Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Rubio/Paul 2016

  1. #11
    Senior Member Robert F. Dorr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Oakton, Virginia
    Posts
    894
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Rubio/Paul 2016

    I gotta admit, it may take something as drastic as this to get something done about big government. But the ticket should be reversed.

  2. #12
    Senior Member efmbman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,042
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Re: Rubio/Paul 2016

    As a life-long moderate-leaning conservative, I have to admit there is no chance of the GOP winning vs any Democrat. Maybe I am jaded by my recent criticism of the GOP, but they are just too stubborn and resistant to compromise for my taste. The caveman mentality toward DADT and DOMA are simply stupid. They are starting to look like the old southerns that are still fighting the Civil War. I'm not saying I am completely going to the dark side (liberal). I found some of those left vs right quizzes and took 3. It seems I am a Libertarian based on my answers... whatever that is.
    When things go wrong in your command, start searching for the reason in increasingly larger concentric circles around your own desk.
    -GEN Bruce C. Clarke

  3. #13
    Senior Member RobotChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Williamsburg VA
    Posts
    1,379
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Rubio/Paul 2016

    op2 Couldn't hurt anymore than the last bunch of 8yr term clowns (Clinton,Bush,Obama) I mean a 24 year Clown circus is enough!:juggle

  4. #14
    Senior Member giggawatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    447
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Re: Rubio/Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by efmbman View Post
    As a life-long moderate-leaning conservative, I have to admit there is no chance of the GOP winning vs any Democrat. Maybe I am jaded by my recent criticism of the GOP, but they are just too stubborn and resistant to compromise for my taste. The caveman mentality toward DADT and DOMA are simply stupid. They are starting to look like the old southerns that are still fighting the Civil War. I'm not saying I am completely going to the dark side (liberal). I found some of those left vs right quizzes and took 3. It seems I am a Libertarian based on my answers... whatever that is.
    That simply means, in a nutshell, that you tend to lean right on fiscal issues and tend to left on social issues. Basically, you are all for personal freedom and limited government.
    Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop, TSgt, USAF
    Deputy Executive Assistant for the Assistant Deputy Chief
    HQ COBRA
    867-5309
    :ranger

    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do taskers on their behalf.

    "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." -- Muhammad Ali

    "Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer!"- Arnold Schwarzenegger

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Rubio/Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Rizzo77 View Post
    Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. I suspect that he'd provide his birth certificate in the blink of an eye, with no obfuscation.
    Yes. Marco Rubio's parents come from an island whose inhabitants are lucy enough to get legal citizenship in America just for showing up. So you see, that's totally relatable to the other 88% of Hispanic Americans his party wants to throw out of the country or force to wait a decade for citizenship.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    If another dude was checking me out I'd be flattered. I know I'm a sex-machine, but I do appreciate reminders.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Rubio/Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by efmbman View Post
    As a life-long moderate-leaning conservative, I have to admit there is no chance of the GOP winning vs any Democrat. Maybe I am jaded by my recent criticism of the GOP, but they are just too stubborn and resistant to compromise for my taste. The caveman mentality toward DADT and DOMA are simply stupid. They are starting to look like the old southerns that are still fighting the Civil War. I'm not saying I am completely going to the dark side (liberal). I found some of those left vs right quizzes and took 3. It seems I am a Libertarian based on my answers... whatever that is.
    When I was a Republican, I liked that it was the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Laguardia, and such. Now it's the party of the uninformed, and the rank and file are deeply proud of that fact. Conjure for me, if you can, a single scientific issue in which the Republican party is on the right side? And I reference this because they apply the same approach to virtually every subject. When confronted with objective evidence from an objective source on any issue, count on them to find a way to consider that source to have been compromised. The old Republicans who believed in paying the bills and reasonable government are gone. They've been replaced by libertarians (see reactionaries) who manage to strike a balance between casual anarchist, anti-science, and imaginary economic views and soft theocrats who assign a specific religion to this nation in spite of the basis for our government telling them expressly not to do so. What comes out on the other end is soft racism, conspiracy theories ranging from non-existent currency to the sitting executive's college transcripts, and an effective push to end the few programs in this country that aren't massive accomodations to the super-wealthy (see: Social Security, Medicare). Because to the former group these programs are a danger to our personal freedoms, and the latter would agree in spite of the conflict with the Scriptures they cite as the basis for our government it presents.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    If another dude was checking me out I'd be flattered. I know I'm a sex-machine, but I do appreciate reminders.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Rubio/Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Pueblo View Post
    When I was a Republican, I liked that it was the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Laguardia, and such.
    So you like the GOP of the tyrants and big goverment statists?

