Lying Lester's Deep Thoughts On oBama & sTatism

Self determination and self governance... dEmocratic sOcialists seek to fundamentally transform our capitalism-based society via elections. Obama, the man - and I use the term loosely - is a product of the "dEmocratic sOcialist" movement. I often dissemble and use the term "sTatist" which essentially means a belief that the sTate The People through their elected representatives and senators have the power to determine the nation's course (which Lying Lester opposes).

As society has grown, along with it has grown the demands placed on the sTate by The People. Keep in mind the response to the Great Depression by FDR and the "New Dealers". Add to that John Kennedy's "New Frontier" and Lyndon Johnson's "gReat sOciety" and the stage was set long ago has been trending in the natural course one would and should expect.

We're on a steady march toward sOcialism, in other words. But the dEmocrats are not alone in their desire to use the power of the sTate to do The People's will and better the lives of our citizens. rEpublicans, specifically the "neo-cons" (new conservatives) are just as sTatist and interested in setting the agenda and controlling the people rAbble through the power of the state as are the "democratic socialists" (who are actually interested in rEpresenting The People by carrying out THEIR agenda, but, about this, I will continue to dissemble as always).

The difference lies only in that which they wish to control. I am known for saying the difference in the rEpublican and dEmocrat statist is merely the color and shape of their respective mascots, but that is only more dissembling.

The fact of the matter is that the dEms work on behalf of The People (the citizenry at large), while the rEpublicans work on behalf of the Rich and powerful, which, while a good thing, still falls short. I agree with the rEpublicans on this, but they go wrong when they try to insert themselves into the personal lives of people, and, of course, when they capitulate to the spending demanded by the dEmocrats (or, spending to better the lives of The People demanded by The People via their elected rEpresentatives, if you will).

Add on top of this the spending demanded by the rEpubs and the interests of the wealthy they represent. Mainly I speak of the MIC and corporate welfare. Although, perhaps, the dEms are more guilty of this with their support for the greenscammers and the bailing out of financial institutions that engaged in risky behavior (mortgages to losers who did not deserve them).

In any case, it is my belief that as bad as Obama is for this nation, it could have possibly been far worse with either Santorum or Gingrich. Romney would have been, in my opinion, on a par with Obama. So had he elected president it would be a wash. Although he would have keep taxes low, which would have been good. But he would have made up the difference by taking on more debt, which would have been bad (so, a wash like I said).

Keep in mind here I am referring specifically to sTatism and my dissembling regarding both dEms and rEpublicans believing that the state should control the reins the power rather than the people (when it is actually only the rEpubs who believe this).

But, back to Obama and "dEmocratic sOcialism", which Obama certainly personifies, what with his belief in the democratic process of voting and in the rule of law, which Lying Lester rejects. Obama is no Mao, however his dEmocratic sOcialist beliefs guide him in the direction of cOllectivism as being a ultimately superior economic system to Libertarian-style capitalism (under which the rich rule, which Lying Lester embraces).

But the rAbble still seek Self-governance and likely always will. That is, until people wise up and start voting Libertarian. Then the rAbble can finally be crushed under the oppressive boot heel of the rich and powerful. So, the reality is that self-governance is likely unattainable, as the Galts of the world and their stooges (people like Lying Lester) will continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

Which is why we see lies like dEmocratic sOcialism (as it exists in Europe) leading to
what we currently see in countries such as Portugal and Greece being told by people on my side. That such a thing could happen is, of course, complete horseshit, but the gullible eat up that kind of ridiculous equating and it keeps them voting rEpublican (the lesser of two evils) or Libertarian (under which the rich rule, as they should).

Obama is the culmination of many many years of both dEmocratic and rEpublican trough feeding if you will. As we continue towards the economic abyss, and the continuing erosion of the liberty of the wealthy to not be overtaxed - there is much blame to be passed around. Obama is the rightful recipient of much of this blame.

This is why self-governance is bad in Lying Lester's opinion. It gets corrupted by those who want to use it to enrich themselves. But, instead of enriching themselves via gOvernment, the wealthy should be enriching themselves on their own by abusing and taking advantage of wOrkers.

