# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  The Real Reason Fox Cancelled "Freedom Watch"

## gamewell45

Politics in broadcasting never ends....even at Fox.  The story from an insider makes for very good reading.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ge...#axzz2osyYvvXg

----------


## Calypso Jones

I can't really make out the reason...what do you think it is?

----------


## gamewell45

> I can't really make out the reason...what do you think it is?



I honestly think that it was the angry phone call by George H Bush to Fox that tipped the edge of the iceberg; the show's ratings were not what Fox expected and the fact that the show's support unit consisted of people who were libertarians primarily was not the direction of editorial policy that Fox wanted, which is support of the old guard Republicans.  In other words, business as usual.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Extreme Libertarians are deeply annoying, so I won't miss it.

----------

The Sage of Main Street (12-30-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

well I watched fox all the time and I don't recall making a special point of seeing it or even wanting to.  Maybe it was a business decision?  What was the time slot?

----------


## JustPassinThru

FNC has become just one more slanted nooze network, as far as I'm concerned.

They went where they're headed for somewhat different reasons, but the end result is the same.  It's just one more funhouse mirror; designed to skew reality to conform with what the Front Office wants us to see.  In this case, it's to appease the emerging government censors; but that doesn't make it any more palatable.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Politics in broadcasting never ends....even at Fox.  The story from an insider makes for very good reading.
> 
> http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ge...#axzz2osyYvvXg


It was probably the only show on TV that challenged the legitimacy of government. Can't have that on the air. 

Not that I'll miss it. I gave up TV years ago.

----------


## wist43

I was one of the people that clogged up Fox's email box with anger when I found out they were cancelling Freedom Watch - although I always knew they wouldn't let it remain on the air.

It was the one show on network news that actually covered the important news - news that should be on every station, every day; and covered the way that Napolitano covered it. Government is the enemy of every freedom loving citizen - it needs to be exposed, and the dangers and evils of government need to be preached to the people every day - lest they forget, and go to sleep at the switch. Which of course they have.

Sadly, we are doomed.

----------


## Trinnity

FOX is not making an adequate effort to watchdog and report on these CRIMINALS who run the country now. They'll be sidestepped to some extent for it. I get my news on the net. Had to.

----------


## The XL

> Extreme Libertarians are deeply annoying, so I won't miss it.


Better to have big government Neocon hawks spouting nonsense, eh?

----------

squidward (12-31-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

neocon hawks....who are they?

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> Politics in broadcasting never ends....even at Fox.  The story from an insider makes for very good reading.
> 
> http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ge...#axzz2osyYvvXg


Typical slimey and distracting Libretardian tactic of taking advantage of the national disgust with both parties in order to push their vicious private-sector, Constitutionazi, anti-democratic totalitarianism.  This "crony capitalism" rhetoric is spouted only so that the Greedhead corpies  will be relieved of the necessity of spending money bribing politicians after the Wall Street streetgang is freed from having to deal with the government defending the people against its predatory looting of the national wealth.  The Libretardians' real goal is to turn those not in the loop into powerless peasants working in sweatshops.  That loop should be turned into a noose.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> I was one of the people that clogged up Fox's email box with anger when I found out they were cancelling Freedom Watch - although I always knew they wouldn't let it remain on the air.
> 
> It was the one show on network news that actually covered the important news - news that should be on every station, every day; and covered the way that Napolitano covered it. Government is the enemy of every freedom loving citizen - it needs to be exposed, and the dangers and evils of government need to be preached to the people every day - lest they forget, and go to sleep at the switch. Which of course they have.
> 
> Sadly, we are doomed.


I hope you're right when you say, "We Libretardians are doomed."

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Typical slimey and distracting Libretardian tactic of taking advantage of the national disgust with both parties in order to push their vicious private-sector, Constitutionazi, anti-democratic totalitarianism.  This "crony capitalism" rhetoric is spouted only so that the Greedhead corpies  will be relieved of the necessity of spending money bribing politicians after the Wall Street streetgang is freed from having to deal with the government defending the people against its predatory looting of the national wealth.  The Libretardians' real goal is to turn those not in the loop into powerless peasants working in sweatshops.  That loop should be turned into a noose.


What's the matter? Are you afraid in that in a free society, the proletariat would not be busy in their make-work jobs, anxiously producing according to 5 year plans, and supporting your lavish life (for the good of the people, of course) in a nice Dacha with a few political prisoners as personal "servants"? 

We know what you really want. Why you come to forums in the hopes of gaining political power is beyond me, however. I suspect that even if you were to get your North Korean-style utopia, you'd be nothing more than the camp guard with the who might have the special honor of occasionally polishing the "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

The problem with libertarians is that they take good ideas--smaller government, less intrusive government, more individual liberty, strict constitutionalism, decentralization--and run it to such extreme lengths that it becomes unworkable and impractical. They try to 'out-libertarian' each other and eventually they become indistinguishable from anarchists.

----------


## JustPassinThru

I don't think SOMS is a libertarian.

He sounds like a schizophrenic patient.  If not, he's not very adroit at putting his thought processes into words.

----------


## Dan40

My view FWIW,

FOX is a business.

RATINGS,

Dollars and Sense [cents]

FOX is not a philosophy, a politic, a movement, an idea.

It is a business in the business of selling its product and making profit.

I found the judge to be a laughable, likable, clown.  Took very little of what he said, serious.

----------


## wist43

> The problem with libertarians is that they take good ideas--smaller government, less intrusive government, more individual liberty, strict constitutionalism, decentralization--and run it to such extreme lengths that it becomes unworkable and impractical. They try to 'out-libertarian' each other and eventually they become indistinguishable from anarchists.


Some libertarians do that, but they are a minority. 

Most are like Gary Johnson, John Stossel, and myself. As much of a libertarian as I am in general, I would argue for some safety net programs on the state level - certainly modest, but I would want some sort of safety net there for those that would otherwise fall thru the cracks; and, the state level is the where those programs should properly and legally exist.

On the Federal level?? Nothing in terms of "social safety net" - just the basics of national governance, i.e. treaties, tariffs, defense, some infrastructure - just as is laid out in the Constitution. The tortured and idiotic interpretations of the Constitution that have opened Pandora's Box are in no way valid. Social Security, Medicare, EPA, Patriot Act, etc are all unconstitutional and should be phased out.

We're $175 trillion in debt - we're in as bad a situation as could be imagined; we are on the road to ruin. We're within 15 years of the economy, stock market, and currency being collapsed - similar to what was done in 1929 (which was a deliberate event). Why anyone would think freedom by way of severely restricted and limited government could be any worse is beyond me.

----------


## squidward

> Better to have big government Neocon hawks spouting nonsense, eh?


the yin to the big government Neolib hawks' yang. The two work hand in hand to evenly divide us.

----------

Sheldonna (01-14-2014),The XL (12-31-2013)

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> What's the matter? Are you afraid in that in a free society, the proletariat would not be busy in their make-work jobs, anxiously producing according to 5 year plans, and supporting your lavish life (for the good of the people, of course) in a nice Dacha with a few political prisoners as personal "servants"? 
> 
> We know what you really want. I suspect that even if you were to get your North Korean-style utopia, you'd be nothing more than the camp guard with them who might have the special honor of occasionally polishing the "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign.



More Fright Wing fail:  "Either submit to our rule or the Stalins and Pol Pots will rule you!"

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> The problem with libertarians is that they take good ideas--smaller government, less intrusive government, more individual liberty, strict constitutionalism, decentralization--and run it to such extreme lengths that it becomes unworkable and impractical. They try to 'out-libertarian' each other and eventually they become indistinguishable from anarchists.


Their preaching disguises their true motives.  They want small government so that their Masters in the ruling class can wage unrestricted class warfare and impoverish the 99%.  "With Libertine Injustice for All."

----------


## The XL

> neocon hawks....who are they?


Hannity, O'Reily, etc, etc.

You know the gang intimately, I'm sure, Calypso.

----------


## The XL

> the yin to the big government Neolib hawks' yang. The two work hand in hand to evenly divide us.