    Now it's the party of the uninformed, and the rank and file are deeply proud of that fact. Conjure for me, if you can, a single scientific issue in which the Republican party is on the right side?
    The side of abortion being considered murder since scietifically, life starts earlier than liberals would like to think and just consider any baby in the womb as a parasite or a glob of tissue.

    How about the scietific side of fiscal responsibility of spending more than you make will cause you to go broke?

    I know, how about global warming...er, cooling....I mean climate change?

    And I reference this because they apply the same approach to virtually every subject. When confronted with objective evidence from an objective source on any issue, count on them to find a way to consider that source to have been compromised.
    You mean someone questioning peer review by the good ole boy system is offensive to you?


    The old Republicans who believed in paying the bills and reasonable government are gone. They've been replaced by libertarians (see reactionaries) who manage to strike a balance between casual anarchist, anti-science, and imaginary economic views and soft theocrats who assign a specific religion to this nation in spite of the basis for our government telling them expressly not to do so.
    Wow, are you completely off base with labeling the libertarian party. Not a single platform of the liebertarians is theology based, unless "live and let live" is what you are talking about. Maybe you dont like their "Worry about the log in your own eye before worrying about the spec in your neighbors" philosophy? As far as economically, they are the ones that want to pay off the debt more than anyone, and I am sure you arent suggesting the dems or progressives have any inclination to pay off the debt. They follow the sceme of "spending our way out of debt" process. Talk about imaginary economic values.

    What comes out on the other end is soft racism, conspiracy theories ranging from non-existent currency to the sitting executive's college transcripts, and an effective push to end the few programs in this country that aren't massive accomodations to the super-wealthy (see: Social Security, Medicare). Because to the former group these programs are a danger to our personal freedoms, and the latter would agree in spite of the conflict with the Scriptures they cite as the basis for our government it presents.
    You really have no clue about American Libertarians at all. Its quite simple, follow the constitution as it is written, not interpreted. If you feel something is wrong and needs to be amended, there is a process for that.

    I do think you arguement is also very flawed and you know it, that is why you led off the paragraph with "racism" yet cant give any example. Not to mention blacks were flocking to Ron Paul faster than Romney and also moving away from Obama. But what do they know right? You are the subject matter expert on racism and if others dont see it, they are wrong.

    It also wasnt the libertarians that were calling for Obamas transcripts. They didnt need any trash to throw like that because their policies are sound if people want to take personal responsibilties. But as the cycle of democracy continues and we see the ending of this one coming quickly, you will see who is ready to survive when the dollar is worth nothing and the people who have prepared for that day still have purchasing power.
    Liberalism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Rubio/Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    So you like the GOP of the tyrants and big goverment statists?
    Yes. The ones who preferred function to dysfunction and sacrificed blind dogmatic ideology in the pursuit of the greater good.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    The side of abortion being considered murder since scietifically, life starts earlier than liberals would like to think and just consider any baby in the womb as a parasite or a glob of tissue.
    You did find one issue where they are on the correct side of science. But then again rare indeed is the scientist who makes such silly claims as Plan B is tantamount to abortion, birth control is connected to one's promiscuity, or that life begins at conception. Republicans regularly do this in word and deed.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    How about the scietific side of fiscal responsibility of spending more than you make will cause you to go broke?
    That is not a science, nor is that correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    I know, how about global warming...er, cooling....I mean climate change?
    This is a science. And the agreement on this issue among those most knowledgeable on the subject is nearly universal.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    You mean someone questioning peer review by the good ole boy system is offensive to you?
    I don't know what this means, nor am I familiar with the forwarded e-mail/facebook meme from which it is derived.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Wow, are you completely off base with labeling the libertarian party. Not a single platform of the liebertarians is theology based, unless "live and let live" is what you are talking about.
    Indeed the platform of the Libertarian party (to which I made no reference) makes no reference to theology. I did however reference self-described (lowercase L) libertarians among Republicans, who find convenient bedfellows with theology-based Republicans. And the indignity these libertarians feel over the infringement on personal freedoms is curiously intense when it comes to Amtrak funding and virtually non-existent when it comes to gay marriage, teaching of evolution, mosque construction, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Maybe you dont like their "Worry about the log in your own eye before worrying about the spec in your neighbors" philosophy? As far as economically, they are the ones that want to pay off the debt more than anyone, and I am sure you arent suggesting the dems or progressives have any inclination to pay off the debt. They follow the sceme of "spending our way out of debt" process. Talk about imaginary economic values.
    And if they were serious about economics, they'd more closely examine the reasons for the economic collapse and update our financial regulations for the modern age to ensure such a catastrophe does not befall us again. Then, they'd examine the austerity measures taken by Europe and ask why it isn't having the effect Austrian economists insisted it would.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    You really have no clue about American Libertarians at all. Its quite simple, follow the constitution as it is written, not interpreted. If you feel something is wrong and needs to be amended, there is a process for that.
    If the Constitution is deserving of recognition, as I hope we can agree it is, then why compare the 16th amendment with theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    I do think you arguement is also very flawed and you know it, that is why you led off the paragraph with "racism" yet cant give any example. Not to mention blacks were flocking to Ron Paul faster than Romney and also moving away from Obama. But what do they know right? You are the subject matter expert on racism and if others dont see it, they are wrong.
    As you can see, I referred to it as "soft racism," and yes it's there and it's been a subtle strategy for decades. When people refer to the POTUS as "arrogant," it's used in place of "uppity." Or when a governor confronts the President with a finger in his face. Aside from the disrespect for the office, it's a brazen move that I don't recall being used towards any white presidents. The entire strategy of mobilizing voters against entitlements is admittedly racist by the political operatives who designed it. From Reagan and Bush Sr. strategist Lee Atwater:

