jesseledesma

Join Date 12/2003

Obama, preparing to violate rights of property owners.

External Link

Today, I will write about the importance of "property rights" of the individual in America and how small things can harm you. This is a response to reports of Mr. Obama's comments on "tiny Iran" and about how "we cannot eat what we want, keep our thermostats at 72, and drive our SUV's.

First I would like to say that gluttony has its price. As personal concept of not over indulging, I am in agreement. Societies that indulge perish. Look at the no-longer existing Roman Empire. Towards their end there was sexing all over the place and eating and drinking like the stuff was free.

However, as a concept of American government imposing limits on American citizens, I am in complete disagreement. If you have not figured it out by now, I am a taxi driver in stupid el Paso, Texas. Let me tell you why I call this city stupid. Though I am a self-employed person working in private industry, the communist government of the city of El Paso, Texas sets the taxi fare rates.

I think this in strict violation of the principal of "individual property rights" that built this country. In America, Americans should no fear that their government is going to show up one day and steal their property. The reason people build stores and start companies is because of the assurance that government will not take their property. When private citizens with investment capital build business they employ people and the American economy grows. People who fear government stealing their property do not build business.

Now, do I think with his statement about "we cannot eat what we want...", that Mr. Obama was voicing a policy initiative to impose restrictions on people's property rights or take people's property rights? Yes, I do believe that if elected Mr. Obama will start policy initiatives to restrict people in what they eat, warm and cool their homes, and drive.

Therefore, Mr Obama is preparing to violate one of America's crucial principals, which is the rights of the property owner. You do not as a candidate for the American presidency speak on issues unless you plan to propose policy initiatives. We know that from listening to Obama he is not happy with the status quo in America and wants to effect change. The only way government can control what people eat and how much fuel they use is controlling their property, i.e money, homes, and vehicles.

Now as far as Iran is concerned, it may be smaller but very dangerous. As a an official government, I ran will not declare war on the US. The US would respond with fierce force.

Iran, however, has a puppet government it presents to the world and a behind the scene government that controls the country. This secret government would orchestra and follow through on terrorist attacks on America.

Mr. Obama's mocking words in his speech (Iran is tiny) do not make Iran benign. World wide radical terrorist number in the millions. Every single one of these radicals is prepared to die for their ideology.

I think that because Obama cannot see the threat of Iran and has no concept of the contribution the constitutional protection of property rights has made to the construction of the greatest nation on the face of the planet he is not fit for service as president of the US.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Or it could be that Senator Obama like Senator Clinton both believe in fascism and the idea of a representative democracy is an evil thought to them. It is better in their minds that the few control the many. Both senators have made statements proving their desire to end our republic in favor for a system of government where the president rules by fiat.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What? I have never seen or heard a single comment made by either of these candidates suggesting that they favor complete power. Someone is quite biased here me thinks. As for the property rights issue. If there were no laws or limits, this world would be dead already due to pollution. Being a taxi driver is fine, but being a gas guzzler is not, having an expensive SUV that uses twice the amount of gas that a regular car takes is bad and should be made illegal, especially when oil is soo scarce right now. |You must remember that it is not only America that is at stake here, it is the whole world.

Be a taxi driver, be whatever you want but be considerate, and if not, then it is the leaders of this world that need to clamp down before another disaster hits.

I am guessing that you are a Republican? Well, check the GOPs history with the oil companies. You will find that they are no where near neutral territory, in fact, they would probably do more to help these companies than help our world.

This is why I want Obama to win, and if we are lucky enough, maybe he will take somebody like Al Gore as a running mate instead of Clinton who will question his every move.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What is keeping you from moving out of "stupid el paso, Texas"?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Societies that indulge perish. Look at the no-longer existing Roman Empire.

As if all the nonindulgent societies in existence at the time of the Romans are still around? (This isn't directed at you, Jesse, but I am so sick of hearing this argument by those predicting America's imminent doom.)

taxi fare rates.

I think this in strict violation of the principal of "individual property rights" that built this country.

How is a taxi fare rate "individual property?"

(I see where you are going; you are just very bad at supporting your arguments.)

Mr. Obama will start policy initiatives to restrict people

Iran, however, has a puppet government it presents to the world and a behind the scene government that controls the country. This secret government

Don't worry, America's secret government (those rich, fat cat "Illuminati" dudes) won't let it happen. It's good for "the people" to have an illusion of being in charge of their lives. It makes them more docile and easier to control.

(Just because there are always a few who won't get it... That was sarcasm, folks.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well, check the GOPs history with the oil companies. You will find that they are no where near neutral territory, in fact, they would probably do more to help these companies than help our world.

This is hilarious in light of the fact that fuel prices skyrocketed after the Dems took over the majority in Congress. Blind faith in either party is a sign of sheer stupidity.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting MasonM,

Well, check the GOPs history with the oil companies. You will find that they are no where near neutral territory, in fact, they would probably do more to help these companies than help our world.This is hilarious in light of the fact that fuel prices skyrocketed after the Dems took over the majority in Congress. Blind faith in either party is a sign of sheer stupidity.

