Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

America is Close to Losing Its Freedom More

America is Close to Losing Its Freedom

Comments Filter:

  • Swap subject and object, and you got yourself a story. Regulations written to protect the biggest players, but then, that's nothing new. The big problem is how backwards you all have it. Regulations serve the businesses that write them, and pass from their think tanks to congress to be put into the books. This is all typical neo-liberal stuff. A world under mercantilism run by gangsters. Freedom took a permanent vacation after the Shay Rebellion.

    And the article is totally partisan typical wall street whinin

    • So, how do you do Regulatory Release, or is this a one-way chemical reaction?

      • Already explained it. You already dismissed it out of hand. You gotta sunset everything.

        • Putting an expiry on everything would make sense. Starting with Social Security and the rest of the unsustainable entitlements.

          • This also includes all your military bennies and career bureaucrat generals. Every single one of them, after their 3 or 4 year tour, out! Don't call us, we'll call you. You come out the way you went in, of course with a severance check to hold you over for about six months.

            But actually you start by throwing out the people. Sunsetting doesn't necessarily mean eliminating, it just means it has to be renewed, but by completely different people each time. That is key. Out with the old. The new ones can decide w

            • This also includes all your military bennies and career bureaucrat generals. Every single one of them, after their 3 or 4 year tour, out! Don't call us, we'll call you. You come out the way you went in, of course with a severance check to hold you over for about six months.

              Tell me more. I understood that my life was forfeit in support of the mission while on active duty. Why should I not take a similar view of my retirement bennies that might be here in 15 years, or not?

              I understand the nature of your antipathy for the less fortunate.

              Do you? Do you really? Do you know that it's actually the limit as antipathy goes to zero, and the prayerful mind approaches Christ, that nature? As I hang out with the Down's Syndrome kid at our AWANAs club, and realize that he and I are equivalent?

              I remain interested in your refusal to confront it when it is pointed out.

              Troll on, Columbia! [youtube.com]

      • And you have to stop rewarding sociopaths with so much wealth/power and idolization.

        • You'll have to pry the power for their frigid, undead hands.

          • No, you just need to turn your back. Their power comes from you! They are your reflection..

            • Nice ruby slippers.

              • You really feel so helpless? Does conditioned response really have such power over you? That is just so pitiful!

                • Having been involved at some level in the Tea Party movement, I find you quaint.

                  • Having been involved at some level in the Tea Party movement...

                    Well! That explains a lot! Another cult...

                    • Cult. Really. Only if you're saying 'cult' == 'organization'. Or, by all means: proffer a definition.
                    • A cult is only an unpopular religion, and a religion is a popular cult. Christianity began as a cult; it happened to grow well.
                    • OK, that's a definition, but I don't think it terribly useful.
                      I'd offer that a cult is an insular outfit that seeks to destroy individuality.
                      Proper religious faiths seek to enhance individuality.
                      Thus, when you see a mortal guru figure or two reducing people to livestock (Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite) and thugging all their cash, you know it's a cult. Strong personal charisma used to remove dissent is another sign.

                    • Proper religious faiths seek to enhance individuality.

                      Then I can't think of a "Proper religious faith" currently in existence; or at least not one that has a published text.

                      Strong personal charisma used to remove dissent is another sign.

                      That certainly supports the presence of some definite cults within your party.

                    • A cult can be any group of people who share any given irrational belief. It becomes a religion when it reaches a certain tipping point of acceptance by the state (ask your tax accountant to be sure), not necessarily by sheer popularity.

                    • Then I can't think of a "Proper religious faith" currently in existence; or at least not one that has a published text.

                      Because you sure seem to promote the "Progressive" faith rather stridently.

                    • That's actually not too bad a definition, being broad enough to encompass the Church of Global Warming.

                    • Then I can't think of a "Proper religious faith" currently in existence; or at least not one that has a published text.

                      Because you sure seem to promote the "Progressive" faith rather stridently.

                      It appears you a trolling here, but I'll respond otherwise just in case.

