Sorry, Chris, you're just a liberal. by HKCavalier

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Fairly well done, Wulf, kudos. And an excellent synopsis from one who believes in neither liberal nor conservative mindset. Except I would disagree with #6, and I agree with Agent about the terminology of #5.

Good quote, WhoDied...made me smile.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 8:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Fairly well done, Wulf, kudos.

I feel Wulf is underestimated in these parts, myself.

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 9:25 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

The National Socialist ideal IS the given goal of the liberals... as evidenced by the recent bs with the HCB...

... and before you argue. Is the HCB not National Socialism? It IS Socialism on a National scale...

The problem with it, is that the originial intention of setting up States, was to combat the idea of a National anything.

States rights trump Federal every time, IMHO.

Setting things up as states was ANOTHER check against totalitarianism.

What really grates on me, is this is so foolish. The libs are all for this expansion of the federalists, but if it was Republicans doing it, they would be against it.

Dammit, this is NOT a party thing.

This is an American thing. This goes against our right to choose, our right to be free of government involvment.

We cannot allow ourselves to go quietly into the night.

Yeah, Im ranting. Sue me. Call the FBI, or the CIA, or the DHS,... but come on!

You have to see that turning your healthcare over to the government is a BAD idea. For the libs who support it... what happens when a Republican is in office? Want them making the decision on whether you are worthy of receiving the care you need?

Dammit people! This is not ok! This is not even close to being ok. We are a republic for a goddamned reason. To prevent exactly this kind of shit!

Rant done.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The National Socialist ideal IS the given goal of the liberals... as evidenced by the recent bs with the HCB...

The health care reform bill is about as socialist as Donald Trump.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 9:44 AM

Wulf,

please don't ruin the impact of your list by harping on this national socialism thing. You do not seem to comprehend the basics of that ideology.

What "national" meant to the Nazis was not "on a national scale", it was tied to the racial concept of nation. Race = nation = nation state = battle of the races/Lebensraum/etc. The entire core of their ideology was race and its purity. It's nothing like that health care reform you guys got going on, the comparison is insulting on every level.

The term is really nothing like what you think it means.

You may have used it wrongly by accident before, or out of a lack of understanding, but now is really the time to stop twisting the two words as if paired together they don't already have a very specific meaning that simple doesn't fit here.

I'm not saying this to be a know-it-all. I'm saying it because it's a fundamental shame to twist that very specific history around, divorce it from fact and destroy all the actual lessons we are to take away from it. Please respect the historical facts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 10:06 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So... you want to argue that that the idea of forcing people to buy insurance is not socialism on a national scale?

Yes, I understand that the original Nazis used the idea of race as a catalyst of unification for their own purposes.. (and I wont get into the racial theory on which this HCB is founded. Who, may I ask, will be the sole recipients of such "funding".)

However, this "bill" subverts the ideals of individualism, in favor of "unification". Under one rule of federalistic appeal.

The comparison stands.

While Germany was one country..the US can be, and should be, viwed as a collective of unified, (tho by no means controlled) states.

These "states" were designed so that no king, or monarch could be in lawful rule of them all.

(For comparison)

This bill essentially states that one man may tell the entire populace of Europe that they must buy Fords. And, that their information and full driving habits will be recorded, while also stating that those who chose to drive something else... or not buy a Ford... will be taxed into jail.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 10:16 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

It also gives leave to the federal government to control the flow of information.

Do you know how much info is contained in your medical record? And how easy it is to subvert or change that information?

Lets say you are in opposition to the current government, and somehow against all odds, were able to recruit something of a following...

Under this plan, your medical record could be easily changed. "Oh yes, he had a history of mental illness, and subsequent suicidal thoughts... here is his medical record showing such things."

Imagine that, explaining why you were shot by federal authorities.

The world continues to spin, you stay dead.

Or, they use it to discredit you and your ideas. Something even worse.

Think outside the current regime. Imagine yourselg against the government.

Had this happened while Ghandi, MLK, MX, whomever? "Why yes, we HAD to execute them... they were dangerously non-comformist with traces of PTSD... we had all the evidence we needed here..."

People, please wake up. THis is another form of control.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 10:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
So... you want to argue that that the idea of forcing people to buy insurance is not socialism on a national scale?

No one needs to argue it, it's a fact. If you for one instant think that forcing people to buy the services of a private corporation is socialism, then you haven't a clue what socialism is.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The comparison stands.

No, it doesn't. There's a difference between a comparison standing and a pig headed refusal to admit you're wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
This bill essentially states that one man may tell the entire populace of Europe that they must buy Fords. And, that their information and full driving habits will be recorded, while also stating that those who chose to drive something else... or not buy a Ford... will be taxed into jail.

Which would be corporatism, not socialism, nationwide socialism, or Nazism (though Nazism is a form of fascism, a right wing political ideology).

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 10:21 AM

Why insist on calling it nazism when the more generic socialism without the racist/nationalist implications will serve just as well, though? Socialism is centralized, isn't that your main beef?