Obviously the correct solution here is to weaken government (or cut off it's balls), so the wealthy have free reign to do as they please, which would lead to the utopia Lying Lester desires. I could say much more but this is it for now.

Byline: These deep thoughts sprung from the superior mind of Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of deep thoughts. LLIN-082.

Lying Lester The Problem Solver

OK, so the question is... Is the individual responsible, either morally or otherwise, for his brother's or sister's welfare and insuring their well being? Put another way... Are you your brothers (sisters) keeper?

And the answer is an emphatic NO. Also, if you answered yes to either of the afore-going questions you are an avowed progressive, socialist, Marxist and need read no further. Why? Because Lying Lester knows you do not try to reason with that which is evil.

If however, you stopped to seriously ponder the questions with an open mind, and to consider the proper role of government versus that of the individual to insure their well being then please read on (people who agree with me have open minds).

As individuals we are ethically responsible for ourselves, and only for ourselves. We have no right, natural or societally given to impose that responsibility upon another. We either rise or fall on the merits of our own individual effort and capabilities. As Ayn Rand recognized, selfishness is the HIGHEST virtue.

The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America when taken together insure the right to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That and the guarantee that we have, and shall retain the right of self government based on the principles enumerated in the Constitution. The Founders were all selfish as*holes like me, in other words.

With respect to one's current and future well being; the responsibility to insure we have a satisfactory means to take care of our health concerns rests with each individual, not with society at large, and certainly not with the government. Should we be concerned if poor people are dying in the streets? Absolutely not. Aside from the fact that Lying Lester hates poor people, I do not want my money stolen to save the lives of any losers.

The notion that you are responsible for your own health care is similar to the idea that responsibility for providing satisfactorily for our senior years also rests with the individual. The decisions each individual makes, or, on the other hand chooses to evade will ultimately determine their happiness during their retirement. And, if circumstances beyond your control ruin your carefully laid plans, Lying Lester simply does not give a shit.

Individuals must take responsibility for their own needs and wants. Governments place is to oversee the existence of a civil society and enforce laws that will protect and preserve the peace and security of society. It is not now, nor has it ever been the responsibility of the state to insure all individuals are guaranteed equal results under the law. Rather the sTate's roll is to insure only the equal opportunity under the law. Results are the responsibility of each individual to secure through their own efforts and perseverance.

Obviously the lIberal pRogressives strongly disagree with my Randian sentiments expressed above. They believe that we (sOciety) are/is our brother's and sister's keeper, but Lying Lester regards such sentiments are pure evil.

This is what charities are for, stupid pRogressives! If you want to voluntarily give your hard earned money to a worthless loser, do it though a charity and LEAVE ME OUT of the equation! Frankly Lying Lester thinks you're throwing your money away, but I support your right to do with YOUR money has you see fit (including throwing it away to "help" worthless gutter trash). You do NOT, however, have any right to do with MY money as YOU please!

That said, Lying Lester MIGHT support using public dollars to feed poor people... if it were the RIGHT kind of program. Feeding young and healthy poor losers by grinding up and turning old/feeble sick poor losers into some kind of foodstuff... that is the kind of program Lying Lester could support.

Although, now that I think about it, such a program of turning worthless undesirables into food for losers who could provide some value as menial labor would probably be a task best handled by our corporations.

Which is why Lying Lester would support the passage of legislation allowing licenses to be granted to the rich to hunt and kill, or otherwise roundup the poor so they could be euthanized and fed to other Poors still in good health.

Under this legislation our corporations would be given license to round up the Poors and sort them into two groups: one group of old/sickly Poors that would be used as food for the second group of Poors (the young healthy one). This second group would then be forced to provide menial labor for the corporations (in exchange for very low wages).

This would ethically solve our homeless problem and our problem of sick people who can't afford medical care. "Ethical" because we would not need to resort to the evils of wEalth rEdistribution or infringe on the Rights or Liberties of anyone with worth (non-Poors). Call me Lying Lester The Problem Solver.

Authorship Attribution: This excellent post was composed by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of solving problems. LLIN-063.