    "Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

    Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

    Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

    I realize this is subjective, and requires the ability to understand nuance. So rather than give you the benefit of the doubt, here are some of the 2012 Republican Primary candidate in their own words:

    Rick Santorum
    “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

    Ron Paul:
    "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society."

    Michelle Bachmann:
    "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    It also wasnt the libertarians that were calling for Obamas transcripts.
    No, but it was Republicans, who are part of a coalition made up partly by libertarians. And to the best of my recollection, were there any libertarian Republicans decrying that descent into madness?

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    But as the cycle of democracy continues and we see the ending of this one coming quickly, you will see who is ready to survive when the dollar is worth nothing and the people who have prepared for that day still have purchasing power.
    What will be the purchasing power which you have prepared?
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    If another dude was checking me out I'd be flattered. I know I'm a sex-machine, but I do appreciate reminders.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Rubio/Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Pueblo View Post
    Yes. The ones who preferred function to dysfunction and sacrificed blind dogmatic ideology in the pursuit of the greater good.
    At the cost of peons lives? 600k dead for that "greater good" that was coming eventually? Glad you are willing to be the slave to the tyrants, but I would rather live with self governance than to rely on a master to feed me.

    You did find one issue where they are on the correct side of science. But then again rare indeed is the scientist who makes such silly claims as Plan B is tantamount to abortion, birth control is connected to one's promiscuity, or that life begins at conception. Republicans regularly do this in word and deed.
    Quite frankly, if you do believe in life at conception, then yes, plan B is abortion. As far as birth control is concerned, this is all just fodder to take away the sting of me giving you 3 areas at least of what you asked for.

    That is not a science, nor is that correct.
    Oh sorry, its math. And it is correct, cause spending causes debt, not wealth for the spender.

    This is a science. And the agreement on this issue among those most knowledgeable on the subject is nearly universal.
    ...that they have no clue of what is going on with the weather or how it is being effected by man, that is why they change the verbage so many times to make sure they are "right". But ignoring data and making other data up, if that is your science, might as well call it a religion I guess.

    I don't know what this means, nor am I familiar with the forwarded e-mail/facebook meme from which it is derived.
    Let me demonstrate.
    Crackpot scientist with lucrative grant #1: Hey "peer", review this for me and I will review your study and we can say how great they are so the government will keep funding our studies.
    Crackpot scientist with lucrative grant #2: Ok.
    And dont try to say that doesnt happen. The government gives grants to those people that get "peer reviewed" and their finding comeout the way the government wanted. Those scientist that disprove the gov studies, they get shut out of the grant process.