I repeat: "on a national scale" is a willful misinterpretation of what "nation" meant in the term national socialism. You can't just pretend that away by trying to tie it to a simplified states vs federal government issue. You don't get to throw around the term Nazi unless you're willing to include the entire ideology in your accusation, and since you accuse all liberals of being ultimately Nazis, you must be willing to accuse all of them of openly celebrating Klan ideology. And no, "metaphorically" doesn't count.

You're just being stubborn, it seems, because nazism is the flashier term. Trust me Socialism is flashy enough, especially when paired with (ye gods) the Catholic Church.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 10:29 AM

Wulf, you realize that depression is still not going to fly as a reason for execution? If they're going to justify their actions by framing someone, they'll pick something credible. Better yet, criminal. They don't need medical records for that. In fact, they can already do it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 10:51 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

No, you are right. Flat out saying "He was depressed so we executed him" would not fly...

But... saying "yes, he was a "terrorist" with ties to XYZ, and his medical history shows signs of "name your poison here", would.

Why are people so willing to give up control of their own lives? Is it because so many are screwing them up?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 10:55 AM

And "he was a terrorist" wouldn't be enough??

I don't see how the medical stuff would be relevant if they have to come up with an unrelated valid excuse anyway? No one is going to say "Don't shoot the terrorist - unless he has diabetes!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 11:15 AM

We need to systematically kill all free-thinkers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 11:38 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
As I see it..

The difference between liberals and conservatives are this:

1. Liberals believe that government is good. Conservatives believe it is bad.

2. Liberals believe that a higher human authority should run your life. Conservatives believe that this power should come from religion/God.

3. Liberals would have us enslaved to government. Conservatives would have us enslaved to religion.

4. Liberals want your money to give to someone who doesnt deserve it. Conservatives want you money to give to themselves.

5. Liberals are National Socialists. Conservatives are the Catholic Church.

6. Liberals want to destroy America and its ideals of freedom. COnservatives wish to subvert its ideals to their purposes.

A nice case-in-point about how black & white (lack of ambiguity) conservatives (oh, right.....libertarians...)can be.

Not to mention just gross mischaracterization of the both sides.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 11:43 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Just in hopes of adding some clarification:

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. (Wiki)

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. (Mirriam Webster)

Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy.(Wiki)

1 : a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control. (Mirriam Webster)

I think "fascism" is the more correct term for what Wulf fears we are headed toward. Just from those definitions.

But I think arguing about the terminology is a waste of time, especially since we all understand what he's talking about, whatever actual "term" he uses.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 11:46 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why insist on calling it nazism when the more generic socialism without the racist/nationalist implications will serve just as well, though?

Because that doesn't make is sound evil enough.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 11:49 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And "he was a terrorist" wouldn't be enough??

But you're forgetting, in Wulfie's scenario, he's attacking the Gov, which to him isn't terrorism.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 11:50 AM

FU*K definitions!!!
We choose to fear each other, or we choose to love each other.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 11:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Damn. This started out as a really great discussion; now it's devolved into something...tho' I'm not quite sure what.

Are there any conservatives out there who would like to give us their view of what Cav gave us in the very beginning; i.e., the root of the mentality of liberals v. conservatives?

Actually, I guess from the liberal point of view it's been hashed and rehashed, so maybe unless we can get a reasonable conservative here who would like to tackle the question, it might as well devolve.

Okay, carry on...I'm outta here until tomorrow anyway.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
FU*K definitions!!!
We choose to fear each other, or we choose to love each other.

I thought it was just me.

I thought I was special.

Slut. :p

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 12:57 PM

And the difference between corporatism and fascism is that in fascism it's government controlling private industry, and in corporatism, it's private industry controlling the government. It's getting kinda blurry which one exactly describes the American government at this point. ^_^' They seem to be pretty thoroughly in cahoots with EACH OTHER. Corporations help a corporate crony get elected, and if he has to leave the political arena, they offer him a job right quick.

Universal Health Care, which you see in other nations, but which isn't in any of the proposed bills even if they include the public option, that's socialism. The public option isn't universal health care, or even a national healthcare system. Private insurance companies stay around under the public option, the public option is just creating a government health insurance plan to compete against offered private insurance packages. It'll be a bureaucratic mess and honestly probably a waste of money because even if it gets passed it'll be cut off at the knees. The bill itself serves us all on a platter to private industry, really, which is what people should really be pissed off about, which again, that's corporatism, not socialism.

I'm undecided about Universal Health Care. The nations that have it seem so happy, it COULD help people. But on the other hand, our government, and the two equivalent sides of it, I don't trust either of them with that kind of power. You raise a valid point about how dangerous it is and how it can be used.

