Reform Party leftists on rise

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bezdelnik

New member
A while back on this forum or the general forum, someone was bemoaning the tendency for third party candidates to divide the right and help the left (certainly true in 1992). Well, here is an article that suggests the Reform Party may be heading left, instead.

Reform Party leftists on rise: Why is a Marxist-Leninist group backing Buchanan?

Washington Post
NEW YORK — A once-marginal Marxist-Leninist group has become a major force in the Reform Party, aligning itself with Patrick J. Buchanan in what many members say is an effort to take control of the party.

Strange!!!

The full text of the article can be found at http://www.msnbc.com/msn/382362.asp
 
The problem today with our side (gunowners) is that most have yet to set themselves free (and literally divorce themselves) from the main stream media. Because they have yet to realize that the main stream media is leftist biased, they actually begin to believe these repeated lies.

You have to think like our enemies, to understand the extent that they will go to further their agenda. This of course includes an all out propaganda war against ANYONE who publicly threatens their agenda, especially those that intend on publicly exposing that agenda (like Pat Buchanon).

The status quo will NOT get us our freedom back. Extreme measures will be required for that to occur. If extremism scares you, as it does most people who have been lulled into this hypnotic PC state, then brace yourself.

Once upon a time, Americans used to perform witch hunts for Communists (socialists, leftists), today...Americans are lulled into supporting them as they entrench themselves even deeper into our political landscape.

If returning the Rule of Law is extremism...if returning our government to a Constitutionally based (and followed) system is extremism...if fighting tyranny and defending our freedom is extremism...if believing in a God, abiding by a high moral and ethical code is extremism...then count me in.

[This message has been edited by Paul Revere (edited March 15, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Revere:
...if defending tyranny and fighting for our freedom is extremism...if believing in a God, abiding by a high moral and ethical code is extremism...then count me in.[/quote]
Paul, I really, really hope you meant _opposing_ tyranny.
 
Revere,

I think the press is more complicated than you make it out to be. But, even if the press was one body with one agenda, and that body has waged an all-out propaganda war against Buchanan, then you have to admit it has also waged an all-out propaganda war against Clinton on morality grounds, and certainly against the Marxist/Leninists. If the press is biased, it is towards extremists (for better or for worse) rather than towards right or left, I think.

How do you figure Americans are less free than at any other time in our history? (You talk about regaining freedom.) Why is the status quo now worse than the status quo at any given point our country's history?
Okay, I can see from the point of the Second Amendment debate how it might be, but how else?
 
Bez...

You're not serious. Are you suggesting that we are as free today as let's say our great great grand parents were (except for 2nd amendment issues)?

If you run a business, build things, serve the public, raise livestock, cut timber, develop land, mine ore, fly a plane, drive a car, own a home, have children, pay taxes, or any multitude of endeavors, and you can honestly say that the government has no control over your life (or your endeavors), please tell me where you live. It is a fact that in just our generation alone, government bureaucracy has grown exponentially. IRS agents are now carrying firearms! Agents of the Bureau of Land Management are also carrying firearms...shall I continue? People are being jailed for digging a pond on their own property. Think about the alphabet soup of U.S. government agencies that affect our lives (and our livelihood), and you'll see severe losses of freedom.

Make a list of everything, all legislation, every executive order, every act, every treaty, and every law that violates the U.S. Constitution (most of them passed or enacted since Woodrow Wilson) and you'll find losses of freedom for Americans.

We have a government that is out of control. And as it has spun completely out of control, like a tornado racing through a small Nebraska farm town, it has grown to overwhelming proportions, sweeping up private property, private lives, and personal fortunes along the way. You'd have to be blind not to notice.

Today, unlike when my great great grandparents were alive, we are taxed on our income, on interest, on dividends, on capital gains, on purchases, on inheritances...shall I go on?...to the extent that we work nearly half of every year to pay taxes. Would you agree that that alone is a severe loss of freedom?

Now, do you want to discuss owning a firearm?
 
No, I'm not saying the government has no control or should have no control. That's not freedom. I'm not an anarchist, and I believe the government should have some control and that some control is for our own good.

That is definitely what our founding fathers had in mind. They weren't anarchists, either. The government has always had some control over our lives. You can find the oldest person you want, you can even raise the dead -- they'll still tell you that they've always paid taxes.

What about economic externalities? Has it ever occurred to you that some rules in society actually help you? If there is a law against setting up a toxic waste dump in your back yard, your neighbor may say that restricts his freedom to dump toxic waste, but you certainly would appreciate the law and your freedom from the stench.

Now I agree with you on some things, like gun rights and probably a whole host of other things. The difference is that I'm not alienated from the political process. This country was founded on a government for the people. Don't we still elect our leaders?