    Indeed the platform of the Libertarian party (to which I made no reference) makes no reference to theology. I did however reference self-described (lowercase L) libertarians among Republicans, who find convenient bedfellows with theology-based Republicans. And the indignity these libertarians feel over the infringement on personal freedoms is curiously intense when it comes to Amtrak funding and virtually non-existent when it comes to gay marriage, teaching of evolution, mosque construction, etc.
    You lost me there. On gay marraige, we want the government out of approving marriages licenses. teaching of evolution should be left up to towns and local governments. And what does mosque constrution have to do with anything? They just arent the loudest voice so they dont get heard.

    And if they were serious about economics, they'd more closely examine the reasons for the economic collapse and update our financial regulations for the modern age to ensure such a catastrophe does not befall us again. Then, they'd examine the austerity measures taken by Europe and ask why it isn't having the effect Austrian economists insisted it would.
    Because those countries are already to far in debt and the leeches of their society are too used to getting handouts. The reason for the fall is spending more than we bring in. Having the government hand in the cookie jar of economics trying to make everything "fair" and remove all personal responsibility from the individual.

    If the Constitution is deserving of recognition, as I hope we can agree it is, then why compare the 16th amendment with theft?
    Because, just like prohabition, the constitution is chaged for the worse some times. The 16th is just taking longer to repeal cause so many people feel its "fair" to steal more from the rich than the poor.

    As you can see, I referred to it as "soft racism," and yes it's there and it's been a subtle strategy for decades. When people refer to the POTUS as "arrogant," it's used in place of "uppity." Or when a governor confronts the President with a finger in his face.
    Ok, so Bush being called a war criminal or idiot etc, that was perfectly ok cause every other white POTUS has been called names before. But the first black POTUS, well, there is no precident for that behavior, so now its wrong and racist? Wow, going to keep those blinders on or try to see the light once in a while?

    As for respect for the office BS, maybe you should realize the Govenors were supposed to be the leaders and protectors of their states, and when the POTUS denies them their right to protect their citizens, he deserves the "respect" that he/she gets. The POTUS is not a deity, nor should be treated as one. Its the civilian world and you get the respect you earn and deserve. But guess what, the leaders of many foreign nations dont respect him either, are they racist too?

    Aside from the disrespect for the office, it's a brazen move that I don't recall being used towards any white presidents. The entire strategy of mobilizing voters against entitlements is admittedly racist by the political operatives who designed it. From Reagan and Bush Sr. strategist Lee Atwater:

    "Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

    Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

    Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

    I realize this is subjective, and requires the ability to understand nuance. So rather than give you the benefit of the doubt, here are some of the 2012 Republican Primary candidate in their own words:

    Rick Santorum
    “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”
    Rick Santorum, hates libertarians. Try again.

    Ron Paul:
    "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.".
    Not a single reference to race in there. He is right, the federal government forces a private business to do what it doesnt want to do is the epitomy of tyranical rule. And after 50 years, there is still no racial harmony.

    Michelle Bachmann:
    "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."
    Again, not a libertarian.

    No, but it was Republicans, who are part of a coalition made up partly by libertarians. And to the best of my recollection, were there any libertarian Republicans decrying that descent into madness?
    And the dems are made up partly by the NBPs. So the dems want to kill white babies. How do you slander the sub group who has their own war against the head figure for their views? The libertarians are trying to get rid of the old guard who is just another form of tax and spend dems.

    What will be the purchasing power which you have prepared?
    Food, gold, precious metals.
    Liberalism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Rubio/Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    At the cost of peons lives? 600k dead for that "greater good" that was coming eventually? Glad you are willing to be the slave to the tyrants, but I would rather live with self governance than to rely on a master to feed me.
    Yes. It cost lives to deny Americans the eminent right to own human beings. For lofty talk of tyranny when it comes to paying for social security, paved roads, or foreign aid, you're awfully cavalier about a time in which people were considered property.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Quite frankly, if you do believe in life at conception, then yes, plan B is abortion. As far as birth control is concerned, this is all just fodder to take away the sting of me giving you 3 areas at least of what you asked for.
    As stated earlier, few scientists would subscribe to the view that life begins at conception. And certainly among Republicans, the ones who concluded that life begins at conception who arrived at that viewpoint through scientific reasoning are all but non-existent.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    ...that they have no clue of what is going on with the weather or how it is being effected by man, that is why they change the verbage so many times to make sure they are "right". But ignoring data and making other data up, if that is your science, might as well call it a religion I guess.