Actually, the reason fuel prices went up was not because of the democrats, but because of the worldwide shortage at the moment. Fuel prices didnt only go up here in the States you know. Every country in the world is in fact suffering from this. Just cuz it happened while the democrats had the majority, does make it their fault. In fact, I would say Bush and the GOP are more to blame for this by invading Iraq.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What? I have never seen or heard a single comment made by either of these candidates suggesting that they favor complete power. Someone is quite biased here me thinks.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters has stated publicly that if the oil companies don't lower their prices she was in favor of nationalizing the oil companies. Is that not total power?
The Government taking over private property just because they don't like the price. does that mean that if I charge too much then the government will nationalize my business?

Senator Clinton has stated that if the oil companies don’t do what she believes is the right thing she would take it over. The same was said about health care as well as the environment. Sounds fascist to me.

Senator Obama has made similar claims for the health care industry, the oil industry, the environmental movement, and the military contractors.

May I suggest you do a little research before you state that you have not heard such things? It does not make you look informed.

The GOP is not pro oil they are pro business because business is what makes this country work and prosper. The democrats believe it is tax dollars that make the country work, but if you nationalize all the lucrative industries they won’t be money making organizations any more and tax dollars would evaporate leaving those same democrats in charge needing more money and the only place to get it is the individual. That means you.

As if all the nonindulgent societies in existence at the time of the Romans are still around? (This isn't directed at you, Jesse, but I am so sick of hearing this argument by those predicting America's imminent doom.)

Mr. Nash,
Please elaborate.

Actually, the reason fuel prices went up was not because of the democrats, but because of the worldwide shortage at the moment.

I would suggest you do a little study in history. The reason the price of oil and gas is so high to day is because foolish liberals 30 years ago put a stop to building more refineries, nuclear power plants, and domestic oil production.

The oil companies said they would need more refinement capability. The liberal democrats said it was the greedy oil executives that wanted to line their already fat pockets by fabricating an oil crisis. The executives said that in 20 years they would run out of capacity to refine oil to produce cheap gas. They were wrong of course, they were able to keep up production for 21 years. 30 years later the executives were proven right and the liberal experts were once again proven wrong. Now we import 30% of our gasoline. Not crude oil but refined gas. That means we have to pay to bring it to the US then pay to ship it to a refinery and pay to ship the gas back to us.

The environmentalist demanded we have a mid range fuel. The auto manufacturers stated that there was no need for such a thing. Cars designed to get the best out of regular gas are damaged by midrange fuel. So if you want to destroy your engine then use it. The nut jobs got their way and we now have to reduce refining capacity because instead of making two types of gas we now have to have three. Then each region requires mixtures set by the legislature so now the already over taxed refineries have to produce 56 different types of gasoline, and don’t forget that there has to be a summer blend and a winter blend of all 56 types. This is why the price of gas is so high.

Yes, there is more demand world wide but if we went back to regular and premium fuels the cost would drop by at least a dollar a gallon the first year.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sounds fascist to me.

