• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cry of the Sheeple

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I was wondering where Ted Nugent was hiding all this time.

nugentmeltdown-2.jpg

LOL. I'm a fan of the Nuge in terms of some of his music, but otherwise... what a douche.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
 

somethingNiftyhere

Squadoosh 1@ATime
I've watched the old concert videos of Ted Nugent when he was much younger and even more wild than he is now on stage.

I always thought he was a drug addict and loaded to the gills, acting like that. Turns out it was just a super huge dysfunctional family sized dose of Testosterone pumping him up.

One would have thought that would be dwindling in supply now that he's old. Maybe someone can grab a siphon and drain some off. Then he'd make more sense.

Nah, probably not.
The ultimate last word to Ted, Victoria and the Donald, is they have to live the next 4 years with Obama in the White house. While tweeting doesn't change a thing about that.While their tweets speak volumes about them.

“Do you want to feel good, or do you want to do good? Ted Nugent
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
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.
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.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
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.

Well, yeah, that obviously makes sense and I wasn't disputing that. But what doesn't make sense to me is LHPers supporting christian fundamentalists who want to impose their religious morality and limit personal freedoms.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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
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.
 
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.
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! :facepalm:
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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! :facepalm:
Socialism is not so much an economic state, but rather a leader's vector, ie, a direction &
magnitude 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.
 
Last edited:
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 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.

Maybe Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize after all?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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.
I wouldn't go by the amount spent on the military, but rather by how that military is used.

Maybe Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize after all?
For all that he accomplished in the period prior to receiving it, eh?
I want a Nobel Physics prize for promising to deliver the theory of everything!
 
I wouldn't go by the amount spent on the military, but rather by how that military is used.
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! :)

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.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Thanks for clarifying. According to Revoltingest, raising capital gains taxes 9 points = Socialism.
This is mathematically simplistic.
Consider: If an increase in capital gains tax is offset by a revenue neutral
income tax reduction, this wouldn't seem to head in the direction of socialism
One must look at the total picture.

But Pacifism is all about how Pacifists use their military. Clear as mud! :)
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.

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.
Again, you're looking at cherry picked aspects of tax policy.
There are no gymnastics if you seek to understand before you criticize.
 
Mr Spinkles said:
Thanks for clarifying. According to Revoltingest, raising capital gains taxes 9 points = Socialism.
Revoltingest said:
This is mathematically simplistic.
Exactly. I get that. But, judging by your comments, I don't think you do.

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.
Yes Revoltingest but, as was famously said in response to the question "How's your wife?": Compared to what?

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. 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.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Exactly. I get that. But, judging by your comments, I don't think you do.
Think harder.

Yes Revoltingest but, as was famously said in response to the question "How's your wife?": Compared to what?
Exactly!

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.
That is an extreme form of pacifism, which typically isn't practical...
...such countries would tend to be subsumed into the conquering country.
I consider myself a pacificist....of a flavor called "non-agressionist".
This is why I don't feel much kinship with Dems or Pubs.

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.
Again, you miss the point if you create a straw man stuffed only with isolated aspects of tax policy & other government policies.
The overall picture is what determines whether the vector is socialist or not.
 
Last edited:
That is an extreme form of pacifism, which typically isn't practical...
...such countries would tend to be subsumed into the conquering country.
It's more like the definition of Pacifism, actually.
Revoltingest said:
Again, you miss the point if you look only at isolated aspects of tax policy & government policy.
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.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
As you've noticed, I like to customize definitions.
But I don't want to confuse, so that's why I explain the definition's purpose.

Yes, I get that. You're saying that, looking at policy as a whole, "socialism" means increasing tax revenue, while "capitalism" means decreasing it.
Too simple. I'd say.....
Advancing an agenda which has the net effect of moving government in the direciton of socialism.
This would be more than just total tax revenue. It would also be about how the revenue is harvested,
the extent of regulation, taking of economic value, subsidies & redistribution of wealth.

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.
As I said "socialism" isn't inherently defined by the existence of taxation, but rather a general motion in the direction of socialism.

Don't think of my definitions as being writ in stone.
They're just a way of looking things.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes but a convenient and misleading way of looking at things, Revoltingest.
To fervent partisans who would deny their own socialistic tendencies it might appear that way.
But I'm shoot'n for the opposite of "misleading" by carefully explaining when & why is use these definitions.
I want to help them understand themselves, what they do, & the long term consequences.
No need to thank me....I live to serve.
 
Top