Pretty much.  Call them on it, and they'll call you a liberal or some shit, despite being nearly indistinguishable from liberals on any major issue.

----------


## The XL

> Their preaching disguises their true motives.  They want small government so that their Masters in the ruling class can wage unrestricted class warfare and impoverish the 99%.  "With Libertine Injustice for All."


I doubt you could logically make a case for that baseless assertion.

----------


## squidward

> More Fright Wing fail:  "Either submit to our rule or the Stalins and Pol Pots will rule you!"


that's funny, saying that to a anarchist.  
Thanks for the laugh. 

Can you say "right wing" again. It's so cute the way you say it.

----------


## squidward

> Pretty much.  Call them on it, and they'll call you a liberal or some shit, despite being nearly indistinguishable from liberals on any major issue.


ain't that the truth.

----------


## squidward

> Their preaching disguises their true motives.  They want small government so that their Masters in the ruling class can wage unrestricted class warfare and impoverish the 99%.  "With Libertine Injustice for All."


Sorry that you confuse a libertarian with a corporatist, then open your mouth and spout like a child. 

Here's the game. 
Libs call libertarians right wing, while they themselves support the big government corporatists that enrich the elite.  They use words like "the 99%" to shill for the financial and ruling classes that enslave it. 
Cons call libertarians left wing, while they too support the big government corporatists that enrich the elite. The use words like "class warfare" while they shill for the same thing. 

you played the game well.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (12-31-2013)

----------


## squidward

> The problem with libertarians is that they take good ideas--smaller government, less intrusive government, more individual liberty, strict constitutionalism, decentralization--and run it to such extreme lengths that it becomes unworkable and impractical.


and you have what to base your claim of "unworkable and unpractical" on ? 
You have not experienced policy that comes remotely close to libertarian, in your entire life. Further, you have no examples of its failure.

----------


## Dan40

> and you have what to base your claim of "unworkable and unpractical" on ? 
> You have not experienced policy that comes remotely close to libertarian, in your entire life. Further, you have no examples of its failure.


There are no examples of Libertarian Policy failures, because Libertarians have FAILED to elect anyone in their more than 40 year history.

Or is that a policy failure itself?

The tea party shares many Libertarian ideals.  and I'm a tea party member.

The Republican party shares many Libertarian ideals.  Or I should say the Libertarians share many Republican ideals since the Republican Party was first on the scene and has won elections.

The tea party is last on the scene and has won elections.

Why have Libertarians failed to EVER win a national election?

Simple,  interspersed with some terrific and necessary ideas, are a host of complete looney tunes idiocy.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> There are no examples of Libertarian Policy failures, because Libertarians have FAILED to elect anyone in their more than 40 year history.
> 
> Or is that a policy failure itself?


You seem concerned that if your rulers are not enacting certain policies, then those policies must be failures. You sound a lot like a progressive despite claiming libertarian "ideals."




> The Republican party shares many Libertarian ideals. Or I should say the Libertarians share many Republican ideals since the Republican Party was first on the scene and has won elections.




Republicans have "ideals." Libertarians have principles. Government cannot exist on principles because politics requires compromise, and what is a principle worth if it is compromised? Ideals are made to be compromised. It allows you to feel like you are for liberty while you cast it all away.

----------


## squidward

> There are no examples of Libertarian Policy failures, because Libertarians have FAILED to elect anyone in their more than 40 year history.


because you love big government, and now whine that it is doing exactly what you have been electing it to do.
Enjoy your new healthcare system.

----------


## catfish

> neocon hawks....who are they?


 It just sounded good to cover for his comrades in government who are destroying our liberty.

----------


## patrickt

Couldn't have been the ratings. No, it had to be something else.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> because you love big government, and now whine that it is doing exactly what you have been electing it to do.
> Enjoy your new healthcare system.


Dan, and people who see the world as he does, are NOT the reason for this obscene health-care deformation.

You're as much to blame as he is - maybe more so.  Because you cling to a fantasy unworkable ideal, instead of getting in the weeds and actually working to prevent drugged, addled, stupid incompetents like Barry Soetoro from being elected to high office.  And pretending that Soetoro and W are all the same.

EVERYONE has faults; and the perfect candidate from your viewpoint would not be perfect for most people.  Compromise is always necessary in life.

You START with asking, who's going to NOT DESTROY the nation, it's system of laws and its Rule of Law.  There are others who are worthy of that trust besides Ron Paul - who is not worthy of ANY trust.

----------


## squidward

> Dan, and people who see the world as he does, are NOT the reason for this obscene health-care deformation.
> 
> You're as much to blame as he is - maybe more so.  Because you cling to a fantasy unworkable ideal, instead of getting in the weeds and actually working to prevent drugged, addled, stupid incompetents like Barry Soetoro from being elected to high office.  And pretending that Soetoro and W are all the same.
> 
> EVERYONE has faults; and the perfect candidate from your viewpoint would not be perfect for most people.  Compromise is always necessary in life.
> 
> You START with asking, who's going to NOT DESTROY the nation, it's system of laws and its Rule of Law.  There are others who are worthy of that trust besides Ron Paul - who is not worthy of ANY trust.


Known, big government, new world order politicians are worthy of trust.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Known, big government, new world order politicians are worthy of trust.


Yah, okay.  No difference between Jesus of Chicago and W.

That's why things are just the same now as they were a decade ago.  Because there's no difference.

Put that paranoia on the back burner.  We have other concerns more pressing than Skull & Bones or the Bilderberger Hotel.

----------


## wist43

Libertarians can't get elected simply b/c progressives, homegrown and cultivated by the Establishment, control our institutions. They control education, the courts, media, and the institutions of government. They preach positive government from the time kids first step foot in the government indoctrination centers.

The government schools do not teach freedom, a limiting Constitution, federalism, republican government, proper history, proper economics, etc. They teach "New Deal", "Great Society", Keynesian economics, Marxism, skewed history, etc.

Is it any wonder that the children, once they sprout into voting adults, carry on as they've been programmed?? They've been programmed to vote for big government, and regardless of which party they've aligned themselves with, that's what they vote for.

The message of freedom presented by libertarians makes no sense to someone who has been indoctrinated in the ways of democratic, authoritarian government. As a result, the antidote to the poison which is killing our society is rejected with great prejudice.

And so our society is dying, and will die. And in its stead the Establishment will put in place an overt, unchallengable top-down, authoritarian control system. The people, having been indoctrinated, and having just experienced however many years of upheaval - courtesy of the Establishment - will blindly, and gladly, accept their chains in return for the restoration of order and the promise of an improved economy.

Amerikans have been made dumb and ignorant - that is the only reason the libertarian message is rejected. In short, Amerikans fear and hate freedom, but they don't understand enough about the subject to understand that.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Libertarians cannot get elected because grownups, non-libburl grown-up voters, recognize the Libertarian platform as unworkable and in some issues downright dangerous.

They don't appeal to DemoMarxist voters because DemoMarxists have the Real Thing, not a poor substitute.  So that leaves the few Libertarians as isolated ideological purists, refusing (on so many levels) to grow up.

----------


## Dan40

> because you love big government, and now whine that it is doing exactly what you have been electing it to do.
> Enjoy your new healthcare system.


Your post is exactly WHY Libertarians flounder and fail.

That I can recognize that Libertarians have zero marketing skills and scare off more people than they attract does not mean I'm for big government.  It only means that I see that the public rejects wild radicals.  I agree and support MANY libertarian ideas.  But know that a movement cannot beat and threaten people into support.  You have to have appeal.

You don't.

I WISH YOU DID!

Clean out the crazies.  Shrink the platform to a few reasonable, achievable goals, and you would have some appeal.

----------

JustPassinThru (01-01-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

...I might add to that, they need to dump their Cult of Personality.  The public is not enamoured of one doddering old man who wasted the better part of 35 years in Congress - getting nothing done even when he was much younger.

----------


## Dan40

> ...I might add to that, they need to dump their Cult of Personality.  The public is not enamoured of one doddering old man who wasted the better part of 35 years in Congress - getting nothing done even when he was much younger.