I know, I know, you think I'm naive because you've been alienated from the political process. But you also seem to think Alan Greenspan shot JFK from the manhole under the motorcade in Dallas. Who am I to say otherwise?
 
Paul Revere is entirely right. For a book-length exposition of the very points he makes here, see James Bovard's "Lost Rights" (St. Martin's Griffin, New York, NY). See how far we've fallen from the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Tragic.

[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited March 15, 2000).]
 
Okay, give me an example. I'm listening. I don't have time to read every book you and Professor Revere recommend.

Can you give me some example of unconstitutional laws (outside of the Second Amendment debate)?

(If any laws have been passed that violate the Constitution, then you and Revere should sue the state! ;) )
 
Yeah, reading a book is hard work. But you might want to try it sometime.

Your examples: Asset/property seizure laws. RICO. Agricultural commodity marketing boards. Most of the actions of the FDA. Most of the actions of the NLRB. Just about everything the EEOC has done since 1970. Police checkpoints. Entrapment. No-knock laws. The Commercial Speech Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine. Hate speech laws.

There are plenty more, but detailing them would take, well, a book.

[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited March 16, 2000).]
 
Taxation by regulatory agencies; laws enacted by regulatory agencies....

Both are solely the function of Congress.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Bezdelnik,

Liberals in general get a free ride in the contemporary world because most of the media is packed with liberals because the field of communications is an area of interest to them. Thus, most graduates of Communication Studies are, in general, of a politically liberal persuasion with all the beliefs and baggage that come with it.

We can see a similar phenomenon elsewhere in society. In the religious arena, some churches are packed with conservative communicants while other ones cater to a more liberal crowd depending on points of view, interpretation of scripture, deity, etc, tolerance of allowance for "sin", etc.

Yes, most anyone who tries to step back and analyze the media can't help but notice how some presidents are treated more harshly than others, and some can get away with certain activities that other presidents would get crucified over.

The press, as a whole, has a definate liberal bias.

Joe


Joe's Second Amendment Message Board
 
Yes, but aren't some of those helpful? Don't some of those give us more freedom instead of less? The FDA for example -- don't you like to have the freedom to eat whatever you buy at the store knowing that there are rules in place to keep food producers from putting rat poisoning in your soup instead of broth, just because it might be cheaper to do so?

Has anyone taken any of these to the Supreme Court? Has the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional? You might not like the Supreme Court justices, but they are the body that decides what is and what is not unconstitutional - not lawmakers. You can't say that having a Supreme Court make those decisions is not what our founding fathers had in mind. They created the darn thing!

If a lawmaker passes a law that is unconstitutional (I'm sure this happens frequently), shouldn't concerned citizens try through legal means to bring it before the Supreme Court?

By the way, reading books is not the problem. I read plenty of books. Right now I'm reading an excellent book about the history of the oil industry, The Prize. You should read it sometime if you haven't already. And I'm not even saying I won't ever read that one. But I can't very well go off and read every book someone suggests while we're debating this subject. There's no time....
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nralife:
Yes, most anyone who tries to step back and analyze the media can't help but notice how some presidents are treated more harshly than others, and some can get away with certain activities that other presidents would get crucified over.[/quote]

Has any president in recent history been treated more harshly by the press than President Clinton? That's not a liberal bias.

Why do you say liberals are more prone to the field of communications than anyone else? I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bezdelnik:
Yes, but aren't some of those helpful? Don't some of those give us more freedom instead of less? The FDA for example -- don't you like to have the freedom to eat whatever you buy at the store knowing that there are rules in place to keep food producers from putting rat poisoning in your soup instead of broth, just because it might be cheaper to do so?
[/quote]
The sad cry of "laws give us more freedom" is trumpeted frequently when a needless law is passed. In point of fact, no law gives you _more_ freedom. Laws proscribe your behavior, thereby eliminating choice. The fact that some of those eliminated choices are unwise doesn't make the law less proscriptive, not does it give anyone more freedom.

If a food manufacturer did in fact provide products with unsafe ingredients, then I'd expect two things: A rash of lawsuits from consumers, and a mass movement by consumers away from that manufacturer's products in favor of someone else's. And, in actual practice, the main accomplishment of the FDA is to increase the expense of bringing new food and drug products on the market, and delay such introduction. Ever wonder why new "miracle drugs" often appear on the European market before they're available here? Thank your FDA.
 
Bez...

I'll take your comment about "Professor Revere" as a compliment. What is frustrating to this "Professor", is when some students in his class pontificate on a subject that they admit they haven't studied, nor had "time" to study. Entering a debate without preparation is a losing cause. One studies subjects because one is interested in learning, thereby becoming more abreast of the subject matter, prepared for intelligent exchange.