Paladin, neither Barak or Hillary seem fascist to me. Socialist (they take stuff too) definately. If they were fascists at least they would avocate a strong military and not surrendering to a nearly defeated enemy in Iraq. No these canidates are clearly to the left.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Socialism is how Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler both got the ball rolling, remember that Hitler’s party was the, nationalist, socialist, democrat party. Both Italy and Germany had weak militaries and they needed to build them up to reduce unemployment and pacify the masses. We already have a strong military, a good economy, a great healthcare system and the only way to take over is to convince us that our military sucks, our healthcare system does not work, and our economy is in the toilet. To fix these perceived ills we need to nationalize the oil companies, take property from their rightful owners to use in more benevolent ways, nationalize the healthcare system, and weaken our military. They have to bring the nation down to 1930’s Germany in order to get Americans to do things their way.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What? I have never seen or heard a single comment made by either of these candidates suggesting that they favor complete power. Someone is quite biased here me thinks.Congresswoman Maxine Waters has stated publicly that if the oil companies don't lower their prices she was in favor of nationalizing the oil companies. Is that not total power?The Government taking over private property just because they don't like the price. does that mean that if I charge too much then the government will nationalize my business?Senator Clinton has stated that if the oil companies don’t do what she believes is the right thing she would take it over. The same was said about health care as well as the environment. Sounds fascist to me.Senator Obama has made similar claims for the health care industry, the oil industry, the environmental movement, and the military contractors. May I suggest you do a little research before you state that you have not heard such things? It does not make you look informed.
I am guessing that you are a Republican? Well, check the GOPs history with the oil companies. You will find that they are no where near neutral territory, in fact, they would probably do more to help these companies than help our world.The GOP is not pro oil they are pro business because business is what makes this country work and prosper. The democrats believe it is tax dollars that make the country work, but if you nationalize all the lucrative industries they won’t be money making organizations any more and tax dollars would evaporate leaving those same democrats in charge needing more money and the only place to get it is the individual. That means you.
As if all the nonindulgent societies in existence at the time of the Romans are still around? (This isn't directed at you, Jesse, but I am so sick of hearing this argument by those predicting America's imminent doom.)Mr. Nash,Please elaborate.
Actually, the reason fuel prices went up was not because of the democrats, but because of the worldwide shortage at the moment.I would suggest you do a little study in history. The reason the price of oil and gas is so high to day is because foolish liberals 30 years ago put a stop to building more refineries, nuclear power plants, and domestic oil production.The oil companies said they would need more refinement capability. The liberal democrats said it was the greedy oil executives that wanted to line their already fat pockets by fabricating an oil crisis. The executives said that in 20 years they would run out of capacity to refine oil to produce cheap gas. They were wrong of course, they were able to keep up production for 21 years. 30 years later the executives were proven right and the liberal experts were once again proven wrong. Now we import 30% of our gasoline. Not crude oil but refined gas. That means we have to pay to bring it to the US then pay to ship it to a refinery and pay to ship the gas back to us.The environmentalist demanded we have a mid range fuel. The auto manufacturers stated that there was no need for such a thing. Cars designed to get the best out of regular gas are damaged by midrange fuel. So if you want to destroy your engine then use it. The nut jobs got their way and we now have to reduce refining capacity because instead of making two types of gas we now have to have three. Then each region requires mixtures set by the legislature so now the already over taxed refineries have to produce 56 different types of gasoline, and don’t forget that there has to be a summer blend and a winter blend of all 56 types. This is why the price of gas is so high. Yes, there is more demand world wide but if we went back to regular and premium fuels the cost would drop by at least a dollar a gallon the first year.

Hmm, you call me uninformed yet it sounds like you actually are for privatization of industry. Healthcare is a hot topic because the more privatized it becomes, the less the poorer people can get treatment. The healthcare system needds to change, in fact, the healthcare system here is rated as one of the worst in the western world because of how big HMOs work and so forth. I agree that business is good, but come on, when it affects the average persons life, it becomes a concern nationally and should be handled as such. If the healthcare industry was nationalized, more people would recieve healthcare at lower more affordable costs. The only real problem with this is that the fat cats sitting at the top of the HMOs wont be making as much money as they are used to.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Healthcare is a hot topic because the more privatized it becomes, the less the poorer people can get treatment. The healthcare system needds to change, in fact, the healthcare system here is rated as one of the worst in the western world because of how big HMOs work and so forth.

I agree that the health care system sucks, I was against HMO’s since Senator Kennedy proposed doing away with the regular system in favor of a fair system that would take care of the poor. It was called Health Maintenance Organization, created by the left to make health care more affordable. Most of the problems we now suffer with HMO’s were pointed out in the beginning but we were told that it would all be worked out over time. As with all liberal programs they fell short of their goal, and now the person who wrote the HMO laws is the chief person saying what a mess it is. Just in case you did not know who that person is it is Senator Ted Kenned.

Senator Kennedy did a lot when the democrats had power. He deregulated the airline industry. I used to fly from New York to Miami, for 200 dollars and be served a choice of three meals.

They had a deal called the Miami triangle where you flew from New York to Miami to Los Angles, and back to New York the cost was 400 dollars first class. When the wind fall profits tax kicked in they had to do away with the Miami triangle and a flight from Miami to LA jumped to 800 dollars for coach. The free meals went away because they had to use that money to pay for jet fuel. Air lines went out of business left and right. New ones sprang up to take their place. But they were cut rate airlines so you still did not get a meal you got peanuts and pretzels and a can of soda. I flew Delta to Vegas last month and to my surprise they are now selling meals, if you want a bag of chips it is only 4 dollars. They still give away pretzels and peanuts. The bags are so small now you can get only 20 peanuts in them. I counted. Instead of a can of soda you get a cup of soda.

Everyone complains about Mr. Bush’s no child left behind laws. Do you want to guess who wrote that law? Yup, the same Senator Kennedy.

So it seems that all the ills that need fixing are laws written by Senator Kennedy. Does he get the blame for any of these stupid laws that don’t work, cost more than promised, and then the man has the gall to say that the health care system needs new laws to make it more affordable for the poor. 25 years ago HMO’s were the new laws that would make health care more affordable. The windfall profits tax was supposed to make the price of gas go down. That did not work either. Deregulating the airline industry as well as the telephone companies were supposed to help the poor. Every time he helps the poor we need an increase in the minimum wage to keep up.

I am a conservative who votes republican most of the time. I care not of democrat or republican I care about conservatism and capitalism. You know things that work.

Successfully updated karma reason!