Ron Paul, the worldwide king of underachievement.

12 terms in Congress, NEVER got any of his important bills passed.  Never came close.  Didn't get unimportant bills passed either.  NEVER stopped an onerous bill from passing.

Also in a 30 plus year political career, NEVER won a contested election.  Not one.

This is the Libertarian hero and they can't understand what is wrong!

----------

JustPassinThru (01-01-2014)

----------


## squidward

> Your post is exactly WHY Libertarians flounder and fail.
> 
> That I can recognize that Libertarians have zero marketing skills


I'm sorry that an intelligent person like yourself needs a someone to have "marketing skills" in order for you to not vote for more big government.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (01-01-2014),Rudy2D (01-01-2014)

----------


## squidward

> 12 terms in Congress, NEVER got any of his important bills passed.


Your big government politicians get all of theirs passed, which precisely why you are on this forum complaining about big government.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (01-01-2014),Rudy2D (01-01-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I'm sorry that an intelligent person like yourself needs a someone to have "marketing skills" in order for you to not vote for more big government.


When you put up a glassy-eyed senile old man, and say "THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO BIG GOVERNMENT" - you make big government look ATTRACTIVE.

I don't support big government but I don't support idiocy and cultism, either.

----------


## Dan40

> I'm sorry that an intelligent person like yourself needs a someone to have "marketing skills" in order for you to not vote for more big government.


I'm sorry that an intelligent person like yourself is clueless about how the world works and how one goes about getting anything done.

I WISH that Paul had accomplished 70% of his ideals.  Or 50%, Or 25%, Or 10% Or 5%.  I WISH he had actually accomplished ANYTHING.

But he didn't.  He helped the cause of big government through personal wackiness, and complete failure at EVERY turn.

I'm intelligent enough to know that wishing as an adult, is escapism and worthless.

Hard goals, hard work and a thoughtful plan is how accomplishments are achieved.

You, and Libertarians, demonstrate NONE of that.

I've tried to explain that to libertarians for several years.

You vilify me for offering you reasonable advice for success.

Evidently reality and Libertarianism cannot co-exist.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Couldn't have been the ratings. No, it had to be something else.


It's a fair point. There seems to be some contention on the ratings issue. Ratings had been down in late 2011, but they also had some of the highest ratings on the Fox Business network for much of their tenure. In which case, the more appropriate response would have been to shake things up to see if the ratings would go up, as is done with most shows. It's not as if they had an adequate replacement.

----------


## Rudy2D

> I'm sorry that an intelligent person like yourself is clueless about how the world works and how one goes about getting anything done.
> 
> I WISH that Paul had accomplished 70% of his ideals. Or 50%, Or 25%, Or 10% Or 5%. I WISH he had actually accomplished ANYTHING.
> 
> But he didn't. He helped the cause of big government through personal wackiness, and complete failure at EVERY turn.
> 
> I'm intelligent enough to know that wishing as an adult, is escapism and worthless.
> 
> Hard goals, hard work and a thoughtful plan is how accomplishments are achieved.
> ...


The Tea-Party is libertarian.  Now go get a grip.

----------


## squidward

> I'm sorry that an intelligent person like yourself is clueless about how the world works and how one goes about getting anything done.
> 
> I WISH that Paul had accomplished 70% of his ideals.  Or 50%, Or 25%, Or 10% Or 5%.  I WISH he had actually accomplished ANYTHING.
> 
> But he didn't.  He helped the cause of big government through personal wackiness, and complete failure at EVERY turn.
> 
> I'm intelligent enough to know that wishing as an adult, is escapism and worthless.
> 
> Hard goals, hard work and a thoughtful plan is how accomplishments are achieved.
> ...


libertarian ideas are never attractive. You like easy answers and pain avoidance, and will vote for nothing less

----------

BleedingHeadKen (01-01-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> The Tea-Party is libertarian.  Now go get a grip.


No, it is not.  We share some ideals with Libertarians as does the Republican Party.  But Libertarians are Libertarians, Republicans are Republicans, and tea party members want lower taxes, less spending, and smaller government on every level.  City, state, and federal.  The tea party message is a simple message.  the tea party does not speak to the Federal Reserve, Troops overseas, or many other Libertarian issues.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Dan, and people who see the world as he does, are NOT the reason for this obscene health-care deformation.


Dan's modus operandi is to berate, belittle, and patronize anyone who does not "see the world as he does". He never provides any evidence for his arguments, even when called to do so but instead uses that as a reason to berate and belittle even more. He is a doddering old crank who loves to grief, and any grief he gets in return is entirely on his own head.

----------


## Dan40

> Dan's modus operandi is to berate, belittle, and patronize anyone who does not "see the world as he does". He never provides any evidence for his arguments, even when called to do so but instead uses that as a reason to berate and belittle even more. He is a doddering old crank who loves to grief, and any grief he gets in return is entirely on his own head.


And you make me laugh.  But you do recite from your textbooks quite well.

----------


## Rudy2D

> The tea party message is a simple message.  the tea party does not speak to the Federal Reserve, Troops overseas, or many other Libertarian issues.


_My_ Tea Party does; what Tea Party are _you_ with?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Libertarians can't get elected simply b/c progressives, homegrown and cultivated by the Establishment, control our institutions. They control education, the courts, media, and the institutions of government. They preach positive government from the time kids first step foot in the government indoctrination centers.


Libertarians don't get elected because very few of us are like the politicians that the people here want to vote for. They want populist promises, whether it's conservative populism or liberal populism, and they want the comfortable, safe authority that tells them what to do and how to think.

Frankly, I would much rather run a business, or create things, than be a politician and hang around with other politicians. I did run for a higher office once, and I had to deal with the most vapid, vain and annoying people on all sides. I also met some great people along the way and remain in contact with them. Local offices are different, as they don't usually require a full time commitment. Libertarians actually win about 17-20% of the offices that they run for.

----------

Rudy2D (01-01-2014),The XL (01-01-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> And you make me laugh.  But you do recite from your textbooks quite well.


You fit the textbook model of an angry old, government-worshiping conservative progressive so well, I can't help but make the comparison.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> _My_ Tea Party does; what Tea Party are _you_ with?


he's with the one that is co-opting yours. The pro-government, anti-liberty Tea Party that hates brown people, loves military adventures, etc. In other words, the neo-con Tea Party that gets most of it's traction from hating on Obama.

----------

squidward (01-01-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I'm sorry that an intelligent person like yourself is clueless about how the world works and how one goes about getting anything done.
> 
> I WISH that Paul had accomplished 70% of his ideals.  Or 50%, Or 25%, Or 10% Or 5%.  I WISH he had actually accomplished ANYTHING.
> 
> But he didn't.  He helped the cause of big government through personal wackiness, and complete failure at EVERY turn.
> 
> I'm intelligent enough to know that wishing as an adult, is escapism and worthless.
> 
> Hard goals, hard work and a thoughtful plan is how accomplishments are achieved.
> ...


What big-L Libertarians don't grasp....is that these IDEAS are bigger than Ron Paul.

Ron Paul may support them.  So do I, most of them.  That doesn't make me or anyone else who supports them automatically qualified to be President.

Quite apart from his views, Ron Paul was an incompetent underachiever - unable to rally support for what he promoted; unable to push any legislation through or stop bad legislation.  He was completely incompetent; and he demonstrated it in his pathetic runs for President.

There are others out there who know how to DO THINGS who support smaller government.  Starting with Paul's own son.  But it's important for Libertarians to remember:  THE MAN IS NOT THE MESSAGE; THE MESSAGE IS NOT THE MAN.

----------


## Rudy2D

> You fit the textbook model of an angry old, government-worshiping conservative progressive so well, I can't help but make the comparison.


NeoCon.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> What big-L Libertarians don't grasp....is that these IDEAS are bigger than Ron Paul.
> 
> Ron Paul may support them.  So do I, most of them.  That doesn't make me or anyone else who supports them automatically qualified to be President.
> 
> Quite apart from his views, Ron Paul was an incompetent underachiever - unable to rally support for what he promoted; unable to push any legislation through or stop bad legislation.  He was completely incompetent; and he demonstrated it in his pathetic runs for President.