Also, yeah, Nazis weren't socialist, that's why they were buddy buddy with Italy, they're fascist. They gave themselves a name to appeal to the working class, but that doesn't really mean that's their ideology. Do democrats strike you as particularly democratic? They shouldn't, because they're not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 3:15 PM

yes, very interesting hypothesis HK, very well thought out..

what about those of us who consider ourselves libertarians, where do we fit into the equation? classical liberals like Jefferson, someone of the old right. In principles a traditional conservative would be against any form of coercion- social, governmental, military whatever.

now i understand conservatism has taken on a new meaning.. if by 'conservatives' we're referring to late-20th century republicans, 'compassionate- conservative'/pro-intervention types- what some call neo-cons, then i agree. id probably guise it more in the form of a projection of an (arguably subjective)'righteous' indignation- although i believe liberals can be guilty of the same(ie "social justice").

but what about the 'old' right, the Harding/Coolidge/Taft/Goldwater conservatism- which was very anti-war, non-interventionist?
these were people both against the New Deal and our intervention in the wars in Europe. the argument being both were forms of coercion.

at the time it was the Wilson/FDR administrations, the progressives, who began this notion that it was Americas moral duty to 'make the world safe for DEMOCRACY'. it was proponants on the left that argued for our envolvement in the both WW1 and 2- conservatives did not want to engage Americans in the wars in Europe. there were some, like Taft(i think) who didnt even want to lend a hand to the British! Taft and Goldwater certainly opposed our participation in the UN, Nato and the league of nations before that. our involvement in Korea and Vietnam were in many ways a consequence of our involvement in WW2, then later the so called 'domino effect' that began the cold war(i think this was why Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex). even Kennedy promoted this same notion, he believed it was our obligation to defend 'liberty' around the world at all costs. ironically, go back and watch the debates but prior to 9/11 conservatives were very critical of intervention, it was a common theme of the republican debates in 1996 and 2000. we all know the story after that

now traditional conservatives and classical liberals share some common ground with respect to gay marriage/prostitution/gambling/drug laws, being very 'pro-choice' in that respect, the old saying keep the government 'out of the boardroom and out of bedroom.' Goldwater, who wrote Conscience of a Conservative was very critical of the sort of emerging 'religious right', for using moral arguements to permit government coercion and intervention. of course there were moral arguments for the War on Poverty, the New Deal, the Great Society, todays healthcare 'reform', which i believe are examples of religious humanism. its never really seen as a violation of 'church and state' in typical ACLU fashion, but i dont see the difference. they both share the same aspects anyways. it translates to: neo-cons like military coercion, neo-liberals like social coercion

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 5:28 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

All good points and most interesting too.

I see Liberal/Conservative quite differently from the Dem/republican issues - which seem to range all over the political spectrum frankly (eg Neo cons and those with libertarian bent are quite different extremes)

Another way of looking at is absolutes vs abstraction.

Conservatives tend to see things in more absolute terms - that is things have definite shape and boundaries
eg
marriage is between a man and a woman and is for life
a family is a mother, father and children
a fetus is an unborn person with a right to be born
Those who do wrong should be punished
poor people are lazy

Liberals see things as being more abstract
eg
marriage is an agreed arrangement between two (or more)adults
families can come in many shapes and forms and are about love and care and commitment
the status of a fetus is determined by the person who carries it
The motives and circumstances of those who do wrong should be examined before a decision is made on how to treat them
Poor people are probably poor for a variety of reasons, including societal

The other difference is individual vs collective.

I think conservatives tend to view life through the lens of total individual responsibility - eg you reap what you sow
Liberals tend to look at societal causes for things such as poverty, unemployment and crime.

I'm talking about the more extreme ends of both those labels.

Although I bend more towards the liberal, well I'd probably be chased out of texas by a mob, I do find the black and whiteness of conservatives as irratating as the wishy washy poor boundries of the liberals.

Is there something imbetween black and white and endless grey?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 29, 2010 10:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

what about those of us who consider ourselves libertarians, where do we fit into the equation? classical liberals like Jefferson, someone of the old right. In principles a traditional conservative would be against any form of coercion- social, governmental, military whatever.

You've got that backwards. The terms left and right come from pre-revolutionary France, where the Royalists sat to the right of the monarch, and the Republican reformists to the left. The Right was originally for strong centralised government, you're describing a traditional Liberal, not a traditional Conservative.

The ideals have transformed somewhat, but I think there's more than a little bit of those original positions shining through. Conservatives tend to support deregulated markets, which benefit organisations, liberals tend to want to limit the power of organisations over individuals.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:12 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So lets go over this:

1. The Patriot Act: Gives the government the authority to monitor you. Your bank accounts, phone calls, emails, websites visited, books read, channels watched, places driven, purchases made...

2. The HCB: Gives the government the authority to control the medical care you receive, how much you receive, as well as complete access to all of your medical history, and requires you to register. Blood type, fingerprints, hair, skin, bodily fluids.... all registered and accessible by the government.

Umm guys... don't you have a problem with this?

Well, we can always march and make them change... except, that didnt work with Iraq, Afghanistan, OR the HCB...

Well, we can always have an armed revolution... except, see 1 and 2.... and how long until being armed is classified as a mental health disorder?

So......?