    Let me demonstrate.
    Crackpot scientist with lucrative grant #1: Hey "peer", review this for me and I will review your study and we can say how great they are so the government will keep funding our studies.
    Crackpot scientist with lucrative grant #2: Ok.
    And dont try to say that doesnt happen. The government gives grants to those people that get "peer reviewed" and their finding comeout the way the government wanted. Those scientist that disprove the gov studies, they get shut out of the grant process.
    This is precisely what I referenced earlier in the ability of anti-science Republicans to contort any piece of evidence to suit their interests. I suppose if I were a libertarian who believed in man-made climate change, it would be deeply troubling to accept a world in which the benevolent nature of businesses were the only thing standing between humanity and catastrophic storms and flooding in the world's major cities. So I understand why you must make such half hearted efforts to explain away seemigly overwhelming evidence to insulate you and the dogma which has become your identity.


    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    You lost me there. On gay marraige, we want the government out of approving marriages licenses. teaching of evolution should be left up to towns and local governments. And what does mosque constrution have to do with anything? They just arent the loudest voice so they dont get heard.
    The declaration that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage is mostly a cop-out. Why one would expect the government to take such a soft stance on things that demand legal protections (hospital visitation rights, inheritance law, child custody) is difficult to understand, until we see an even weaker stance on a relevant issue on science education. No town has the right to use taxpayer dollars towards a religious education. I would hope self-identifying libertarians consider it an easy call to err on the side on maintaining secular government institutions. Finally, mosque construction (and at least one person who opposed it is a Senator who many consider to be a libertarian) relates back to the first amendment to the Constitution, which you led me to believe is something you consider to be the top priority when it comes to governing.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Because those countries are already to far in debt and the leeches of their society are too used to getting handouts. The reason for the fall is spending more than we bring in. Having the government hand in the cookie jar of economics trying to make everything "fair" and remove all personal responsibility from the individual.
    When you say "leeches," I'm curious to know the criteria for that designation? I'm even more curious to know of what nations you speak, specifically? I'm also interested to know how an excess of government caused the recession (if that is indeed your belief)? Finally, and I apologize for asking so many questions, but I would like you to explain, in your view, how government making things "fair" (and the example I'll give is the existing regulations that should have prevented lenders from giving sub-prime mortgages to those whose credit ratings and income made it virtually impossible for them to pay off) is detrimental to the economy?


    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Because, just like prohabition, the constitution is chaged for the worse some times. The 16th is just taking longer to repeal cause so many people feel its "fair" to steal more from the rich than the poor.
    No amount of hyperbole changes the Constitutionality nor the necessity of the act of taxation.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Ok, so Bush being called a war criminal or idiot etc, that was perfectly ok cause every other white POTUS has been called names before. But the first black POTUS, well, there is no precident for that behavior, so now its wrong and racist? Wow, going to keep those blinders on or try to see the light once in a while?

    As for respect for the office BS, maybe you should realize the Govenors were supposed to be the leaders and protectors of their states, and when the POTUS denies them their right to protect their citizens, he deserves the "respect" that he/she gets. The POTUS is not a deity, nor should be treated as one. Its the civilian world and you get the respect you earn and deserve. But guess what, the leaders of many foreign nations dont respect him either, are they racist too?
    I make no attempt to explain the psyche of those who made such remarks towards the previous POTUS. But there is a general decorum which one ought to follow around a sitting president, and indeed towards another human being. The governor in question broke each of those, and did so in public rather than private. And one can only gather that this governor did so to satiate reactionaries within her constituency.


    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Not a single reference to race in there. He is right, the federal government forces a private business to do what it doesnt want to do is the epitomy of tyranical rule. And after 50 years, there is still no racial harmony.
    I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree over whether losing the right to discriminate based on skin color constitutes tyranny. That is one right for which neither I nor anyone has a need.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    And the dems are made up partly by the NBPs. So the dems want to kill white babies. How do you slander the sub group who has their own war against the head figure for their views? The libertarians are trying to get rid of the old guard who is just another form of tax and spend dems.
    If this is the part where I'm expected to step in and defend something I've established I'm against in reference to a party of which I'm not a member, then you're going to be disappointed. But if forced to choose between the "old guard" and the views you're on record advocating, I'm happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with the old guard.


    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Food, gold, precious metals.
    And what form of compensation did you exchange for the food, gold, and precious metals now in your possession?
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bonham View Post
    If another dude was checking me out I'd be flattered. I know I'm a sex-machine, but I do appreciate reminders.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •