I was wondering where Ted Nugent was hiding all this time.
LOL. I'm a fan of the Nuge in terms of some of his music, but otherwise... what a douche.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I was wondering where Ted Nugent was hiding all this time.
The results of the 2012 election can be summed up in one sentence which I call the "Cry of the Sheeple":
"I ask not what I can do for my country, I ask what my countries government can do for me?!"
Xeper.
/Adramelek\
The Eternal Libertarian
when everybodie's saying "gimme", something's got to give.
Are you generalizing...?.....
“Do you want to feel good, or do you want to do good? Ted Nugent
He endorsed Romney this campaign though. It was after he sobered up he turned very religious. But as for their political albums, that is what I love about them. The political commentary of Rust In Peace, very relevant even 20 years later, is what really turned me onto Megadeth. And the song Peace Sells. But if he starts writting pro-right/anti-left songs he may loose a chunk of their fan base, which is pretty sad because out of the other Big Four I would say Megadeth, while not having the most fans, probably has the most loyal fans.I really don't know what the heck happened to Dave Mustaine, he's done a complete 180. I mean this is the same guy who was campaigning for Clinton back in the 90's and whose third and Second to last albums were largely anti-Bush Jr. I'm beginning to think as of late, he's just going to hate whoever is in office. Actually I'd prefer he not purely political themed albums at all.
Not so wacky once you take into consideration that Ayn Rand was one of LeVay's inspiration. It also just shows the diversity of views in the LHP, as some are more individualistic or collectivist, or a combination of both, some think the government should stay out while some think the government should do what it can to help the citizens that support and fund it.
Geeze Louise.....I leave town (& internet access) for a couple days, & come back to find that you Americanistanians haveThe results of the 2012 election can be summed up in one sentence which I call the "Cry of the Sheeple":
"I ask not what I can do for my country, I ask what my countries government can do for me?!"
Xeper.
/Adramelek\
The Eternal Libertarian
He's a socialist because ... ? Because he will raise the capital gains tax on top earners from 15% to 23%? Is that really a dividing line between capitalism and socialism or is that just tweaking things a bit? Again I remind you that under Reagan the capital gains tax was around 29%. What a socialist!Geeze Louise.....I leave town (& internet access) for a couple days, & come back to find that you Americanistanians have
voted in another in a long line of murderous bumbling socialists to run your country! I just cannot leave you guys unsupervised.
Socialism is not so much an economic state, but rather a leader's vector, ie, a direction &He's a socialist because ... ? Because he will raise the capital gains tax on top earners from 15% to 23%? Is that really a dividing line between capitalism and socialism or is that just tweaking things a bit? Again I remind you that under Reagan the capital gains tax was around 29%. What a socialist!
I see. So by your reasoning, if I think the military budget should be reduced by 9 percent, then I'm a pacifist. Just like Gandhi. Got it.Socialism is not so much an economic state, but rather a leader's vector, ie, a direction
in which a politician would steer the country, eg, Comrade Dubya, Comrade Barry.
Few people understand this. Why do I? I'm gifted that way.
I wouldn't go by the amount spent on the military, but rather by how that military is used.I see. So by your reasoning, if I think the military budget should be reduced by 9 percent, then I'm a pacifist. Just like Gandhi. Got it.
For all that he accomplished in the period prior to receiving it, eh?Maybe Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize after all?
Thanks for clarifying. According to Revoltingest, raising capital gains taxes 9 points = Socialism. But Pacifism is all about how Pacifists use their military. Clear as mud!I wouldn't go by the amount spent on the military, but rather by how that military is used.
This is mathematically simplistic.Thanks for clarifying. According to Revoltingest, raising capital gains taxes 9 points = Socialism.
I'll explain: To use a military strictly for immediate & incontrovertible self defense would be pacifistic.But Pacifism is all about how Pacifists use their military. Clear as mud!
Again, you're looking at cherry picked aspects of tax policy.It's amazing the mental gymnastics you have to use to say that 29% taxes under Reagan = Capitalism, but 23% under Obama = Socialism. It's all about the direction. Some day, the only way to avoid the Socialist label will be to lower taxes from 0% into the negative, indefinitely, according to Revoltingest.
Mr Spinkles said:Thanks for clarifying. According to Revoltingest, raising capital gains taxes 9 points = Socialism.
Exactly. I get that. But, judging by your comments, I don't think you do.Revoltingest said:This is mathematically simplistic.
Yes Revoltingest but, as was famously said in response to the question "How's your wife?": Compared to what?Revoltingest said:I'll explain: To use a military strictly for immediate & incontrovertible self defense would be pacifistic.
To use it for conquest or foreign adventurism would not be.
Think harder.Exactly. I get that. But, judging by your comments, I don't think you do.
Exactly!Yes Revoltingest but, as was famously said in response to the question "How's your wife?": Compared to what?
That is an extreme form of pacifism, which typically isn't practical...Sure, compared to offensive military operations, defensive military operations are pacifistic. But compared to renouncing the use of violence entirely, defensive military operations are not pacifistic.
Again, you miss the point if you create a straw man stuffed only with isolated aspects of tax policy & other government policies.If you want to play similar word games with taxes, then you can only say that Obama's 23% rate on capital gains is "socialist" compared to Bush's rate. Similarly, Reagan's rate was "socialist" compared to Obama's rate. Me, I prefer to not play such word games and just call it a 9 point tax increase which still keeps rates lower than what they have been historically.
It's more like the definition of Pacifism, actually.That is an extreme form of pacifism, which typically isn't practical...
...such countries would tend to be subsumed into the conquering country.
Yes, I get that. You're saying that, looking at policy as a whole, "socialism" means increasing tax revenue, while "capitalism" means decreasing it. I don't think that's a sensible use of those words. Even under "capitalism" tax revenue exists, we have to decide on some numbers and those numbers can go up and down a bit. There is no sense, apart from rhetoric, in interpreting such policy changes as exchanging one metaphorical speaker system for another. It's more like keeping the same system but adjusting one of the knobs.Revoltingest said:Again, you miss the point if you look only at isolated aspects of tax policy & government policy.
As you've noticed, I like to customize definitions.It's more like the definition of Pacifism, actually.
Too simple. I'd say.....Yes, I get that. You're saying that, looking at policy as a whole, "socialism" means increasing tax revenue, while "capitalism" means decreasing it.
As I said "socialism" isn't inherently defined by the existence of taxation, but rather a general motion in the direction of socialism.I don't think that's a sensible use of those words. Even under "capitalism" tax revenue exists, we have to decide on some numbers and those numbers can go up and down a bit. There is no sense, apart from rhetoric, in interpreting such policy changes as exchanging a metaphorical speaker system, rather than adjusting the volume on a single system.
Yes but a convenient and misleading way of looking at things, Revoltingest.Revoltingest said:Don't think of my definitions as being writ in stone.
They're just a way of looking things.
To fervent partisans who would deny their own socialistic tendencies it might appear that way.Yes but a convenient and misleading way of looking at things, Revoltingest.