This is 1984 guys... on a bigger scale and much, much worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:46 AM

No arguments from me there, Wulf. Well, actually I'm not sure the healthcare bill goes QUITE that far, but as a precedent, it could be abused, increase monitoring and control. So I think your concerns are valid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I figured I'd post this for now -about one of the benefits of having big brother looking over the shoudler of business:

DANGER AT THE HEALTH-FOOD STORE

Isn’t it terrible to think that you can take something to improve your health that instead endangers your life? Yet, that’s what can happen if you take a dietary supplement contaminated with toxins or dangerous drugs. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is an obscure problem, because it is not. In fact, in 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discovered that dozens of dietary supplements contained active pharmaceutical ingredients -- meaning prescription drugs -- not listed on their labels. Experts believe that the more than 140 contaminated products that the agency has exposed so far are just the tip of the iceberg, with many more currently on shelves and available for sale.
Pieter A. Cohen, MD, an associate residency director at Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts, sounded an alarm with his article "American Roulette -- Contaminated Dietary Supplements," in The New England Journal of Medicine last October. When I called to ask about the report, Dr. Cohen told me that he’d noticed a pattern among patients taking what they thought were "natural" weight-loss pills who were experiencing significant side effects. "We found that these pills actually contained potent prescription medications," he said. He added that it’s important for people to realize that when you buy a drug such as aspirin, you know that the FDA scrutinizes such products and therefore, barring manufacturing mistakes, you can rely on the fact that what is on the label is what is in the bottle. But when you buy a supplement, there’s a greater possibility that it may contain undeclared prescription medications... drugs rejected by the FDA due to safety concerns... toxic metals, such as lead or mercury... bacteria... or pesticides.
A few particular types of supplement are more dangerous -- you’ll learn why in a minute. Before that, though, it’s important to know why such potentially harmful products are being sold in stores in the first place -- so you know how to protect yourself.
GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION
Supplement manufacturers once had to demonstrate that their products were safe before they could sell them. That’s no longer the case. Under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), a federal law, the official presumption is that supplements are safe unless or until proven otherwise. No clinical trials are required before a product is marketed, and if a problem arises, the burden is on the FDA to prove that it’s unsafe before taking action to restrict its use or to pull it off the market. Many people erroneously assume "natural" means "safe" and they think, therefore, that these products are less likely to be harmful than pharmaceuticals -- but the problems that arise usually are due to ingredients not listed on the label.
Of course, it is illegal to sell tainted products, and reputable companies don’t. But the lack of oversight can make it easy for unscrupulous supplement manufacturers to sell adulterated products. In one study, researchers found that more than one-third of dietary supplements claiming to treat erectile dysfunction (ED) or to otherwise enhance male "performance" contained undisclosed prescription drug ingredients -- the same ones in those drugs you see advertised on TV. This is bad news -- the reason they require a prescription is that it’s dangerous for certain people, such as those on heart medications.
THE WORST SUPPLEMENTS OF ALL
Any type of supplement could potentially be contaminated with poor-quality, even toxic ingredients. But one of the most potent dangers -- the presence of active pharmaceutical medications -- is most likely to be found in three categories of products: those for sexual enhancement...for weight loss... and for athletic performance. Also be wary of products marketed not just for general health but for particular conditions -- such as diabetes, insomnia or high cholesterol -- which are likely to contain numerous ingredients and thus pose a greater risk.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:30 AM

I'm not sure the FDA is a good counter example. I think they let a lot of crap get past the radar.

Government regulation, like workplace health and safety, yeah, that can be a good thing. The problem appears when the regulators get all buddy buddy with the people they're supposed to be regulating... Which I think is an unfortunate and inevitable side effect of the regulators and regulated working closely together.

Be nice if we had some kinda system that valued honesty and human life and health above profits, maybe then we wouldn't need regulators.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Though I don't know if you can count on 'the marketplace' to be such a system as some people claim. Too often when the rules have been relaxed, even as minimal as they are - for example the rules that kept consumer banks and investment banks apart - the results have been anywhere from dangerous to economically devastating.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:53 AM

When did I say anything about marketplaces?

That's why we're in this mess. Currently marketplace means a form of competition focusing on profits profits profits. Competition isn't bad, but the way it's approached and the attitude and the end goal simply don't work. If your foundation is rotten, sinking in the mud, you don't salvage anything building more on top of it. We need to change up what we're doing. Try something new, that hasn't failed hundreds of times before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh - sorry Byte - not you. This is an old topic which has been hashed and rehashed. There is a strain of government BAD ! business GOOD ! that I was thinking of.

I've been thinking of SignyM's cooperative approach. And two thoughts collided, which I haven't resolved.

One is that even cooperatives are ruled by the profit motive, and there is nothing inherent in them to keep this from happening.

The other is that if you suppose that this stuff is done by pathological individuals working under pathological rules (the current rules that say that corporate heads and boards must have the business interests of the investors as their only duty) - then rule by common agreement would keep the pathological individuals from gaining control.

IMO it comes down to: are things ruled by inherent sytematics or 'human nature' ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Though I don't know if you can count on 'the marketplace' to be such a system as some people claim. Too often when the rules have been relaxed, even as minimal as they are - for example the rules that kept consumer banks and investment banks apart - the results have been anywhere from dangerous to economically devastating.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Actually there's a real world example. The food industry in 19th century England was completely deregulated, regulation was brought in when the market was incapable of preventing people from selling lead in flour, boot lacquer as toffee and arsenic as a food additive.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:31 AM

Human nature is almost impossible to quantify due to the large degree of variation, so I consider it a flawed concept. As such, everything is likely systematic in influence, with some amount of inherent individual personality playing a role.

You have a point about the cooperatives, but that's mostly because of current conditions. A cooperative existing under different conditions might not have any need for a profit motive. As such, and because of the inherent flexibility they possess in structure, they're a good transitory business model.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have always tried to avoid 'human nature' arguments myself as I consider them to be invalid. Is it 'human nature' to live like the Spartans ? Or like the Quakers ? The answer is yes.

That puts sytematics in the control position. However, humans - being biological entities - do exist on a bell curve. For any one 'trait' you will find a vast majority in the middle and a few on either end. So the question becomes 'how rugged is the system to outliers' ?

Anway, I personally need to ponder it much further.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:43 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magon, thanx for addressing the initial issue, I found that interesting. Yes, the black-and-white thinking of conservatives seems to be a pretty universal thing, as does the muddied greys of liberals.

After reading all this, I'm awfully glad to be a liberal. I can't imagine anyone WANTING to be all the various things that have been described here, and are, as far as I've ever been able to see, pretty accurate.

Anyone figure out why liberals are for the most part more plentiful on both Coasts, but conservatives on the southern coast? Someone said long ago--and it made sense to me--that coastal areas tend to be more liberal because they're exposed to different cultures, shipping and all, but the southern coasts don't fit that mold. We tend to fit that mold on the two Coasts...and even it seems some of the Great Lakes areas which get commerce, but what happened to the coasts in the South?

As to something between black and white and endless greys, yes, it's a shame there isn't--or that the two couldn't get together and find some commonality where they could share both...

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:22 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
1. Liberals believe that government is good. Conservatives believe it is bad.

God damn, this meme needs to die the death. It's such a transparent a lie.

Conservatives don't believe government is bad. Police are government. The Air Force, Navy, Marines, etc.--all government. Conservatives absolutely love executive government (as long one of theirs is in charge). The government they think is "bad" is parliamentary government, legislative government--you know, the parts that make it a democracy. More precisely, they have NO RESPECT for government, they treat government like their bitch. Use it, abuse it, get everything they can out of it, brag about how much they're getting and then toss it aside, blame the mess on someone else. They have this distorted notion that somehow the Federal Government with all its tax revenue and agencies and such is some foreign body they can pillage without themselves suffering.

Y'know, what they're really about is PUNISHING government (ha ha, brought it back on topic!) in absurd denial that they aren't hurting themselves or the country as a whole.

And o' course, "government" just means having someone in charge. So conservatives prefer plutocracy to democracy. Hard to get away from government if you still want somebody calling the shots.

(I don't tend to have much time for RWED during the work week and I still owe some folks replies--not sure if I can get to them all--you people spend too much time here!!!

Anyway, if anyone feels like they deserve an answer to any particular posts of theirs, just drop me a PM to remind me. Thanks again, everyone, for the lively discussion!)

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:34 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Bang on. The strange thing to me is that this cry of "less government" is so loud, yet Republican Presidents have almost universally INCREASED GOVERNMENT, compared to Dems. How does the concept that Repubs want less government if that's the case? It mystifies me.

Damn; I wish I could get pm's. I don't know if anyone has ever tried to PM me other than Mike who mentioned it, but I don't get them...am I missing something in my setup or something?? Very frustrating.

And yes, I know I for one spend WAY too much time here...I keep thinking "Okay, I'll spend an hour or two" and the next time I look, it's 2:00!!! Need to find a way to practice more self-discipline, but it's all I can do to start the day withough coming here. It's stimulating, I learn SO much, and it's my form of socialization--hard to stay away.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The strange thing to me is that this cry of "less government" is so loud, yet Republican Presidents have almost universally INCREASED GOVERNMENT, compared to Dems.

True Republicans want less government. But the Republicans have been infected with the sickness of the NeoCons.
Now, EVERYONE in government wants bigger government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
1. Liberals believe that government is good. Conservatives believe it is bad.
God damn, this meme needs to die the death. It's such a transparent a lie.

Conservatives don't believe government is bad. Police are government. The Air Force, Navy, Marines, etc.--all government. Conservatives absolutely love executive government (as long one of theirs is in charge). The government they think is "bad" is parliamentary government, legislative government--you know, the parts that make it a democracy. More precisely, they have NO RESPECT for government, they treat government like their bitch. Use it, abuse it, get everything they can out of it, brag about how much they're getting and then toss it aside, blame the mess on someone else. They have this distorted notion that somehow the Federal Government with all its tax revenue and agencies and such is some foreign body they can pillage without themselves suffering.

Y'know, what they're really about is PUNISHING government (ha ha, brought it back on topic!) in absurd denial that they aren't hurting themselves or the country as a whole.

And o' course, "government" just means having someone in charge. So conservatives prefer plutocracy to democracy. Hard to get away from government if you still want somebody calling the shots.

I was thinking something along these lines, but not quite the way you are.

I'm not entirely sure where the idea that the right is the political wing of individual freedoms comes from though. Seems to me every push for individual freedoms, from sufferance to civil rights, has come from the left, not the right. The foundation of the Right Wing was the Monarchists, supporters of strong Autocratic Central Government. The foundation of the left were those pushing for Democracy and Equality.

Now that Democracy is the Standard in the West, the right seems to have shifted focus from strong autocratic governments subverting individual liberty, to strong autocratic corporations subverting individual liberty. All the pushes for 'freedom' from the right are about subverting any ability the state has of preventing corporations from screwing people, while the right pushes for state control of individual liberties, as long as it's other peoples liberties that are being controlled.

I can buy that the right isn't against government so much as Democratic government, Democracy is the opposite of what the Right has been pushing for since it's inception.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I'm not entirely sure where the idea that the right is the political wing of individual freedoms comes from though.

Ummm... the Right-?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:34 PM

Quote:
Niki2-

Bang on. The strange thing to me is that this cry of "less government" is so loud, yet Republican Presidents have almost universally INCREASED GOVERNMENT, compared to Dems. How does the concept that Repubs want less government if that's the case? It mystifies me.

well.. youre not claiming the Dems are the frugal party are you? id be curious the last time they listed 'reining in government' as a pillar of the party platform

obviously the republicans dont have much of a leg to stand on, im not defending them, but any party in power is more or less continuing the status quo that began with the federal reserve act- then enabling the explosion in govt growth from the '30s onward. our national debt remained pretty steady at 1 or 2 billion until ww1, after which it went up to 25 billion! (and i thought only republicans started costly wars?) growth was fairly steady through the 20's under Harding/Coolidge, they kept taxes low and government out of the way, and we had incredible growth and relatively steady government spending. what about the fact that the New Deal and Great Society, which created trillions in entitlements, were democrat initiatives? we have these enormous programs that are insolvant, billions in the red.. and theres no acknowledgement of their failure. apparently the good intentions ultimately trump the negative consequences

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:16 PM

Quote:
posted by Citizen-

I was thinking something along these lines, but not quite the way you are.

I'm not entirely sure where the idea that the right is the political wing of individual freedoms comes from though. Seems to me every push for individual freedoms, from sufferance to civil rights, has come from the left, not the right. The foundation of the Right Wing was the Monarchists, supporters of strong Autocratic Central Government. The foundation of the left were those pushing for Democracy and Equality.

maybe in your country, but in America it was ironically the republican party that fought more often and harder for civil right legislation. the Jim Crowe, 'white only' segregation laws were enacted by democrats. the abolitionists were republicans, we all know it was Lincoln who issued the emancipation proclamation, but republicans actually tried to pass civil rights legislation in the 1880s but were struck down by the supreme court. Woodrow Wilson went through the effor of resegregating the military! and it was democrats, namely KKK Robert Byrd(still in office) and Al Gores father, who filibustered the '64 civil rights bill- and republicans voted in higher percentages then democrats at the time. im sure ill just catch heat for this, but its complete revisionist history to paint the AMerican 'right' as the racist, xenophobic party.. when traditionally it has been the 'left'

Quote:

I can buy that the right isn't against government so much as Democratic government, Democracy is the opposite of what the Right has been pushing for since it's inception.

im not against democracy, per se- but am against mob rule. should a 51% majority have the right to take away the liberties of the other 49%? a Republican form of govt garauntees that a majority cannot vote away rights of a minority, or anyone for that matter.. gauranteed by the constitution. if you have a constitution of mush and relativism, then you have a full fledged democracy unhindered by 'absolutes' or garauntees(which is what you probably have). this may be what many people on the American left want, but you will never get conservative/libertarians to go along with it. its a fundemental difference

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:03 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Seems to me every push for individual freedoms, from sufferance to civil rights, has come from the left, not the right. The foundation of the Right Wing was the Monarchists, supporters of strong Autocratic Central Government. The foundation of the left were those pushing for Democracy and Equality.

And yet the Right claims to be the party of freedom, all the while crapping on it, and those that most enjoy the benefits paid for in the blood and sorrows of those "dirty commie-anarchist scum", spit at and despise us for daring to want more than the crumbs of the masters tables.

"There are two great powers, and they’ve been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit.”
Philip Pullman: The Subtle Knife

Sure, that's a biased perspective, but it's also the creed I live by - I *know* which side of that I serve, do you ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
maybe in your country, but in America it was ironically the republican party that fought more often and harder for civil right legislation. the Jim Crowe, 'white only' segregation laws were enacted by democrats. the abolitionists were republicans, we all know it was Lincoln who issued the emancipation proclamation, but republicans actually tried to pass civil rights legislation in the 1880s but were struck down by the supreme court. Woodrow Wilson went through the effor of resegregating the military! and it was democrats, namely KKK Robert Byrd(still in office) and Al Gores father, who filibustered the '64 civil rights bill- and republicans voted in higher percentages then democrats at the time. im sure ill just catch heat for this, but its complete revisionist history to paint the AMerican 'right' as the racist, xenophobic party.. when traditionally it has been the 'left'

It's my understanding that the two parties essentially swapped sides at one point, given that the revisionist history would be trying to paint the Republicans as always being the right wing.

Lincoln emancipated the slaves as a political gesture to prevent Britain and France from supporting the Confederacy, he didn't do it because he actually wanted free slaves. I'm sure Frem could point out how the civil war was more about expanding central government Federal power as well.

I don't think I mentioned Republican's vs Democrats did I?

Both Republicans and Democrats are right wing parties, the Democrats are currently left of the Republicans, but who the hell isn't? They're both right wing parties, QED.

EDIT:
Oh, I'm also fairly sure that neither of those parties actually organised any of the civil rights movements...

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:25 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree with Chris

Quote:
the Republicans have been infected with the sickness of the NeoCons.
Now, EVERYONE in government wants bigger government.

As for

Quote:
youre not claiming the Dems are the frugal party are you?

I definitely am not. Merely that the RECENT right has increased government as much, or more, than the left.

Quote:
but any party in power is more or less continuing the status quo

I can’t say with certainty when it began, I’m not that well versed in such things. But I do know that any party in power does more or less continue where the previous party left off. Each wants their own “control”, so government grows to reflect that.

Still doesn’t get down to the core of the mentality on left or right, but it appears nobody on the right is going to present any cogent arguments from a rightist point of view, which is a shame. I’d really have liked to hear that.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:28 AM

Quote:
posted by Citizen-

It's my understanding that the two parties essentially swapped sides at one point, given that the revisionist history would be trying to paint the Republicans as always being the right wing.

i should get out of the habit of using the terms 'left' and 'right', it is misleading. i use them as synonyms for dems/repubs, but i understand in Europe it refers to opposing sides of parliamant(am i correct?). but considering that communism/fascism are both authoritarian ideologies, it is a little deceptive to speak of them in opposing terms. unconsciously i refer to left and right on a scale, with one extreme representing tyranny, the other anarchy; with libertarianism alongside.

Quote:
Lincoln emancipated the slaves as a political gesture to prevent Britain and France from supporting the Confederacy, he didn't do it because he actually wanted free slaves. I'm sure Frem could point out how the civil war was more about expanding central government Federal power as well.

im not arging about that, im just saying that it was anti-slavery and abolitionists who started the party. the party was born out of this movement

Quote:
im also fairly sure that neither of those parties actually organised any of the civil rights movements...

there is some history post civil war, of congress going after the Klan, but.. well what do you expect!?.. they were a bunch of white guys

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 1, 2010 10:54 AM

HKCAVALIER

I'd like to revisit my original topic, if I may.

I can absolutely see that the terms "generosity" and "punishing the wicked" have some pretty unhelpful connotations for a lot folk. I can't be surprised at all that the few conservative posters who would even touch this thread object to the "punishing" bit, even though I'm far surer about the "punishing the wicked" terminology than I am really about "generosity." Generosity, per se, is much too general a term for what I'm really getting at, and "kindness" is in some ways worse.

Y'know, the whole point of using the emotionally charged language is to focus attention on the emotional charge. The problem is, everyone, more or less, sees generosity as a good thing. Everyone, more or less, wants people to be kind to them. So it has this sort of aggregate "better than" quality, so the conservatives who feel maligned by my argument, see me as hopelessly biased.

One thing about the hierarchy of value that I was trying to allude to in all this was the argument we've had around here since 9/11 about whether or not it is true what George Orwell said: "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf." It was a go-to argument by the right to shush up bleeding hearts at the time. It reflects a hierarchy of value, or perhaps a hierarchy of necessity in some people's minds. So, committing violence is necessary before we can promote kindness.

To be more precise than words like "generosity" or "kindness" really allow, I have to talk about what I perceive as the fundamental place violence holds in the liberal and conservative world views.

I see two diagrams. For the left I see "violence" inside a shrinking circle. Violence is something that needs to be reduced and ultimately eliminated. The principal tools in the liberal bag are optimism, generosity, education, safety nets, etc. The liberal may become overzealous and start pushing, start coercing, fantasize about "forcing" people to reduce their violence, push for gun control, etc. Any conservative will notice the inconsistency instantly and call foul. Whereas, the liberal, focusing always on her ideals, prolly won't notice what she just did there.

For folks on the left, violence is fundamentally a bad thing, at least an unfortunate thing, never the best outcome, always a last, or at least regrettable resort. (I'm speaking emotionally/morally here, idealistically, I'm speaking of values, not for a second am I saying that liberals can't be inconsistent, muddle-headed, compulsive, homicidal, insane, etc.) Violence is not something that liberals integrate into their world view except as a compromise, an expedient that may be necessary in certain really terrible situations that they'd rather not think about and hope some day to eliminate anyway. It's where the liberals get their reputation for being "soft," the ambiguity in their relationship toward evil perceived as "wishy-washy," "flip-flopping," etc.

The conservative diagram is entirely different. Violence in my conservative diagram connects "the righteous" and "the wicked" like a cord. It is a fundamental relationship the conservative sees in reality. Where the liberal diagram changes over time, with the circle of violence getting smaller by degrees, the conservative relationship to violence is eternal, unchanging. For the conservative, violence does have an entirely appropriate place in the world, even a crucial place. Appropriate violence, good violence, righteous violence (which is a pretty much knee-jerk oxymoron in the liberal mind) is the violence that flows from the "the virtuous" toward "the wicked." As long as violence flows along this axis and only this axis, then violence is a nearly sacred thing, hardly even thought of as "violence" in the sense liberals mean it (something, people like me, have no right to even speak of). And violence that flows the opposite way, the violence of the wicked perpetrated upon the virtuous, is the gravest evil and the reason righteous violence exists in the first place. And that's why violence committed against "the wicked" is entirely the fault of the wicked. The wicked MAKE the virtuous commit violence.

A couple curious consequence of this, psychologically, are 1.) that whether violence is the good kind or the utterly evil kind, is often determined with only half of the equation known and 2.) since wicked people by their natures force virtuous people to be violent, then wicked people are deserving of violence regardless of their immediate actions. If someone is understood to be one of "the virtuous" then his acts of violence will be presumed to be the good kind and his victims will be presumed to be deserving (spankings, anyone?). Conversely, if the victim is a known "bad actor" then the conservative wants him punished and is singularly uninterested in who does it or the circumstances--justice is served and only a liberal would want to ferret out any further details--and their motives for doing so are all too obviously malign.

I think this explains, for instance the problem with gay marriage. Gay people are definitively "wicked" according to the bible. As the wicked, they are an existential threat to the virtuous, to "opposite marriage."

Violence against gays, infringement of their rights, isn't really violence, isn't really infringement--it's just the appropriate order of things. Violence is meant to flow from the virtuous toward the wicked.

Promiscuous women who get abortions? Similarly wicked and not deserving of protections or assistance.

Granted, many conservatives are not much interested in either gays or promiscuity (yay, progress!) and since they do not consider either "wicked" may even support gay rights or a woman's right to choose.

And, of course, a whole lot of people don't think things through. A whole bunch of people have both theories running through their minds, the diminishing circle of violence theory and the violence flowing like a river of righteousness toward the wicked for all eternity. These I will call the "Shades of Grey" folk. Mostly liberals, or at least, thinking of themselves as liberals.

Such folks are kinda muddled, but when the chips are down, they're gonna default one way or the other. That's why I'm seeing this as an either/or situation and why I picked these two polarities: the violence is bad, but sometimes we may find ourselves mixed up in a violent situation and so we need to do something side vs. the violence is appropriate and absolutely a moral necessity when dealing with the wicked side, which I simplified to "generosity" vs. "punishing the wicked" in the OP. A person's emotional commitment either to one side or the other is gonna win out in the end and color all of their political beliefs and actions.

As for where Libertarians fit in: in some ways, I'm not talking about economics at all, not directly anyway. A lot of Libertarians, the "But I'm really a Libertarian" types, your AURaptors, your Glenn Becks, these people are conservatives through and through. Whereas folk like CTS here on the board and prolly Dr. Paul if he came clean (hence losing a lot of his rightwing support) much more focused on actual liberty and libertarianism.

There's a funny carry-over into economic issues if we replace "violence" in my two diagrams with "wealth disparity." Liberals tend to see "wealth disparity" as a kind of violence perpetrated against the poor (Dr. Paul's interpretation of inflation as a hidden tax on poor people, comes to mind). Their ideal is that wealth disparity should diminish over time as the world becomes a better place. Conservatives, on the other hand, have always equated wealth with virtue and economic poverty with spiritual poverty. So, conservatives see nothing wrong with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. They are blind to any violence such a system perpetrates against the poor. That's why they are so outraged by "wealth redistribution" which for them only exists in terms of the poor taking wealth from the deserving rich. When Signy says capitalism is wealth redistribution taking from the laborer and giving to the owner, it's just nonsense to the conservative. Economic violence experienced by the poor is the natural order of things. Economic violence experienced by the rich is terrorism.

Still more to come, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Thanks for listening.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 1, 2010 10:58 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Yeah Yojimbo was one of his best movies

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 1, 2010 11:17 AM