me who make just enough money to scrape by get screwed.

Also, as a result of the increase in costs, many employers downgraded their health plans to make up for the increases. They simply passed on the costs to the employee by giving them a crappier health plan. Now all these companies have high deductible plans where you pay everything out of pocket for the first 2 to 3 thousand bucks, no co-pays for doctor visits, nothing until youve spent like 3 grand and then the insurance kicks in and pays some of the cost. This happened at my old work(a fortune 500 company) which had really great insurance before obamacare was implemented. Kids can stay on their parents' insurance until they're like 26 now so they think it's great. When they get older and have to actually deal with it, they will see what a pain in the ass it is...

I actually wouldn't mind an actual socialized health care system, but our leaders don't have the discipline to manage such a system responsibly the way a country like Japan or Norway does. You can't have free heath care and mass immigration from third world countries. It's not sustainable and the system would collapse.

But I don't want to threadjack or go too far off topic. Jim Webb has taken some alt-right positions that I agree with, but when he was in office he had the chance and didn't really advocate for those things and mostly just went along with Obama and the status quo. He even voted for the bank and big corporation bailouts in 2008. He's anti-war, but many democrats claim to be anti war when really they just want to send troops and foreign aid to their own pet project third world shitholes like Darfur. I don't think there are any good candidates for 2016, honestly.

[The Reactionary Tree]

If that's the only way he can win then he has no chance in Hell. If he said that, the democrats would eat him alive. Heck, they may even kick him out of the party. No joke.

[It_is_my_time]

Just to follow up Tuth, and you have a great list of large footnotes in US history. I listed the things that in my opinion have had a huge economic impact on the USA...


•The burning of the nation's capital during the War of 1812. - Many believe this war was pushed by the European bankers to force the US into their debt. We broke free of it though with Andrew Jackson.
•Jackson's War on the Bank of the United States. - Excellent move by Jackson. He got rid of the precursor to the Federal Reserve and gave us true economic freedom for 70 years. Great for the economy, just took a while to realize it.
•The U.S. Civil War. - Huge economic impact, but we recovered from it.
•The abrupt end to Reconstruction in the South and the rise of the KKK. - Huge economic impact but we recovered from it.
•The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 - The biggest economic impact of all. We have not recovered from this and now our economic freedom is in the hands of a few elite wealthy bankers.
•The Great Depression. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•The Dust Bowl. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•Attack on Pearl Harbor. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•The Birth of the Modern Feminist movement. - Huge economic impact. We have not recovered from this and the real rot is setting in.
•Stagflation and the Energy Crisis. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•Intensification of the "War on Drugs" - Huge economic impact. We have not recovered from this, but it seems we might be turning the corner with the popularity of legalized pot gaining support.
•NAFTA, CAFTA, and the exportation of U.S. industry. - Huge economic impact and we may never recover from it.
•The War in Iraq. - Just the whole war on terrorism. Huge economic impact we may never recover from. Both parties have mishandled this so badly it leads you to believe it is being done on purpose for a bigger cause.
•The corporate war on the middle class and small business. - I would call Obamacare the top weapon in the corporate war on the middle class and small business.

[Sp5]

(12-11-2014 05:19 AM)Badamson Wrote:  

But I don't want to threadjack or go too far off topic. Jim Webb has taken some alt-right positions that I agree with, but when he was in office he had the chance and didn't really advocate for those things and mostly just went along with Obama and the status quo. He even voted for the bank and big corporation bailouts in 2008. He's anti-war, but many democrats claim to be anti war when really they just want to send troops and foreign aid to their own pet project third world shitholes like Darfur. I don't think there are any good candidates for 2016, honestly.

He's on record as being against the Iraq War, wrote an op-ed opposing it which predicted what would happen, before the war.

I recommend Webb's novel Something to Die For, which is a great anti-war takedown of the mentality of beltway warriors you describe. The plot is, Washington think-tank chickenhawks and madmen sending Marines to die in a foolish expedition in Africa.

[TravelerKai]

(12-11-2014 05:21 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Just to follow up Tuth, and you have a great list of large footnotes in US history. I listed the things that in my opinion have had a huge economic impact on the USA...


•The burning of the nation's capital during the War of 1812. - Many believe this war was pushed by the European bankers to force the US into their debt. We broke free of it though with Andrew Jackson.
•Jackson's War on the Bank of the United States. - Excellent move by Jackson. He got rid of the precursor to the Federal Reserve and gave us true economic freedom for 70 years. Great for the economy, just took a while to realize it.
•The U.S. Civil War. - Huge economic impact, but we recovered from it.
•The abrupt end to Reconstruction in the South and the rise of the KKK. - Huge economic impact but we recovered from it.
•The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 - The biggest economic impact of all. We have not recovered from this and now our economic freedom is in the hands of a few elite wealthy bankers.
•The Great Depression. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•The Dust Bowl. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•Attack on Pearl Harbor. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•The Birth of the Modern Feminist movement. - Huge economic impact. We have not recovered from this and the real rot is setting in.
•Stagflation and the Energy Crisis. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•Intensification of the "War on Drugs" - Huge economic impact. We have not recovered from this, but it seems we might be turning the corner with the popularity of legalized pot gaining support.
•NAFTA, CAFTA, and the exportation of U.S. industry. - Huge economic impact and we may never recover from it.
•The War in Iraq. - Just the whole war on terrorism. Huge economic impact we may never recover from. Both parties have mishandled this so badly it leads you to believe it is being done on purpose for a bigger cause.
•The corporate war on the middle class and small business. - I would call Obamacare the top weapon in the corporate war on the middle class and small business.