                      Faith is when you defend something you cannot prove. For example, faith in the existence - or in-existence - of a higher power. Similarly, Reaganomics can only be defended by faith, as the numbers have clearly shown it does not work. Your conspiracies require faith to subscribe to, as does the notion that any of them could bring about an early end to the administration of President Lawnchair.

                      My arguments here have been support

                    • For you it encompasses everything you disagree with. So of course your Goldberg Projections are to be expected.

                    • Your faith is unshakable. Way to play a straight hand, boss.
                    • Your faith has robbed you of your ability to distinguish facts from that what you want to believe in. Your allegations of my "faith" are supporting evidence of that.
                    • You haven't even pointed out a single specific example of where you think Goldberg incorrect.
                      But why would your task be other than shooting the messenger?
                    • I differentiate cleanly between facts to which all reasonable people arguing in good conscience can subscribe, and assertions that I "know" through means that you'd call "faith".
                      It's what grownups do.

                    • Idolator!

                    • When you have willingly chosen that you do not want to learn, and you substitute your faith for facts, you are confusing your faith with facts. You exceedingly rarely - if ever - present

                      facts to which all reasonable people arguing in good conscience can subscribe

                      As such facts very nearly never support your agenda or conspiracies.

                    • If you had had the courage to finish your agreement to read The Communist Manifesto, your attacks might have some substance.

                    • :-) Wait.... Did you just switch places with him?

                    • You haven't started the Communist Manifesto, so you have no authority to lecture me on not finishing. As I said before, when you have decided for yourself not to learn, I cannot change the situation for you.
                    • I guess being so blatantly judgemental is only bad if you're conservative.
                    • No, he's the slacker who bagged out on our agreement. Knew he would. Wasn't "packing the gear". Blames me for it. Knew he would. The comic relief from the situation, however, remains a renewable resource.
                      Q: What's the difference between arguing with a lefty and a four year old?
                      A: The four year old still has a chance to outgrow being simple.

                    • :-) Heh... lefty

                    • No. Though as usual you are a really sore winner.
                    • I forgive you.
                    • I neither asked forgiveness nor committed any act that would cause me to ask for it.

                    • Well, he is a conservative. He voted twice for the nation's *most conservative president ever*. The next president will be even more *conservative* (as a republican, she's a moderate), and he'll vote for her twice too. Eight more years of whining about "lack of choice" you're gonna hear from this one. Here is your perfect "Counterpoint" [youtube.com], hardly needs further elaboration.

                    • I forgive your even more.
                    • That is a strange new way to troll there, smitty.
                    • I've forgiven you before, when your strained accusations went too far. But the forgiveness of Christ has been around a couple thousand years.
                    • The accusations are coming from you fast and furiously. Your accusation of me making accusations is itself quite the accusation. What your theology has to do with this is not at all clear.

                    • No, he's the slacker who bagged out on our agreement.

                      If you are referring to reading the Communist Manifesto, your statement is a total lie. I was the only one in that agreement who was actually reading the document, as your last statement on the matter proved conclusively. In fact you presented evidence that solidly supports the notion that you never even started reading it.

                      Blames me for it

                      Is someone else supposed to be held responsible for you not reading the document that you pretended to be interested in reading? I thought your party supported individual responsibil

                    • I read it, as my interspersed comments in the JEs clearly demonstrate.
                      Your vehement denials are Hillary-esque in their silliness.

                      your statement is a total lie

                      Wow. I suppose the only way to "prove" one has "read" TCM is to subscribe to it utterly, then?

                    • It's almost as though you're a deliberate gaslighter. . .

                    • I read it, as my interspersed comments in the JEs clearly demonstrate.

                      I don't know why you feel the need to lie about this repeatedly. Your last JE where you pretended to read it was very plainly a review of someone else's review, with no actual reading of the actual text involved.

                      Wow. I suppose the only way to "prove" one has "read" TCM is to subscribe to it utterly, then?