Ron Paul should have stayed out of the Republican party. They claim to be for smaller government and freedom, but they just have "ideals" that they are all too willing to compromise in favor of whatever gets them more power. 




> There are others out there who know how to DO THINGS who support smaller government.  Starting with Paul's own son.  But it's important for Libertarians to remember:  THE MAN IS NOT THE MESSAGE; THE MESSAGE IS NOT THE MAN.


It was never about the man, it's about the man's consistency. Trot out any of the Republican names that you think is fighting for liberty, and I will show you the inconsistency in their stance. Were Ron Paul inconsistent like the others, then he would have been shunned by libertarians.

True libertarians are principled, and principle requires consistency. Ron Paul, though not 100% libertarian, maintained consistency, which is what hurts him in politics because he would not bend on his principles.

Who else is consistent? Not Rand. Not Cruz, or Rubio or any other Tea Party Darling Of The Month. They put politics first, and will bend to keep their power. You and Dan uplift the idea of bending and compromising, and that's fine. Just realize that we libertarians hold ourselves to a different standard, even when it's unpopular and does not provide the immediate solution that you demand. We seek non-government solutions to problems. You want government to solve your problems. In the end, you get the government you ask for and deserve, even if it's not the one you want or like.

----------

Rudy2D (01-01-2014),squidward (01-01-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

Consistency?

The only thing Paul fought for with consistency...was EARMARK PROJECTS FOR HIS DISTRICT.

Yep.  Pork.  Under the radar because his district was not a glamourous one; but it's the only legislative success he ever had.

Power corrupts.  The trick is to find someone who, by virtue of morals or fear or other motivation, can keep the corruption to a low threshold.

----------


## Dan40

> You fit the textbook model of an angry old, government-worshiping conservative progressive so well, I can't help but make the comparison.


The fact that analytical thought and maturity are both beyond your grasp is not something I can, or want, to help you with.

And are you really that jealous of my age and experience?  Your singular, stupid, and hilarious comeback is always the angry old man lameness.  I've been on the planet a long time.  But angry?  Not a bit.  I just don't sugar coat my posts so you textbook general half wits won't cry and pee your diapers.

Looking back over more than 7 decades, I'd change my son dying in an auto accident and my first wife dying too.  Otherwise I'd do every bit of it again in a minute.  That's HAPPY dumb ass.  See if you can say the same if you ever mature.

Ron Paul was simply the worst possible purveyor, NOT originator, of some terrific ideas.  The ideas ARE quantum leaps superior to Paul's competence, which was all but zero.

----------


## squidward

> What big-L Libertarians don't grasp....is that these IDEAS are bigger than Ron Paul.
> 
> Ron Paul may support them.  So do I, most of them.  That doesn't make me or anyone else who supports them automatically qualified to be President.


Unless they have the approval of the R's, none will be qualified in your eyes. 
All libertarian runs for president will be pathetic in your eyes, because they won't have the backing of the Republican money machine.  Additionally the republican leadership and the neo-globalist FOX NEWS will tell you that they are not "viable", on the "fringe" and "kooks".

You support their ideals, but strangely, you vote for the ones that most closely match the progressives' ideals instead.

----------


## squidward

> I've been on the planet a long time.


And a slow learner, either that or a closet progressive.

So afraid to lose a battle, that you will lose the war instead.

----------


## Dan40

> And a slow learner, either that or a closet progressive.
> 
> So afraid to lose a battle, that you will lose the war instead.


Not so slow to learn.

I had to face the fact that Ron Paul was an incompetent failure way back when you were likely still in diapers.

Not what I wanted, not what you wanted.  Just a fact of life that has to be faced.  YOU need to catch up.

----------


## squidward

> Not so slow to learn.
> 
> I had to face the fact that Ron Paul was an incompetent failure way back when you were likely still in diapers.


that you have been ignorant and gullible for a long time is not a resounding endorsement.




> Not what I wanted, not what you wanted.  Just a fact of life that has to be faced.  YOU need to catch up.


Your NAFTA, GATA, New World Order, Gramm-Leech-Bliley, Patriot act, Medicare partD, No child left behind, Illegal search and seizure, Global policing, Bank bailing  buddies thank you.

----------


## Dan40

> that you have been ignorant and gullible for a long time is not a resounding endorsement.
> 
> 
> Your NAFTA, GATA, New World Order, Gramm-Leech-Bliley, Patriot act, Medicare partD, No child left behind, Illegal search and seizure, Global policing, Bank bailing  buddies thank you.


YOU have the ill considered and gullible adoration for Ron Paul.

I have the actual FACTS of his Congressional and political career.  A total, unrelenting failure to accomplish ANYTHING in 12 terms.

12 terms X 2 years per term = 0

And of the things you mention in your latest post,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,how many happened on Ron Paul's watch in Congress?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Unless they have the approval of the R's, none will be qualified in your eyes.


Not true.

Don't pretend to know what I believe.  If you doubt what I say, that's your pierogi; but don't attribute YOUR resentment to MY thoughts.

If you want to know what I think, ask.

If you TELL me what I think...we have problems.

----------


## Rudy2D

> Not true.
> 
> Don't pretend to know what I believe.  If you doubt what I say, that's your pierogi; but don't attribute YOUR resentment to MY thoughts.
> 
> If you want to know what I think, ask.
> 
> If you TELL me what I think...we have problems.


Yes.  JPT reserves  to _himself_ the right to tell others what they think.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Yes.  JPT reserves  to _himself_ the right to tell others what they think.


Yeah, I love you too, Rudy old bud...but right now, my patience is frayed.

WHEN I start telling others what they think...feel free to jump on me, with all fours and an engineer's hammer.  UNTIL then...howzabout we keep it to the issue at hand?  Dumpfuhk up there asserted that I'm a slavish R voter.  That's odd, since I've been warring against the RINO-Institutionalists for ten years now.

He couldn't know that; but since he couldn't know that he needs to STFU.

----------


## squidward

> YOU have the ill considered and gullible adoration for Ron Paul.


i have said nothing about ron paul. You are a one schtick wonder. 
Enjoy your obama care. You've been begging for it.

----------


## squidward

> If you want to know what I think, ask.


you've already told me.  You support certain ideals, but just vote for guys who don't.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> you've already told me.  You support certain ideals, but just vote for guys who don't.


I guess it's too much to expect you to make grownup choices.

Such as:  Which is more important.  Getting Ron-Paul-God in elected...or preventing Hussein from obtaining office?

You may blanch at McQueeg.  I did and do.  But the choice came down to McCain or Hussein.

You reject that.  So you throw away your vote; and Hussein and his merry band of imbeciles start taking Miley Cyrus' wrecking ball to the whole of American society.

THE WHOLE GODDAMN WORLD IS NOT GOING TO PICK THE GUY YOU, YOURSELF, THINK IS THE ONE FOR THE OFFICE.  Compromise is an adult concept; and I find most Libertarians have real problems with it.

----------


## Rudy2D

> YOU have the ill considered and gullible adoration for Ron Paul.
> 
> I have the actual FACTS of his Congressional and political career.  A total, unrelenting failure to accomplish ANYTHING in 12 terms.
> 
> 12 terms X 2 years per term = 0
> 
> And of the things you mention in your latest post,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,how many happened on Ron Paul's watch in Congress?


Yup.  RP could've stopped them dang 'Publicans all by hisself, sho'nuff.

----------


## Rudy2D

> Yeah, I love you too, Rudy old bud...but right now, my patience is frayed.
> 
> WHEN I start telling others what they think...feel free to jump on me, with all fours and an engineer's hammer.  UNTIL then...howzabout we keep it to the issue at hand?  Dumpfuhk up there asserted that I'm a slavish R voter.  That's odd, since I've been warring against the RINO-Institutionalists for ten years now.
> 
> He couldn't know that; but since he couldn't know that he needs to STFU.


Uh-oh--something tells me you're no longer enjoying the Florida sun.

----------


## Dan40

> i have said nothing about ron paul. You are a one schtick wonder. 
> Enjoy your obama care. You've been begging for it.


Newsflash.  I will not be on obamascam, you will.

----------


## squidward

> I guess it's too much to expect you to make grownup choices.
> 
> Such as:  Which is more important.  Getting Ron-Paul-God in elected...or preventing Hussein from obtaining office?


and that is why you will lose the war, because you are afraid to lose a battle to make it happen. 




> You may blanch at McQueeg.  I did and do.  But the choice came down to McCain or Hussein.


both world policing, banking whores. 




> Compromise is an adult concept; and I find most Libertarians have real problems with it.


compromising integrity is a fools game.

----------

Rudy2D (01-01-2014)

----------


## squidward

> Newsflash.  I will not be on obamascam, you will.


you'll be a subsidy sucking leech, but you can still enjoy the america you helped create.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> compromising integrity is a fools game.


And what victories have you to demonstrate?

Sucking off the votes of the gullible, so that Dumbocrat Marxists can win with less than a total majority...is SERVICE TO THE ENEMY.  Which is what Libertarian candidates mostly do - they serve as SPOILERS.

----------


## squidward

> And what victories have you to demonstrate?


Look where your "victories" have gotten us.  If you call that victory, i'd hate to see losing.  GO TEAM!




> Sucking off the votes of the gullible, so that Dumbocrat Marxists can win with less than a total majority...is SERVICE TO THE ENEMY.  Which is what Libertarian candidates mostly do - they serve as SPOILERS.


why you insist on giving them what they want, a  populace afraid to vote for anything other than the two party charade, is baffling. 
Libertarians spoil what, the chance that one big government authoritarian might beat the other ? You prefer slow death over quicker death ? 

I don't need a politician who will compromise liberty for re-election.  I need a politician who is willing to lose, in order to do what's right. 
But you will never get behind one, because the Party will hate him, and likewise, you will to.

----------

Rudy2D (01-02-2014)

----------


## The XL

> And what victories have you to demonstrate?
> 
> Sucking off the votes of the gullible, so that Dumbocrat Marxists can win with less than a total majority...is SERVICE TO THE ENEMY.  Which is what Libertarian candidates mostly do - they serve as SPOILERS.


The problem with that line of logic is the fact that you Republican cons are the same shit as the left.

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (01-02-2014)

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> that's funny, saying that to a anarchist.  
> Thanks for the laugh. 
> 
> Can you say "right wing" again. It's so cute the way you say it.


Libretarians dress up their tyranny in an anarchist costume because they know that anarchy is a temporary state that creates a vacuum which their corporate-tyrant heroes can easily step in to fill.  Real Americans must crush these enemies of democracy before they strip off their costumes and reveal what lizards lurk beneath their phony freedom-loving image.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Libretarians dress up their tyranny in an anarchist costume because they know that anarchy is a temporary state that creates a vacuum which their corporate-tyrant heroes can easily step in to fill.  Real Americans must crush these enemies of democracy before they strip off their costumes and reveal what lizards lurk beneath their phony freedom-loving image.


Which beggars the question: what the hell are you? From your posts here and on the other place, you sound increasingly like some Siamese love-child of Karl Marx, Ayn Rand and Bill O'Reilly.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (01-02-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> and you have what to base your claim of "unworkable and unpractical" on ? 
> You have not experienced policy that comes remotely close to libertarian, in your entire life. Further, you have no examples of its failure.


You're saying exactly what Socialist and Communists say to explain away the failures of their own utopian, pie-in-the-sky crackpot theories: 'You can't judge it, it hasn't _really_ been _tried_!'

My one criticism of Margaret Thatcher was when she said that there is no such thing as 'society', and that reflects a radical libertarian influence, and I could not disagree more. Extreme individualism is as much of an intellectual disease as extreme collectivism is: in actual fact, we all exist within a nexus of our own individualities and a complex net of social relationships that range from the family all the way up to the government. The problem is how to manage these relations so that it all works for our benefit, and one collectivity--in this case, the government--doesn't get so hypertrophied as to threaten the health and integrity of every other social relationship and our own individuality. 

Libertarianism can't work because it only acknowledges the real existence of the individual, not of the society of which that individual forms a part.

----------

The Sage of Main Street (01-02-2014)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> You're saying exactly what Socialist and Communists say to explain away the failures of their own utopian, pie-in-the-sky crackpot theories: 'You can't judge it, it hasn't _really_ been _tried_!'
> 
> My one criticism of Margaret Thatcher was when she said that there is no such thing as 'society', and that reflects a radical libertarian influence, and I could not disagree more. Extreme individualism is as much of an intellectual disease as extreme collectivism is: in actual fact, we all exist within a nexus of our own individualities and a complex net of social relationships that range from the family all the way up to the government. The problem is how to manage these relations so that it all works for our benefit, and one collectivity--in this case, the government--doesn't get so hypertrophied as to threaten the health and integrity of every other social relationship and our own individuality. 
> 
> Libertarianism can't work because it only acknowledges the real existence of the individual, not of the society of which that individual forms a part.


You know what's even more fantastical, even more implausible and even more detrimental to society than libertarianism?

The idea that national government _can_ be constrained.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (01-02-2014),squidward (01-02-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> Which beggars the question: what the hell are you? From your posts here and on the other place, you sound increasingly like some Siamese love-child of Karl Marx, Ayn Rand and Bill O'Reilly.



Not a _ménage à trois_.

A _ménage à WTF?_

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> Libertarians can't get elected simply b/c progressives, homegrown and cultivated by the Establishment, control our institutions. They control education, the courts, media, and the institutions of government. They preach positive government from the time kids first step foot in the government indoctrination centers.
> 
> The government schools do not teach freedom, a limiting Constitution, federalism, republican government, proper history, proper economics, etc. They teach "New Deal", "Great Society", Keynesian economics, Marxism, skewed history, etc.
> 
> Is it any wonder that the children, once they sprout into voting adults, carry on as they've been programmed?? They've been programmed to vote for big government, and regardless of which party they've aligned themselves with, that's what they vote for.
> 
> The message of freedom presented by libertarians makes no sense to someone who has been indoctrinated in the ways of democratic, authoritarian government. As a result, the antidote to the poison which is killing our society is rejected with great prejudice.
> 
> And so our society is dying, and will die. And in its stead the Establishment will put in place an overt, unchallengable top-down, authoritarian control system. The people, having been indoctrinated, and having just experienced however many years of upheaval - courtesy of the Establishment - will blindly, and gladly, accept their chains in return for the restoration of order and the promise of an improved economy.
> ...


So you're inviting us to a pity party for paranoiac plutocratic parasites?  I hope it's in a cold place; I don't want to sweat to death from all your hot air.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> Ron Paul should have stayed out of the Republican party. They claim to be for smaller government and freedom, but they just have "ideals" that they are all too willing to compromise in favor of whatever gets them more power. 
> 
> 
> 
> It was never about the man, it's about the man's consistency. Trot out any of the Republican names that you think is fighting for liberty, and I will show you the inconsistency in their stance. Were Ron Paul inconsistent like the others, then he would have been shunned by libertarians.
> 
> True libertarians are principled, and principle requires consistency. Ron Paul, though not 100% libertarian, maintained consistency, which is what hurts him in politics because he would not bend on his principles.
> 
> Who else is consistent? Not Rand. Not Cruz, or Rubio or any other Tea Party Darling Of The Month. They put politics first, and will bend to keep their power. You and Dan uplift the idea of bending and compromising, and that's fine. Just realize that we libertarians hold ourselves to a different standard, even when it's unpopular and does not provide the immediate solution that you demand. We seek non-government solutions to problems. You want government to solve your problems. In the end, you get the government you ask for and deserve, even if it's not the one you want or like.



Your sob story brings tears to my eyes.  Or maybe it's not tears.  Maybe it's trickledown.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> Which begsthe question: what the hell are you? From your posts here and on the other place, you sound like some Siamese-twin love-child of Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, and Bill O'Reilly.


Shows that you are a celebrity groupie and think all the rest of us must attach ourselves to some scribbling prostitute empowered by the ruling class's control over the designated diversity of the media.
 My motto is, "If you've heard of someone, don't listen to him."  In our time, anyone who gets paid to broadcast, write, or teach is of the same ilk as those who get paid to have sex.

----------


## Dan40

Some posts above are like a pus filled pimple on a pretty girls face.

SAD, indeed.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Shows that you are a celebrity groupie and think all the rest of us must attach ourselves to some scribbling prostitute empowered by the ruling class's control over the designated diversity of the media.
>  My motto is, "If you've heard of someone, don't listen to him."  In our time, anyone who gets paid to broadcast, write, or teach is of the same ilk as those who get paid to have sex.


No, I don't have idols. I'm just curious about your actual position.

----------


## wist43

> Libertarians cannot get elected because grownups, non-libburl grown-up voters, recognize the Libertarian platform as unworkable and in some issues downright dangerous.
> 
> They don't appeal to DemoMarxist voters because DemoMarxists have the Real Thing, not a poor substitute.  So that leaves the few Libertarians as isolated ideological purists, refusing (on so many levels) to grow up.


So yielding freedom to leftist, democratic, authoritarian government is "grown up"??

Libertarians view government as our Founding Fathers viewed it - useful when severely restricted and limited, dangerous when unconstrained and ruled by passions.

Most libertarians are also federalists, as were most of our Founding Fathers. Previous generations of Americans were largely libertarian in their world views - live and let live. To be sure there were abuses on the state level, but at least those abuses were contained to an individual state as opposed to a cancer that engulfs the entire country.

Freedom is being destroyed in Amerika - it is being destroyed with every new law passed, encroachment by the federal government upon state and individual rights, the abandonment of our borders, the wild and irresponsible "printing" of money, the outrageous debt, etc, etc...

Progressive interpretations of the Constitution have cleared the way for the Establishment to bankrupt our country, and bring us to the brink of collapse. We are $175 trillion in debt as of 2017 - there is simply no recovering from that. It is the worst case scenario that could be imagined - yet you think the actual antidote is somehow not "grown up"??

I've got news for you - freedom is not a maintenance free proposition. It requires a citizenry be diligent in policing and restricting its government. It does, in fact, require "ideological purity". 

Start down the slippery slope at your own peril - which is what Americans did 100 years ago... now here we are, at the end of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, at the end of the "slippery slope". Bankrupt, enslaved, and bereft of hope.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Advocating open borders is childish.

Advocating political isolationism is childish - and it would be repeating a mistake the United States made in the 1930s.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Advocating free and open use of narcotics, while preventing restrictions on those who use them, is a recipe for social collapse from an indolent, intoxicated public reclining in the clutches of the Welfare State.  AND, it's a threat to public safety.  AND, it will influence elections - quality of personnel and what is pledged to the public.

In short, many of the Libertarian planks are a shortcut to ruin and collapse.  And an educated adult, who thinks beyond pleasure and indulgence, would realize this.

----------


## squidward

> You're saying exactly what Socialist and Communists say to explain away the failures of their own utopian, pie-in-the-sky crackpot theories: 'You can't judge it, it hasn't _really_ been _tried_!'


 i didn't say it hasn't been tried. I said he hasn't experienced it personally (in his lifetime)



> Libertarianism can't work because it only acknowledges the real existence of the individual, not of the society of which that individual forms a part.


nonsense. Libertarianism grants no privilege to individuals. 
The system we have to day is responsible for the advantage that government privilege grants to the select few, and the gross inequality that results.

----------


## squidward

> You know what's even more fantastical, even more implausible and even more detrimental to society than libertarianism?
> 
> The idea that national government _can_ be constrained.


Never before have we encountered a situation whereby a handful of corporations were so privileged as to acquire the ability to bring down the entire global financial system, and which required trillions of dollars to avoid "catastrophe",  and who were then able to profit enormously in the aftermath, sticking the people with the bill. .......................And libertarians are called dangerous. Baffling!!

----------

BleedingHeadKen (01-02-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Advocating open borders is childish.
> 
> Advocating political isolationism is childish - and it would be repeating a mistake the United States made in the 1930s. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> Advocating free and open use of narcotics, while preventing restrictions on those who use them, is a recipe for social collapse from an indolent, intoxicated public reclining in the clutches of the Welfare State. AND, it's a threat to public safety. AND, it will influence elections - quality of personnel and what is pledged to the public.
> 
> In short, many of the Libertarian planks are a shortcut to ruin and collapse. And an educated adult, who thinks beyond pleasure and indulgence, would realize this.


You believe that it is the job of government to protect you from yourself, to inform you of right and wrong, and provide you with security from risk. That's not chlidish, it's infantile. You demand that the state be like a parent to you, but throw a tantrum at those who want more parenting from the state than you would want.

----------


## Network

NSA can't process the data they are storing, but I know who can...the corporations.  Applebaum, Grin Greenwald, and all of the Snowed In lemmings are running distraction with their focus on the NSA and the NSA only.

There are many branches to this security and spying tree, but I guarantee you that anyone getting as much play as the NSA whistlechoker (from the CIA) is not on the side of the truth or the people.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You believe that it is the job of government to protect you from yourself, to inform you of right and wrong, and provide you with security from risk. That's not chlidish, it's infantile. You demand that the state be like a parent to you, but throw a tantrum at those who want more parenting from the state than you would want.


That's not what I said; and it's not a fair representation.

What you seem to advocate does not work; has never worked; CAN NOT work.

Freedom is not anarchy.  And just as a people cannot remain both ignorant and free; so, too, can they not be chemically impaired and free.

Nor can a people survive without protection of restrictive borders - either natural or fortified.  And with laws reinforcing those limits.

I could go on; but it's almost certainly an exercise in futility.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Advocating open borders is childish.
> 
> Advocating political isolationism is childish - and it would be repeating a mistake the United States made in the 1930s.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> Advocating free and open use of narcotics, while preventing restrictions on those who use them, is a recipe for social collapse from an indolent, intoxicated public reclining in the clutches of the Welfare State.  AND, it's a threat to public safety.  AND, it will influence elections - quality of personnel and what is pledged to the public.
> 
> In short, many of the Libertarian planks are a shortcut to ruin and collapse.  And an educated adult, who thinks beyond pleasure and indulgence, would realize this.


You represent everything that's wrong with modern Republiconservatism. You cry over the hills for small government ... but still expect Big Daddy Washington to protect you from the junkies, and the ******s, and the terrorists, and the sodomites.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Never before have we encountered a situation whereby a handful of corporations were so privileged as to acquire the ability to bring down the entire global financial system, and which required trillions of dollars to avoid "catastrophe",  and who were then able to profit enormously in the aftermath, sticking the people with the bill. .......................And libertarians are called dangerous. Baffling!!


...tell me.  What is a "corporation"?

Define it for us.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You represent everything that's wrong with modern Republiconservatism. You cry over the hills for small government ... but still expect Big Daddy Washington to protect you from the junkies, and the ******s, and the terrorists, and the sodomites.


I expect nothing of the kind.  

I expect government to QUIT JAMMING THEIR SOCIAL ENGINEERING DOWN OUR GULLETS.

WE HAVE "protections" against sodomite defilement of the concept of marriage.  It's called, the power of "NO."

We don't need Washington to say that.  These are State issues and this has been, since the nation was founded, settled State law in all states.

That's not requesting Big Government.  That is THE PEOPLE, THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE, REJECTING DEVIANCE.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> I expect nothing of the kind.  
> 
> I expect government to QUIT JAMMING THEIR SOCIAL ENGINEERING DOWN OUR GULLETS.
> 
> WE HAVE "protections" against sodomite defilement of the concept of marriage.  It's called, the power of "NO."
> 
> We don't need Washington to say that.  These are State issues and this has been, since the nation was founded, settled State law in all states.
> 
> That's not requesting Big Government.  That is THE PEOPLE, THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE, REJECTING DEVIANCE.