So by your own admission, the bolded one should be the worst piece of legislation in US History. Therefore, Tuth was right to call you out on that original post you made. Next time don't use emotionally charged statements like that to make arguments that are not grounded in any factual information. No one here loves Obama, but we can do alot better than pushing a bunch of emotionally charged bullshit that is blown way out of proportion.

A freaking healthcare law cannot come close (impact wise) to economic/trade laws in general, like NAFTA you acknowledged above. Let's keep so some perspective on things.

[It_is_my_time]

(12-11-2014 12:54 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 05:21 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Just to follow up Tuth, and you have a great list of large footnotes in US history. I listed the things that in my opinion have had a huge economic impact on the USA...


•The burning of the nation's capital during the War of 1812. - Many believe this war was pushed by the European bankers to force the US into their debt. We broke free of it though with Andrew Jackson.
•Jackson's War on the Bank of the United States. - Excellent move by Jackson. He got rid of the precursor to the Federal Reserve and gave us true economic freedom for 70 years. Great for the economy, just took a while to realize it.
•The U.S. Civil War. - Huge economic impact, but we recovered from it.
•The abrupt end to Reconstruction in the South and the rise of the KKK. - Huge economic impact but we recovered from it.
•The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 - The biggest economic impact of all. We have not recovered from this and now our economic freedom is in the hands of a few elite wealthy bankers.
•The Great Depression. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•The Dust Bowl. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•Attack on Pearl Harbor. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•The Birth of the Modern Feminist movement. - Huge economic impact. We have not recovered from this and the real rot is setting in.
•Stagflation and the Energy Crisis. - Huge economic impact we recovered from.
•Intensification of the "War on Drugs" - Huge economic impact. We have not recovered from this, but it seems we might be turning the corner with the popularity of legalized pot gaining support.
•NAFTA, CAFTA, and the exportation of U.S. industry. - Huge economic impact and we may never recover from it.
•The War in Iraq. - Just the whole war on terrorism. Huge economic impact we may never recover from. Both parties have mishandled this so badly it leads you to believe it is being done on purpose for a bigger cause.
•The corporate war on the middle class and small business. - I would call Obamacare the top weapon in the corporate war on the middle class and small business.

So by your own admission, the bolded one should be the worst piece of legislation in US History. Therefore, Tuth was right to call you out on that original post you made. Next time don't use emotionally charged statements like that to make arguments that are not grounded in any factual information. No one here loves Obama, but we can do alot better than pushing a bunch of emotionally charged bullshit that is blown way out of proportion.

A freaking healthcare law cannot come close (impact wise) to economic/trade laws in general, like NAFTA you acknowledged above. Let's keep so some perspective on things.

No, I said it was one of the worst things to happen, not the single worse.

The single worse, IMO, is the women's voting right.

Yes, a healthcare law can come close, it directly impacts 1/6th of the economy over night and indirectly impacts not only the US economy, but the world economy and eventually world security with a weakened USA.

To compare to NAFTA, it largely impacted low skill/low income employees, at least unless they go get training for a higher skill job. Obamacare will impact everyone long term due to the cost and direct impact on employer mandates.

[Quintus Curtius]

One of the more depressing features of the manosphere is its conflation of right-wing, big business talking points with what is supposedly "masculine" and "good."

Big business, right-wing propaganda has convinced most young guys that any type of progressive, enlightened legislation is somehow unconstitutional, pussified, or conspiratorial.

It's almost as if these guys want to turn back to clock to what America was like in the early 1900s, when you had:

* Industrialized slave labor with no minimum wages
* Child labor
* No social security or workmen's compensation
* Total domination of the country by a handful of big corporations
* No health care
* Exploitation of natural resources and lands by corporations for their own profit.
* Unregulated pollution
* No labeling of food products or safety requirements

And it just goes on and on.

If it had not been for Teddy Roosevelt, none of the things that you guys take for granted would be here. Same thing for Franklin Roosevelt.

And back in the early 1900s, the big money interests made the same threadbare arguments they make today: "It's unconstitutional!" or "It's socialism"! or "It's the end of life as we know it!"

Teddy Roosevelt had no patience for such talk. The constitution was created for the people, not the other way around. Fundamental fairness and justice is what should be the proper concern of the government. The "free market" is mostly a sham where the deck is stacked against the little guy. Without a strong government to keep business greed in check, we would have revolutions and social disorder.

Government has a minimum responsibility to provide for the welfare and health of its citizens. It's that simple.

[Badamson]

(12-11-2014 05:39 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

He's on record as being against the Iraq War, wrote an op-ed opposing it which predicted what would happen, before the war.

I recommend Webb's novel Something to Die For, which is a great anti-war takedown of the mentality of beltway warriors you describe. The plot is, Washington think-tank chickenhawks and madmen sending Marines to die in a foolish expedition in Africa.

I realize he opposed the Iraq war, and he got a lot of support from paleoconservative circles even before Amconmag went left. A lot of people were opposed to the Iraq war, like Obama for instance. Yet they tend to have their own interventionist projects once they are in charge. A candidate being against getting involved in foreign wars would be a nice change....but that's just not enough for me.

As far as his other positions, it's hard for me to tell how much he would really advocate for and how much of it was just "boob bait for bubba" since he was running in Virginia. When he was in office he voted like a straight up liberal most of the time.

[Sp5]

(12-11-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

One of the more depressing features of the manosphere is its conflation of right-wing, big business talking points with what is supposedly "masculine" and "good."

Big business, right-wing propaganda has convinced most young guys that any type of progressive, enlightened legislation is somehow unconstitutional, pussified, or conspiratorial.

It's almost as if these guys want to turn back to clock to what America was like in the early 1900s, when you had:

* Industrialized slave labor with no minimum wages
* Child labor
* No social security or workmen's compensation
* Total domination of the country by a handful of big corporations
* No health care
* Exploitation of natural resources and lands by corporations for their own profit.
* Unregulated pollution
* No labeling of food products or safety requirements

And it just goes on and on.

If it had not been for Teddy Roosevelt, none of the things that you guys take for granted would be here. Same thing for Franklin Roosevelt.

And back in the early 1900s, the big money interests made the same threadbare arguments they make today: "It's unconstitutional!" or "It's socialism"! or "It's the end of life as we know it!"

Teddy Roosevelt had no patience for such talk. The constitution was created for the people, not the other way around. Fundamental fairness and justice is what should be the proper concern of the government. The "free market" is mostly a sham where the deck is stacked against the little guy. Without a strong government to keep business greed in check, we would have revolutions and social disorder.

Government has a minimum responsibility to provide for the welfare and health of its citizens. It's that simple.

To take it a step further, consider the reasons for the end of the patriarchal family, where the father worked and the mother stayed at home. In the 1960s, it was possible for a man working as a construction worker, janitor, or retail clerk to raise a family on his salary while the mother took care of the children.

One of the crucial objects of converting people from "citizens" into "consumers" is that the economy has been reengineered to give women their own sources of income. Why? One red pill observation that Rollo once wrote about is that women are pandered to by advertisers and the media paid for by advertisers, because women consume a lot more stuff. Just look around and see the stores selling women clothes, shoes, accessories, etc. and compare them to the number of stores selling guy stuff.

I was in a mall in Bangkok (Platinum in Praturam) and pointed out to some Japanese guys looking at the ground floor directory with me that 5 out of the 6 floors were devoted to selling shit to women. They laughed knowingly.

The slow growth of wages, the financialization of the economy, the debt culture have also robbed the average working man of his dignity.

The market and its money drives societal change toward feminism and hedonism far more than SJWs, professors, or anything else. These forces make humans their witting or unwitting agents in political life.

[TheWastelander]

(12-11-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

One of the more depressing features of the manosphere is its conflation of right-wing, big business talking points with what is supposedly "masculine" and "good."

Big business, right-wing propaganda has convinced most young guys that any type of progressive, enlightened legislation is somehow unconstitutional, pussified, or conspiratorial.

It's almost as if these guys want to turn back to clock to what America was like in the early 1900s, when you had:

* Industrialized slave labor with no minimum wages
* Child labor
* No social security or workmen's compensation
* Total domination of the country by a handful of big corporations
* No health care
* Exploitation of natural resources and lands by corporations for their own profit.
* Unregulated pollution
* No labeling of food products or safety requirements

And it just goes on and on.

If it had not been for Teddy Roosevelt, none of the things that you guys take for granted would be here. Same thing for Franklin Roosevelt.

And back in the early 1900s, the big money interests made the same threadbare arguments they make today: "It's unconstitutional!" or "It's socialism"! or "It's the end of life as we know it!"

Teddy Roosevelt had no patience for such talk. The constitution was created for the people, not the other way around. Fundamental fairness and justice is what should be the proper concern of the government. The "free market" is mostly a sham where the deck is stacked against the little guy. Without a strong government to keep business greed in check, we would have revolutions and social disorder.

Government has a minimum responsibility to provide for the welfare and health of its citizens. It's that simple.

Fairness is another word for equality and while I think equality of opportunity is a pretty respectable American ideal that most people desire and admire, trying to ensure equality of outcomes is socialist nonsense that leads to disastrous anti-male social-engineering laws and policies.

You listed things I haven't seen anyone advocating for a return to here, which is a classic left-wing smear tactic. It goes something like: 'If you're against X, you're probably also against long-established Y.' (See: Bastiat, A Confusion of Terms from The Law)

Just because someone is against Obamacare doesn't mean they want a return to five-year-olds getting sucked into spinning jennies and desire the return of slavery so they can enjoy the many benefits of having a live in monocle polisher.

Furthermore, if something is unconstitutional it is so regardless of what the rulers want and their popularity. I don't care if they're right-wing or left-wing. Politicians who violate the Constitution should be legally punished. If they don't like the Constitution, they should push to have it changed.

Franklin Roosevelt, who you apparently admire in some respect, was a tyrant and a thug. The Supreme Court struck down several of his proposed programs as unconstitutional for good reason -- because they were! That is, until he threatened to stack the court with judges who supported him.

As far as Teddy Roosevelt is concerned, he did some good things and took on corruption. But like all historical figures, he wasn't perfect.

In regards to Obamacare, a lot of working people are angry that they're seeing increased costs. None of the other options available were tried before we went with the big kahuna. We could've broken up the cartels and allowed interstate competition between insurance companies to see if that lowered costs, and it wouldn't have cost the taxpayer much of anything. But nope, the left went right for the big program.

People are also mad they were lied to by the politicians pushing it. The Obama administration lied about the individual mandate's penalty not being a tax. Then the Supreme Court said it was and they reversed course and said, 'Oh, yeah it was. Just kidding.'

Then you have assholes like Gruber who admit that they lied and counted on the "stupidity" of the American people to get it passed in the first place even though it had tons of hidden taxes.

There are plenty more complaints I could dredge up, but can you see why the right is pissed off about it?

These days I'm more a pragmatist than anything. Experimenting and seeing what works, as long as it's constitutional and we start with the least invasive measures first, would be better than the current bullshit. The fact that nothing other than Obamacare was seriously considered pisses me off. It was a blatant power grab by the left and could prove to be a colossal disaster in the long run.

[Libertas]

(12-11-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

One of the more depressing features of the manosphere is its conflation of right-wing, big business talking points with what is supposedly "masculine" and "good."

Big business, right-wing propaganda has convinced most young guys that any type of progressive, enlightened legislation is somehow unconstitutional, pussified, or conspiratorial.

It's almost as if these guys want to turn back to clock to what America was like in the early 1900s, when you had:

* Industrialized slave labor with no minimum wages
* Child labor
* No social security or workmen's compensation
* Total domination of the country by a handful of big corporations
* No health care
* Exploitation of natural resources and lands by corporations for their own profit.
* Unregulated pollution
* No labeling of food products or safety requirements

And it just goes on and on.

If it had not been for Teddy Roosevelt, none of the things that you guys take for granted would be here. Same thing for Franklin Roosevelt.

And back in the early 1900s, the big money interests made the same threadbare arguments they make today: "It's unconstitutional!" or "It's socialism"! or "It's the end of life as we know it!"

Teddy Roosevelt had no patience for such talk. The constitution was created for the people, not the other way around. Fundamental fairness and justice is what should be the proper concern of the government. The "free market" is mostly a sham where the deck is stacked against the little guy. Without a strong government to keep business greed in check, we would have revolutions and social disorder.

Government has a minimum responsibility to provide for the welfare and health of its citizens. It's that simple.

It's probably a part of people that don't want to leave their hardcore libertarian phase behind. Eventually you just need to realize that there's a lot more to a society than business. Culture matters. People matter. Other things matter.

The rampant consumer culture that these business interests want to push leads to the destruction we are seeing now, where people act as mindless automatons with their iPhones.

TR of course, was one of the most masculine presidents we've ever had. That should tell you something.

As for Webb, I've liked him for years. We'll see what happens with regards to who else throws their hat in but he's definitely a solid candidate that can represent our interests.

Don't just sit on the sidelines though. The sphere has accumulated a good deal of power that we simply did not have when I entered it in earlyish 2013. Seriously, the power we have this year compared to last is quite astonishing, and we are continuing to accumulate it, all the while our "social justice" enemies are beginning to waver (if ever so slightly) through a series of mistakes.

Now's the time to further accumulate that power, through 2015 via GamerGate and other things, where we build up an alternative culture from within the institutions that we create. So by the time that 2016 rolls around, we can do our part to support guys like Webb.

Don't say that your vote doesn't matter. Primaries matter. Much more than the general election itself.

Overly optimistic? Maybe. But when the Huns are at your gate you have no choice but to keep fighting. Better to die with a sword in your hand than in weakness and servitude to the barbarians after your surrender.

[Tuthmosis]

(12-11-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

One of the more depressing features of the manosphere is its conflation of right-wing, big business talking points with what is supposedly "masculine" and "good."

Big business, right-wing propaganda has convinced most young guys that any type of progressive, enlightened legislation is somehow unconstitutional, pussified, or conspiratorial.

Agreed. "Unplugging from the mainstream" includes unplugging from the Fox News talking points as much as the Huffington Post bullshit. However, a lot of guys think that rejecting the mainstream is switching from the New York Times to the Washington Times. Truth be told, if you've really unplugged from the matrix, you should be very difficult to classify in the ridiculous (and actually fictional) Democratic-Republican binary.

Some dead-giveaways that someone is just repeating Fox News/Right-Wing media talking points:

"Obama is a Socialist"
Actually, the word "socialist" has a real meaning. Only recently has it been re-purposed as a scare tactic and indirect way to make Obama seem foreign and Un-American. It worked for decades during the Cold War, so why not now? Nixon was more of a "socialist" than Obama. A shitty healthcare program a socialist does not make.

Saying the "Democrat Party"
The party is actually called the Democratic Party. It wasn't until Frank Luntz, or one of those other top focus-groupers, figured out that "Democrat" sounded a lot like "bureaucrat" (which people associate with mostly negative stuff) that this talking point made its way into the mainstream. Notice that Fox News never-ever-ever will say "Democratic Party." Never. Even though that's its actual name. It's all part of the re-branding campaign. The other half of that campaign is referring to the U.S. as a "republic" (because it sounds like, you guessed it, Republican). In reality, the United States is a democratic republic. It's both, which is why once upon a time there was a party by that very name.

Saying the Democrats are "extreme left-wing," or even left wing at all.
By global standards, the American Democratic Party is actually right-of-center. It's a corporately funded party that doesn't advocate any of the programs of real "extreme" left-wing party, like making certain industries publicly owned utilities (which, in some cases, would actually be a good thing, to be frank).

Automatically conflating bizarre cultural bullshit emanating from self-declared "progressives" with core, economically leftist policy.
Giving gender weirdos free, government-funded sex changes isn't the same thing as strictly regulating your food so there's no toxic chemicals in it--that are technically legal--but increase the estrogen in your body and turn men into pussies. The same goes with pretending the American right is actually resisting negative cultural or economic trends. I'm consistently shocked that guys can't see the shell game that the myth of "two [different] political parties" is. Tumblr feminists are as much of an embarrassment to real leftists as birthers are to the right.

   

Allowing themselves to be repeatedly distracted by wedge issues while they're being robbed blind by multi-national corporations.
No one seems to notice that immigration, gay marriage, the "death tax," and an array of other played out ridiculous issues seem to come up right before every national election. Meanwhile, massive corporations are buying up water rights, doing their best to censor and privatize the internet, and selling off our public infrastructure to foreigners.



I'm hopeful that the Manosphere can eventually mature into a real enclave community of intellectual, masculine, and pan-political men who can rise above focus-grouped propaganda and lies to exchange original ideas and male camaraderie--a sort of free masons for the 21st century. I doubt they can (and should) be a political force, but definitely a counter-weight to the war on masculinity that's been going on for, at least, the last two decades.

But every time I read stuff like "Obamacare will go down as one of the worst things in American history" I lose a little bit of that hope.

[TravelerKai]

Amazing post Tuth. Would make for a good ROK article as well.

[Jackreacher]

Kudos to him for marrying a young Vietnamese chick but I already have a couple presidents in mind, they'll supply me with the voting power I prefer to have and give me the freedom to do more of what I like to do in my life. And they never break their promises. I fully endorse my fellow dead presidents Mr. Franklin, Hamilton, Ulysses, Jackson, Lincoln and last(and perhaps least) Mr. Washington. This is where the real political play is made, this is where you'll know how much voting power you actually have. You just have to ask yourself, can you afford it? Idiots running the show? Leave, with your money to boot. Women acting a fool? Leave, with your money of course. Beautiful paradise, priced just right with sweet pretty women around, good food and easier living? I'll pay for that, that'll get my vote(my money) all the time. You take your labor, your creative abilities, and your money away from them, you leave them where they are while you go to greener pastures and then finally you can say you've done what you've needed to to make sure that you don't suffer fools because you voted. Money is the real vote. Everything else is just silliness.

[TheWastelander]

(12-11-2014 03:34 PM)Jackreacher Wrote:  

Kudos to him for marrying a young Vietnamese chick but I already have a couple presidents in mind, they'll supply me with the voting power I prefer to have and give me the freedom to do more of what I like to do in my life. And they never break their promises. I fully endorse my fellow dead presidents Mr. Franklin, Hamilton, Ulysses, Jackson, Lincoln and last(and perhaps least) Mr. Washington. This is where the real political play is made, this is where you'll know how much voting power you actually have. You just have to ask yourself, can you afford it? Idiots running the show? Leave, with your money to boot. Women acting a fool? Leave, with your money of course. Beautiful paradise, priced just right with sweet pretty women around, good food and easier living? I'll pay for that, that'll get my vote(my money) all the time. You take your labor, your creative abilities, and your money away from them, you leave them where they are while you go to greener pastures and then finally you can say you've done what you've needed to to make sure that you don't suffer fools because you voted. Money is the real vote. Everything else is just silliness.

Alexander Hamilton was never president. Thank God.

[Veloce]

(12-11-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

One of the more depressing features of the manosphere is its conflation of right-wing, big business talking points with what is supposedly "masculine" and "good."

Big business, right-wing propaganda has convinced most young guys that any type of progressive, enlightened legislation is somehow unconstitutional, pussified, or conspiratorial.

It's almost as if these guys want to turn back to clock to what America was like in the early 1900s, when you had:

* Industrialized slave labor with no minimum wages
* Child labor
* No social security or workmen's compensation
* Total domination of the country by a handful of big corporations
* No health care
* Exploitation of natural resources and lands by corporations for their own profit.
* Unregulated pollution
* No labeling of food products or safety requirements

And it just goes on and on.

If it had not been for Teddy Roosevelt, none of the things that you guys take for granted would be here. Same thing for Franklin Roosevelt.

And back in the early 1900s, the big money interests made the same threadbare arguments they make today: "It's unconstitutional!" or "It's socialism"! or "It's the end of life as we know it!"

Teddy Roosevelt had no patience for such talk. The constitution was created for the people, not the other way around. Fundamental fairness and justice is what should be the proper concern of the government. The "free market" is mostly a sham where the deck is stacked against the little guy. Without a strong government to keep business greed in check, we would have revolutions and social disorder.

Government has a minimum responsibility to provide for the welfare and health of its citizens. It's that simple.

I'm reminded of the forum brouhaha over the Berkeley sugar tax.

Okay, Berkeley might be a hotbed of wackjob policies that are largely ineffective. Forget Berkeley. Let's make this a national issue.

The fact remains, a sugar tax would be a huge blessing in this country for the same reason that GMO foods should be labelled and hydrogenated fats should be downright outlawed.

The argument, "I want less government in my life, not more." is a weak copout and ignores the duty of why we have government in the first place. You don't want government? Okay, turn back the clock 2500 years and go be a slave under some Middle Eastern despot. Well structured government, like that of the Roman Empire in its glory days, gave ordinary plebs (citizens) a pretty cushy life, including a lot of land and a loud voice in government proceedings. For hundreds of years, Romans were proud to be Romans.

Can you say the same thing about America?

The answer isn't to cry for less government, the answer is to hold our government accountable, but that ship has sailed. It seems the only option is to watch this mega corporation complex destroy the whole thing and wait to rebuild it. Like Rome, the greed and excess of the elites will catch up and cause the entire thing to crumble.

[TheWastelander]

(12-11-2014 03:58 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

One of the more depressing features of the manosphere is its conflation of right-wing, big business talking points with what is supposedly "masculine" and "good."

Big business, right-wing propaganda has convinced most young guys that any type of progressive, enlightened legislation is somehow unconstitutional, pussified, or conspiratorial.

It's almost as if these guys want to turn back to clock to what America was like in the early 1900s, when you had:

* Industrialized slave labor with no minimum wages
* Child labor
* No social security or workmen's compensation
* Total domination of the country by a handful of big corporations
* No health care
* Exploitation of natural resources and lands by corporations for their own profit.
* Unregulated pollution
* No labeling of food products or safety requirements

And it just goes on and on.

If it had not been for Teddy Roosevelt, none of the things that you guys take for granted would be here. Same thing for Franklin Roosevelt.

And back in the early 1900s, the big money interests made the same threadbare arguments they make today: "It's unconstitutional!" or "It's socialism"! or "It's the end of life as we know it!"

Teddy Roosevelt had no patience for such talk. The constitution was created for the people, not the other way around. Fundamental fairness and justice is what should be the proper concern of the government. The "free market" is mostly a sham where the deck is stacked against the little guy. Without a strong government to keep business greed in check, we would have revolutions and social disorder.

Government has a minimum responsibility to provide for the welfare and health of its citizens. It's that simple.

I'm reminded of the forum brouhaha over the Berkeley sugar tax.

Okay, Berkeley might be a hotbed of wackjob policies that are largely ineffective. Forget Berkeley. Let's make this a national issue.

The fact remains, a sugar tax would be a huge blessing in this country for the same reason that GMO foods should be labelled and hydrogenated fats should be downright outlawed.

The argument, "I want less government in my life, not more." is a weak copout and ignores the duty of why we have government in the first place. You don't want government? Okay, turn back the clock 2500 years and go be a slave under some Middle Eastern despot. Well structured government, like that of the Roman Empire in its glory days, gave ordinary plebs (citizens) a pretty cushy life, including a lot of land and a loud voice in government proceedings. For hundreds of years, Romans were proud to be Romans.

Can you say the same thing about America?

The answer isn't to cry for less government, the answer is to hold our government accountable, but that ship has sailed. It seems the only option is to watch this mega corporation complex destroy the whole thing and wait to rebuild it. Like Rome, the greed and excess of the elites will catch up and cause the entire thing to crumble.

Not even touching the GMO food stuff, but I will say this: I think you are misrepresenting the views of those who desire small government. They don't want anarchy. They just want less taxation, less spending, and a minimal government that can take care of the national defense and other constitutional responsibilities. Most of all, they don't want some asshole politician owned by special interests telling them how to live their lives and making personal choices for them. Whether it's liquor taxes, prohibiton, gun control, or sugar taxes. This is an American tradition as old as the country is. The fact that neither of the major political parties caters to them means nothing. It is still what they want and believe is best.

To them the answer is to demand less government, precisely because holding big government accountable is just about impossible. Especially when big government buys the votes of large swathes of the population.

So the argument is that a smaller government is less dangerous to liberty than a larger one. I would say that's generally true.

[TigerMandingo]

There's too much of that Milton Friedman/Ayn Rand-ish Not-in-my-backyard mentality in the manosphere. Fuck that. Being "red-pill" does not mean you stop giving a fuck about other human beings.

[The Beast1]

If we as a country like our working conditions, child free labor, and general quality of life the country needs to understand that it needs a base of real manufactured goods. Intellectual property has no scarcity, a finished tangible product does.

A policy focused on growing the buying power of the working classes by encouraging manufacturing. This country needs strong tariffs and a strong bout of deflation to make production affordable here again.

Not to mention a massively smaller government.

[Veloce]

(12-11-2014 04:14 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:58 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

One of the more depressing features of the manosphere is its conflation of right-wing, big business talking points with what is supposedly "masculine" and "good."

Big business, right-wing propaganda has convinced most young guys that any type of progressive, enlightened legislation is somehow unconstitutional, pussified, or conspiratorial.

It's almost as if these guys want to turn back to clock to what America was like in the early 1900s, when you had:

* Industrialized slave labor with no minimum wages
* Child labor
* No social security or workmen's compensation
* Total domination of the country by a handful of big corporations
* No health care
* Exploitation of natural resources and lands by corporations for their own profit.
* Unregulated pollution
* No labeling of food products or safety requirements

And it just goes on and on.

If it had not been for Teddy Roosevelt, none of the things that you guys take for granted would be here. Same thing for Franklin Roosevelt.

And back in the early 1900s, the big money interests made the same threadbare arguments they make today: "It's unconstitutional!" or "It's socialism"! or "It's the end of life as we know it!"

Teddy Roosevelt had no patience for such talk. The constitution was created for the people, not the other way around. Fundamental fairness and justice is what should be the proper concern of the government. The "free market" is mostly a sham where the deck is stacked against the little guy. Without a strong government to keep business greed in check, we would have revolutions and social disorder.

Government has a minimum responsibility to provide for the welfare and health of its citizens. It's that simple.

I'm reminded of the forum brouhaha over the Berkeley sugar tax.

Okay, Berkeley might be a hotbed of wackjob policies that are largely ineffective. Forget Berkeley. Let's make this a national issue.

The fact remains, a sugar tax would be a huge blessing in this country for the same reason that GMO foods should be labelled and hydrogenated fats should be downright outlawed.

The argument, "I want less government in my life, not more." is a weak copout and ignores the duty of why we have government in the first place. You don't want government? Okay, turn back the clock 2500 years and go be a slave under some Middle Eastern despot. Well structured government, like that of the Roman Empire in its glory days, gave ordinary plebs (citizens) a pretty cushy life, including a lot of land and a loud voice in government proceedings. For hundreds of years, Romans were proud to be Romans.

Can you say the same thing about America?

The answer isn't to cry for less government, the answer is to hold our government accountable, but that ship has sailed. It seems the only option is to watch this mega corporation complex destroy the whole thing and wait to rebuild it. Like Rome, the greed and excess of the elites will catch up and cause the entire thing to crumble.

Not even touching the GMO food stuff, but I will say this: I think you are misrepresenting the views of those who desire small government. They don't want anarchy. They just want less taxation, less spending, and a minimal government that can take care of the national defense and other constitutional responsibilities. Most of all, they don't want some asshole politician owned by special interests telling them how to live their lives and making personal choices for them. Whether it's liquor taxes, prohibiton, gun control, or sugar taxes. This is an American tradition as old as the country is. The fact that neither of the major political parties caters to them means nothing. It is still what they want and believe is best.

To them the answer is to demand less government, precisely because holding big government accountable is just about impossible. Especially when big government buys the votes of large swathes of the population.

So the argument is that a smaller government is less dangerous to liberty than a larger one. I would say that's generally true.

If you're really interested in less taxation and less spending, I find it ironic that you say "minimal government that can take care of the national defense".



About HALF of your taxes go to military spending in one way or another. Do we really need 32 F-35s at $300+million each? If you want to look at "big government", start with the military contracts with Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman.