If someone were to challenge me on the subject of nuclear medicine, I'd have to decline due to my lack of study in that field. I'd admit, I'd lose that debate. But I'd be very interested in learning about something that someone else has studied thoroughly, and listen carefully, asking many "stupid" questions along the way.

It is obvious from your posts that your field of expertise is not American history, or Constitutional law. It is also quite obvious that you have strong opinions about things which you admit a lack of knowledge of. But you continue to seek a debate nonetheless. You admit you don't have time to read books on subjects you include in your opinions. But you continue to seek a debate.

What America needs today Bez are informed and educated (not necessarily formal) voters. People who have suspicions and doubts about what they read or hear from major media sources, and seek the truth. Instead of quoting a leftist media perpetrated lie, examine it, dissect it, and uncover the truth. What you'll undoubtedly find there is frightening. But you'll be compelled to act upon that knowledge, compelled to learn more. Collectively, educated Americans will insist on Constitutional conformance, instead of usurpation.

As I've offered before to you...if you'd like a list of referces to get started on this study, I'd be happy to provide it. Until then, its best to keep your sarcasm in check. I'd much rather spend my energy on exposing the leftist agenda, and its attack on freedom loving Americans (most of the TFL members who participate in these discussions).

There is no substitute for knowledge.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Roberson:
A rash of lawsuits from consumers, and a mass movement by consumers away from that manufacturer's products in favor of someone else's.
Click to expand...

How are you going to file a lawsuit without a law enabling you to do so? What if all producers poisoned their food if it was cheaper to do so?

Wouldn't you rather have a drug delayed a bit on the market, than have it available earlier with serious side-effects?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bezdelnik:
How are you going to file a lawsuit without a law enabling you to do so? What if all producers poisoned their food if it was cheaper to do so?[/quote]

Bez, you should read what "Professor" Revere has written to you. You seem like a fairly intelligent guy, but you need to read some basic legal theory, and perhaps an introductory economics text, before you start trying to argue these points.

The creation of the FDA has absolutely nothing to do with tort law. A manufacturer's liability for his products -- in fact, any individual's responsibility for his or her actions -- exists entirely independent of the actions of regulatory agencies.

And, if all existing manufacturers put poison in their food, I would expect that they'd all be sued out of existence quickly and that some clever fellow would see that there was a market for unpoisoned food, and start a company to provide it.
 
Revere,

Yes, I was being sarcastic. I felt it an apt match for your sarcasm in other threads. You don't have to debate a darn thing if you don't want to.

Let's carry this "professor" metaphor a little further. Let's say you know more about the so-called "left-wing agenda" than I do. You're bantering on about conspiracies, encroaching government control, etc. I'm pointing out some weaknesses in your argument. If you were a professor, I should hope you would welcome a lively challenge from an interested individual, even if the individual doesn't have a background in constitutional law. Politics is certainly not rocket science or nuclear medicine -- you don't need a PhD to participate in a political debate.

This is a debate. It's not a lecture.

But I honestly think you are taking this WAY too personally. You make a point, I make a counterpoint, and you start attacking my credibility! Why not counter my counterpoints?

And don't tell me I'm quoting a "leftist media perpetrated lie" when you know darn well if I had read the Jeckyll book I or anyone might just as easily denounce that as a "rightist media perpetrated lie."

Basically, the gist of your post was that I shouldn't post to TFL because I don't share your political views and because I haven't read all of the anti-leftist literature. That's not very egalitarian of you!
 
Yes, David, they would be sued out of existence, but but you need some element of government in order to set up courts. That was my point.

I was looking at this from a more theoretical point of view. I guess you're looking at this from a more practical point of view -- namely, given our society today, all else being equal, we would be freer without the FDA. Perhaps. So you are saying, for example, Europeans might be freer because they can purchase drugs faster. You may be right in the strictest sense of the word, but I still think it's not a bad idea to have a potentially dangerous drug tested and approved before it is put on the market (that's just my opinion). But how is the FDA unconstitutional?

By the way, I've read more than a few economics texts. I was an economics major.
 
Bez...

On the contrary, I enjoy debate, and I'm not at all taking this debate personally. Once, a professor of mine told me that if I got real good at debating, I'd become a "Masterdebater"!

You still have a chance. The alien pods that have been turning people into leftist slugs has only got ahold of your ankle. You can shake it loose, with just a little effort.

Please take some time and review the contents of the following web site...
http://thenewamerican.com/

Start by doing a search in "Subject Index" by clicking on it at the top of the opening page, then click on the topic of your choice. This is the John Birch Society's monthly magazine. If you doubt the resolve of their quest for freedom, go to their site at ... www.jbs.org and read their mission statement. You'll be hard pressed to find another group of Americans who are more focused on exposing the "leftist agenda" then JBS.

You won't have to read a book if you don't want to, but if you change your mind, I have a library of references available upon your request.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top