                      No. To read it, you need to read it. You abandoned it and regurgitated comments from other conservatives who were talking about it. If you want to do a meta-meta-analysis of it, you are free to do it, but don't try to sell that analysis as an actual reading of the actual document.

                    • I don't know why you feel the need to lie about this repeatedly. Your last JE where you pretended to read it was very plainly a review of someone else's review, with no actual reading of the actual text involved.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting [wikipedia.org]

                    • Well, we could look at your last JE on the matter [slashdot.org], where we can plainly see you devoting more time to talking about someone else's review of the Manifesto than actually reviewing it yourself. But go ahead, keep blaming me. Obviously I prevented you from honestly reading the document.

                    • But go ahead, keep blaming me.

                      Nah, just waiting for you to put on your big boy trousers and submit the next installment. C'mon: you can do it.

                    • The effort does not motivate you to read the document. What is there to gain if you refuse to learn? We could start from the beginning and see if you decide to make an effort to it, but history suggests that would be futile.
                    • Were Marx offering a valid, useful gospel, his proponents should:
                      - ". . .love to tell the story. For those who know it best seem hungering and thirsting to hear it like the rest" and,
                      - exhibit more or less infinite patience with those still early on in the enlightenment process.
                      Your sadly flaccid defense speaks wee volumes [amazon.com] for Karl's ideas.

                    • Were Marx offering a valid, useful gospel, his proponents should:

                      His Manifesto is valid, but I am not a Communist. If your claims are directed at me, you are doing it by way of an inaccurate label - mind you, a label that just again shows your lack of understanding of Communism.

                      - exhibit more or less infinite patience with those still early on in the enlightenment process.

                      You have shown disdain for learning anything about Communism for some time. Your actual motive for this stunt is unclear but learning can be easily ruled out.

                    • Your vehement denials are Hillary-esque in their silliness.

                      Oy! Out of the mouths of babes! Oh Lordy! I think I'm having one of my spells! Hep me! Hep me! I'ma comin' to join ya... Open up them pearly gates!

                      The messenger really means something after all. I mean, what would the world be without sardonic irony, hmmm?

                      I am so. flattered! Thank you so. very. much!

                    • For a non-Commie, you sure seem to have a strange emotional attachment to Marx's ideas. #JustSayin

                      You have shown disdain for learning anything about Communism for some time.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Your_Enemy [wikipedia.org]

                    • For a non-Commie, you sure seem to have a strange emotional attachment to Marx's ideas. #JustSayin

                      Again, you are showing how proud you are of your lack of knowledge on the topic.

                    • First Amazon, now this? What else you sellin'? You should open up and import/export warehouse, and get some more lipstick for the pig... or do you just dip it in wax?

                    • Workin' hard, tryin' to offer assistance based upon your behavior. . .
                    • I'm giving you the audience feedback of your demeanor on here. Your mission is to accept it.

                    • Doesn't work unless you belieeeeve...

                      Hmm, mmm..

                      You have to have loooove your heart! Not just for your god, but for alllll of his creatures, and ALL of creation!

                      That's right...

                    • One loves the light, but the light has a strange lack of mercy on darkness, as flipping on the wall switch reveals.

                    • Now you're anthropomorphizing darkness?

                    • What do you mean by 'now'? This has been a standard metaphor for, like, thousands of years. Just because Jonah Goldberg has not explored this metaphor should not render it non-existent for you.

                    • Calm down. I'm just saying it doesn't like that. And I am fully aware that Goldberg is not the only right wing nutcase you recite here..

                    • Well, Goldberg seems to have (at least temporarily) eclipsed Reagan in your Pantheon Of Obsessions That Would Seem Kinda Creepy If They Weren't So Silly.

                    • The creepiness comes from you, my dear friend. I do nothing more than reflect.

                    • Ah, that famous mirror.

                    • :-) Pure silver, baby... and *the best mirror is "copper free"*

                      Whew! Almost got nailed by unicode quotation thingies. There ya go! Pure ASCII also!