And what's your problem with libertarians again? That's exactly what they argue.

----------


## Network

I'm amused that libertarians support obvious shills like Snowed In and Assange.  JustPassing is just angry that all of the republicans are fascists but he still feels the need to support a party with a chance.  He dun blocked me. lol

----------


## JustPassinThru

> And what's your problem with libertarians again? That's exactly what they argue.


The hell it is.

They resist ANY control of antisocial behavior and drives to work social-engineering.  When the voters in a state REJECT sodomite sham-marriage, THEY TAKE IT UP THE LIBERAL COURTS.

Likewise the dope laws.  I find this brand of "libertarianism" quite curious - ANY antisocial deviance should be okay; long-lasting hallucinogenic drugs; public nudity and sexual behavior; open borders; no restrictions whatsoever on conduct.

BUT...just let someone try and KEEP WHAT HE EARNS!  These stalwarts of personal liberty start frothing at their mouths about "_CORPORATIONS!!_"

No.  You're not about liberty.  You're about chaos and destroying the culture.

----------


## squidward

> ...tell me.  What is a "corporation"?
> 
> Define it for us.


 for what reason ?

----------


## squidward

> These stalwarts of personal liberty start frothing at their mouths about "_CORPORATIONS!!_"


correction, corporations that are granted immense government privilege, for instance GM(one of your personal favorites)

----------


## squidward

> I expect nothing of the kind.  
> 
> I expect government to QUIT JAMMING THEIR SOCIAL ENGINEERING DOWN OUR GULLETS.


which programs, specifically ?
Are you ready to give up mortgage tax breaks, capital gains rates that are lower than income tax rates, 401K tax deferments ?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> correction, corporations that are granted immense government privilege, for instance GM(one of your personal favorites)


Is it?  

I have no love to waste on Government Motors.

What is a corporation?  Is it like a zombie?  Is it a life-force from another planet?

WHAT "immense government privilege" is a corporation granted?

----------


## Dan40

Near as I can tell, the Libertarian Party came into being just over 40 years ago.

Since then they have run candidates in every national Congressional election and presidential election.

In all those elections, they have never come within many millions of votes of electing anyone to any national office.

The blame for this ridiculously poor showing evidently lies at the feet of non Libertarians that chose to NOT waste their vote on wild eyed, hair brained idiots.

And the Libertarian Party itself holds no responsibility for their well below piss poor results in every election.

How I, a registered Independent am wholly responsible for the complete and utter failures of the Libertarians, I cannot ascertain, but since the Libertarians say I'm responsible and they know everything and make no mistakes, it must be true.

But since I don't know how I personally ruined the Libertarian Party chances to be elected, I don't know how to remedy the situation.

Sorry bout that.

----------


## squidward

> WHAT "immense government privilege" is a corporation granted?


Bailing GM or banks out is not privilege?
85 billion per month to the banks is not privilege?
changing accounting rules for banks is not privilege?
ethanol subsidies are not privilege?

----------


## squidward

> The blame for this ridiculously poor showing evidently lies at the feet of non Libertarians that chose to NOT waste their vote on wild eyed, hair brained idiots.


you wasted your vote on big gov whores instead, just as your party told you to

----------


## wist43

> The hell it is.
> 
> They resist ANY control of antisocial behavior and drives to work social-engineering.  When the voters in a state REJECT sodomite sham-marriage, THEY TAKE IT UP THE LIBERAL COURTS.
> 
> Likewise the dope laws.  I find this brand of "libertarianism" quite curious - ANY antisocial deviance should be okay; long-lasting hallucinogenic drugs; public nudity and sexual behavior; open borders; no restrictions whatsoever on conduct.
> 
> BUT...just let someone try and KEEP WHAT HE EARNS!  These stalwarts of personal liberty start frothing at their mouths about "_CORPORATIONS!!_"
> 
> No.  You're not about liberty.  You're about chaos and destroying the culture.


That's BS, I'm a libertarian and see the need for public decency laws - and agree with you that it is a state matter. Where I have an issue is what I do in my home. 

If I want to smoke pot, or do some other drug, that's my business. If I do not allow that to spill into public, i.e. run around the block naked, or drive in an intoxicated condition, then I should not have to be bothered by someone who might simply disapprove of my private behavior.

As for working while high, depending on the job - if it is a public safety issue, that could properly be addressed by law, but otherwise it is an issue between the employer and employee. No need for "liberal courts".

In the libertarian world, the courts of law would be used much less often. Live and let live. Also in the libertarian world, there would not be a 'welfare state' - there would probably be a safety net, but a safety net is a far cry from a welfare state. There wouldn't be the need for onerous and punitive taxes - largely, your wage would be your take home pay, i.e. you're on your own. Have kids out of wedlock or unable to support them - it's on you. 

Society will always have an underclass of people who simply want to wallow in poverty and self pity. If the children are in peril, the state could step in, but with payment/labor expected of the parent. On and on... the welfare state is part of the slippery slope. Again, however, these are all state by state issues.

----------

HAMARTIA (01-03-2014)

----------


## wist43

> WHAT "immense government privilege" is a corporation granted?





> Bailing GM or banks out is not privilege?
> 85 billion per month to the banks is not privilege?
> changing accounting rules for banks is not privilege?
> ethanol subsidies are not privilege?


Other less obvious though more harmful to a free society are the regulations and licensing requirements that are designed to limit and prevent competition.

Stossel did a program on licensing and how existing associations force entrepreneurs to jump through their hoops, pay at the door for the privilege of being allowed to do business. 

One example he gave was a woman who started up an interior design business - simply decorating a house!!! She was hit with lawsuits and fines for not having a license. A Sunday magazine did a story on her success - this only brought her to the attention of the state interior design association, which then set the state license nazi's upon her. They shut her down and put her out of business.

Another example was an entrepreneur who started up an eyebrow plucking business using string. Same result as the woman above. Only this time, the state stepped in and said his employees had to be licensed to perform all manner of "cosmetic" tasks that had nothing to do with eyebrow plucking. He was forced out of business.

Then there are regulations in general. During the Great Depression the Establishment used regulations to shut down competition - and still do to this day. Big corporations love big regulation b/c they can absorb the costs in the short term, while it squeezes the margins of their smaller competition. Eventually those smaller companies either go out of business, or are bought up by the larger corporations in a "merger", after which the corporation can go back to higher prices and pass the costs of the regulations on to the consumers.

Government regulation is more often than not a racket.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Bailing GM or banks out is not privilege?
> 85 billion per month to the banks is not privilege?
> changing accounting rules for banks is not privilege?
> ethanol subsidies are not privilege?


 @squidward

Do you even understand WTF HAPPENED with GM?

It was bankrupted.  Not in the ordered, legal way - but it WAS liquidated in bankruptcy.

Which meant:  The shareholders, the owners of the corporation that was General Motors - GOT NOTHING.  It was taken AWAY from them!

The businesses GM owed money to - got PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR.

Had this been a legal, ordered bankruptcy, union contracts would have been invalidated as supplier contracts were; as share ownerships were.  But of course, Barry being down for da STRUGGLE...his minions held the union contracts inviolate.  While bondholders, which should have been first in line, GOT NOTHING.

That was no crony capitalism there.  That was a GOVERNMENT SEIZURE of a private business!  Instead of the business being "recapitalized" without its debt - IOW, run by a "receiver" and then have shares sold to new owners with the proceeds paying off creditors - instead of that, the "New GM" was GIVEN TO THE UAW.

Ethanol, bank bailouts, and others...are crony capitalism.  That isn't the result of corporations; that is the result of CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS as well as CORRUPT BUSINESS LEADERS.

Crime, and criminal individuals, exist everywhere.  That isn't caused by corporations.  It's caused by evil people.

----------

catfish (01-03-2014)

----------


## wist43

> @squidward
> 
> Do you even understand WTF HAPPENED with GM?
> 
> It was bankrupted.  Not in the ordered, legal way - but it WAS liquidated in bankruptcy.
> 
> Which meant:  The shareholders, the owners of the corporation that was General Motors - GOT NOTHING.  It was taken AWAY from them!
> 
> The businesses GM owed money to - got PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR.
> ...