[TheWastelander]

(12-11-2014 04:50 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 04:14 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:58 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

One of the more depressing features of the manosphere is its conflation of right-wing, big business talking points with what is supposedly "masculine" and "good."

Big business, right-wing propaganda has convinced most young guys that any type of progressive, enlightened legislation is somehow unconstitutional, pussified, or conspiratorial.

It's almost as if these guys want to turn back to clock to what America was like in the early 1900s, when you had:

* Industrialized slave labor with no minimum wages
* Child labor
* No social security or workmen's compensation
* Total domination of the country by a handful of big corporations
* No health care
* Exploitation of natural resources and lands by corporations for their own profit.
* Unregulated pollution
* No labeling of food products or safety requirements

And it just goes on and on.

If it had not been for Teddy Roosevelt, none of the things that you guys take for granted would be here. Same thing for Franklin Roosevelt.

And back in the early 1900s, the big money interests made the same threadbare arguments they make today: "It's unconstitutional!" or "It's socialism"! or "It's the end of life as we know it!"

Teddy Roosevelt had no patience for such talk. The constitution was created for the people, not the other way around. Fundamental fairness and justice is what should be the proper concern of the government. The "free market" is mostly a sham where the deck is stacked against the little guy. Without a strong government to keep business greed in check, we would have revolutions and social disorder.

Government has a minimum responsibility to provide for the welfare and health of its citizens. It's that simple.

I'm reminded of the forum brouhaha over the Berkeley sugar tax.

Okay, Berkeley might be a hotbed of wackjob policies that are largely ineffective. Forget Berkeley. Let's make this a national issue.

The fact remains, a sugar tax would be a huge blessing in this country for the same reason that GMO foods should be labelled and hydrogenated fats should be downright outlawed.

The argument, "I want less government in my life, not more." is a weak copout and ignores the duty of why we have government in the first place. You don't want government? Okay, turn back the clock 2500 years and go be a slave under some Middle Eastern despot. Well structured government, like that of the Roman Empire in its glory days, gave ordinary plebs (citizens) a pretty cushy life, including a lot of land and a loud voice in government proceedings. For hundreds of years, Romans were proud to be Romans.

Can you say the same thing about America?

The answer isn't to cry for less government, the answer is to hold our government accountable, but that ship has sailed. It seems the only option is to watch this mega corporation complex destroy the whole thing and wait to rebuild it. Like Rome, the greed and excess of the elites will catch up and cause the entire thing to crumble.

Not even touching the GMO food stuff, but I will say this: I think you are misrepresenting the views of those who desire small government. They don't want anarchy. They just want less taxation, less spending, and a minimal government that can take care of the national defense and other constitutional responsibilities. Most of all, they don't want some asshole politician owned by special interests telling them how to live their lives and making personal choices for them. Whether it's liquor taxes, prohibiton, gun control, or sugar taxes. This is an American tradition as old as the country is. The fact that neither of the major political parties caters to them means nothing. It is still what they want and believe is best.

To them the answer is to demand less government, precisely because holding big government accountable is just about impossible. Especially when big government buys the votes of large swathes of the population.

So the argument is that a smaller government is less dangerous to liberty than a larger one. I would say that's generally true.

If you're really interested in less taxation and less spending, I find it ironic that you say "minimal government that can take care of the national defense".



About HALF of your taxes go to military spending in one way or another. Do we really need 32 F-35s at $300+million each? If you want to look at "big government", start with the military contracts with Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman.

I completely agree. Don't mistake me for a neoconservative. I am against welfare for the defense industry and a massive military used for foreign adventures and spreading ideology.

[Sonsowey]

One thing I am really curious to see is would Republicans actually reverse Obamacare?

Millions of people now have insurance through it, how are they going to take away that insurance?

I could see them passing some symbolic reform which changes Obamacare in some small ways, but to kick people off health care seems like something they simply would not do out of rational self interest at the polls.

[kerouac]

There are two things you can count on on in this forum:

1. New Threads on whether the 1-10 scale of rating girls is still relevant
2. People doing massive block quotes to give a one sentence reply on how their political ideology is different.

[Veloce]

(12-11-2014 04:51 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

I completely agree. Don't mistake me for a neoconservative. I am against welfare for the defense industry and a massive military used for foreign adventures and spreading ideology.

I don't think in this day and age you can represent a man's political views with "big government" and "small government". Like Tuth mentioned above, these are conquer and divide tactics used by media talking heads to pit citizens against each other.

People tend to say things like "We need LESS government, not MORE." when it refers to a spending program that they happen to disagree with.

I don't see it so much as less or more, as much as reform. Especially where healthcare and education is concerned, we need a complete overhaul in this country.

[Libertas]

We're getting off topic here, everyone. This thread should be about James Webb. Let's talk about where he stands, when and where we can criticize him, and figure out if he'll represent our interests as heterosexual men.