  • Charles Murray covers this matter at length in his most recent book, By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission [amazon.com]. His proposed solution is to set up legal defense funds with the aim of making regulatory enforcement so expensive and burdensome for the government that it backs off and shrinks back somewhat toward its proper scope. It's a good read.

    • Ah yes, the evil of public oversight. I can assure you that the irony of good intent [durangoherald.com] does not travel too far over my head.. So easy to 'take blame' when there are no consequences. Where is a Sword of Damocles when you need one? But I remember the days when this was quite a bit more common. So, now, overall, we who live downstream are a somewhat better off, if you're playing the odds, which I believe is how most of this shit is decided.

      Another rationalization I offer [osha.gov]... A safe workplace is nice, don't you th

      • Where is a Sword of Damocles when you need one?

        I'm pretty sure you don't mean the implied fascism of that allusion. Or maybe you do.

        • How is putting risk to wealth/power fascist?

          • You understand the allusion? The 'Damocles' part implies an absolute ruler. I was saying that I doubt you're comfortable with that.

            • Aren't 'the people' the absolute ruler?

              • people: plural
                ruler: singular

                • That's for you to reconcile. We can hang the sword over those we give authority. We need to put a high price on that authority. I see nothing wrong with treating abusers as common criminals. But simple removal from power is always adequate. No vengeance required. I'm not sure where you're coming from. Are you just playing charades and taking everything literally?

                  • That's for you to reconcile.

                    Peradventure I played your silly game, for brief amusement: plural is just a large value of singular.

                    We can hang the sword over those we give authority.

                    Fine, sure: redefine the concept of the Sword of Damocles [wikipedia.org]. The literal sword was placed by the king to strike fear in the henchman.
                    Our real problem isn't so much the jackwagons on the ballot, but the concentration of power in DC, the printing of money, the cancerous growth of bureaucracy, the way liberty is continually crushed under increasingly higher piles of unread legislation, the debt, and the morons w

                    • *sigh* From your link, exactly as I said:

                      ...an allusion to the imminent and ever-present peril faced by those in positions of power.

                      You responded as predicted, being all literal 'n shit...

                      And how many times are you going to keep on repeating your gospel according to Goldberg and all that other right wing drivel? It already has been made obvious now that you practice exactly the same kind of pervasive overbearing projection. I mean, please, do tell me once more all about maturity... I wish to be amused

                    • And you respond as predicted, defending The Man.
                      You're cute when your mask slips, revealing that you're just another airbrusher yourself.

                    • Damn! You Goldberged the thread again...

                    • Has your Goldberg fetish eclipsed your Reagan fetish yet?

                    • The fetish is yours. You are always reciting them, word for word, just like you do with your Pat Robertson/Rush Limbaugh. No biggie, your diarrhea of denial shall continue unabated. Please continue....

                    • . . .just like you do with your Pat Robertson/Rush Limbaugh.

                      You always make it about the persons, not the ideas. That seems like a key piece of your discussion avoidance strategy: annihilate all messengers, even the ones I rarely or never reference.

                    • Yes, it is their ideas you mimic, to the tee. The names are used as convenient distinguishable points of reference. You, on the other hand, are picking out a very generic person whose practice is entirely normal, part and parcel to the business. (your votes made it that way) And, as also pointed out by your doppelganger, it is indeed only because they are on the 'wrong' team. Your denials, no matter how many Libraries of Congress or Dyson Spheres they fill, will never withstand that simple fact. Save yourse

                    • Yours is a position of one refuting the idea of calculus, merely because guys like Newton and Leibniz (whom you seemingly despise) expounded upon the idea.

                    • Once again your attempt to mix apples and oranges does not compute. You are only trying to deny anything that contradicts your fantasies and conditioning. Your entire social status depends on it. It's all perfectly normal, and comes naturally. You are in good company throughout Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.

                    • I'll take all that substance-free hand-waving as tantamount to admission that your arguments are so much twaddle.

                    • Of course, Mr Goldberg. You win yet another trophy! You're going to have to add another room to the house to store them all.

Slashdot Top Deals

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Close