The long and short of it is - the whole thing is a bloody mess. Crony capitalism, or theft in the name of the workers, what's the difference?? Just who is getting paid off, and who is getting screwed. The public treasury, and the government itself were never set up and designed to work this way.

It goes back to 1913 when the Establishment was able to gain control of our money supply. From that point on, they've had control and they used their power and position to pry open the vault doors of the public treasury.

Of course it's not just about money, it's about power - hence the logic behind the Establishment pushing enslaving and bankrupting social welfare programs designed to do just that - enslave and bankrupt. 

The solution to the mess is our United States Constitution - but that is a pipe dream given the state of ignorance that exists amongst the Amerikan masses. What we are watching today is the collapse of a society - we are living the nightmare, the Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times".

Of course out of the planned collapse, the Establishment will be waiting with open arms on the other side. At the ready with "solutions" and a new constitution. A constitution which doesn't restrict government, but rather grants rights - that which government gives you, government can take away. The past 100 years of decline have been prelude - we are now entering the final phases of America's makeover. 

For some it will be painful or worse, deadly. For others, there will be great rewards - spoils of war so to speak.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The long and short of it is - the whole thing is a bloody mess. Crony capitalism, or theft in the name of the workers, what's the difference?? Just who is getting paid off, and who is getting screwed. The public treasury, and the government itself were never set up and designed to work this way.
> 
> It goes back to 1913 when the Establishment was able to gain control of our money supply. From that point on, they've had control and they used their power and position to pry open the vault doors of the public treasury.
> 
> Of course it's not just about money, it's about power - hence the logic behind the Establishment pushing enslaving and bankrupting social welfare programs designed to do just that - enslave and bankrupt. 
> 
> The solution to the mess is our United States Constitution - but that is a pipe dream given the state of ignorance that exists amongst the Amerikan masses. What we are watching today is the collapse of a society - we are living the nightmare, the Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times".
> 
> Of course out of the planned collapse, the Establishment will be waiting with open arms on the other side. At the ready with "solutions" and a new constitution. A constitution which doesn't restrict government, but rather grants rights - that which government gives you, government can take away. The past 100 years of decline have been prelude - we are now entering the final phases of America's makeover. 
> ...


First, I showed how those are not similar situations - except that neither are legal.

None of this has to do with "corporations" as a legal structure.  WHICH IS WHAT CORPORATIONS ARE:  groups of people working together to a common purpose under a legal charter.  Usually to conduct business for a profit; but not always.  Your local Elks Club is probably a corporation.  Your city is.  So is your dentist.

It's an organizational charter.

What you're complaining of, is CORRUPTION.  That's as old as Adam.  And Barry is less able to resist the temptation to violate the law to favor his "friends" - for the same reason other stupid people tend to break the law.  Because they're stupid.

So, frankly, are the banksters stupid.  And the ethanol beneficiaries - these games cannot continue; so of course they'll end, suddenly and messily.  With people going to jail or spending huge sums of money trying to stay OUT of jail.

Only a fool wants to get into a business like that.  Stupid, dishonest people on both sides; but corporations are not the cause of this, any more than government is the cause of this.

----------


## wist43

> First, I showed how those are not similar situations - except that neither are legal.
> 
> None of this has to do with "corporations" as a legal structure.  WHICH IS WHAT CORPORATIONS ARE:  groups of people working together to a common purpose under a legal charter.  Usually to conduct business for a profit; but not always.  Your local Elks Club is probably a corporation.  Your city is.  So is your dentist.
> 
> It's an organizational charter.
> 
> What you're complaining of, is CORRUPTION.  That's as old as Adam.  And Barry is less able to resist the temptation to violate the law to favor his "friends" - for the same reason other stupid people tend to break the law.  Because they're stupid.
> 
> So, frankly, are the banksters stupid.  And the ethanol beneficiaries - these games cannot continue; so of course they'll end, suddenly and messily.  With people going to jail or spending huge sums of money trying to stay OUT of jail.
> ...


That's a very naive view. Barry isn't stupid, nor are the bankers, central bankers, or "crony capitalists" whose bank accounts are made flush by siphoning out of the public treasury. Of course it is corruption, but corruption isn't carried on by stupid people. Immoral, dishonest, disgusting, filthy people - but not stupid.

They engage in the corruption b/c they know the game is rigged, and more often than not, they are the ones who rigged it. If those who enforce the law are in on it, then there is nothing to stop the game. From their perspective, it would be stupid not to steal the loot. It's there for the taking.

The people who are stupid are the Amerikan people who allow it. Of course the only people complaining who really want to do anything about it reside in the Republican Party, and the libertarians. Everyone in the Democratic Party is completely corrupt and dishonest - no interest in ever doing the right thing there.

As the old saying goes - shit rolls downhill; all of this is only made possible by the biggest criminals of all - the central bankers at the Federal Reserve, i.e. the Establishment that controls the money supply and sit on the boards of all the major corporations. They are parasites and thieves, and have written law and deranged the Constitution to the point where anything is legal if they say it is. 

Sleazy politicians like Barry and Bubba are not the power brokers. They toil at the end of a leash that is held by the Establishment. The Bush's were Establishment men; Reagan owed his presidency to the Establishment, but was not an Insider, etc... and so it goes.

Read up on the stock market crash of 1929, and the ensuing depression - all cooked up by the Establishment, for very logical reasons. What we are seeing today is simply a continuation of that work.

----------


## JustPassinThru

No.

I showed you how and why Barry and his buds are stupid.

Because this game has only two endings:  Prison or economic collapse.  What good are dollars going to be when dollars are worthless?  This isn't robbing the petty-cash till.  These are of such scale they can and WILL cause a complete collapse.  

And Barry will be on trial for his life or fleeing like Idi Amin Dada.

The "naive view" is to somehow attribute all this wrongdoing to "corporations."  Before there were corporations there were friends of the King or Emperor.  Before that there was Ghengis Khan - who also had a penchant for stealing.

The problem is PEOPLE BREAKING LAWS.

----------


## wist43

> No.
> 
> I showed you how and why Barry and his buds are stupid.
> 
> Because this game has only two endings:  Prison or economic collapse.  What good are dollars going to be when dollars are worthless?  This isn't robbing the petty-cash till.  These are of such scale they can and WILL cause a complete collapse.  
> 
> And Barry will be on trial for his life or fleeing like Idi Amin Dada.
> 
> The "naive view" is to somehow attribute all this wrongdoing to "corporations."  Before there were corporations there were friends of the King or Emperor.  Before that there was Ghengis Khan - who also had a penchant for stealing.
> ...


Why do you think that economic collapse isn't part of the plan?? That's where you're being naive.

The '29 crash was certainly a planned event, just as the depression was kept artificially going by the Money Trust that controlled both the Federal Reserve and FDR. The stock market crash allowed them to swoop in and buy up stock in companies for pennies on the dollar, but more importantly it allowed them to build the regulatory framework from which they could manipulate and control entire industries thru government regulation and controls.

It was the Money Trust that schemed up the New Deal, regulations, and social welfare programs that have handed them complete control of our society.

You might think economic collapse is a bad thing, but international bankers don't. For them it is just another device or maneuver to manipulate society into shackles. Just as most people would view terrorism as a bad thing - to the terrorist, or the powered interests behind the act, it is simply a vehicle to achieve another end. 

I find it amazing that more people don't think their way thru historical and supposedly tragic events. They aren't accidents - there are always winners and losers. Why is so impossible to understand that there are evil people in this world who are entirely capable if visiting misery upon everyone and anyone simply to achieve their nefarious goals??

Do you think JP Morgan, Jacob Schiff, and Old Man Rockefeller cared one wit about doing what was best for the country when they maneuvered the Federal Reserve Act into law?? Don't be naive - that would be like arguing that a gang of kidnappers took your wife b/c they wanted to make sure she got a well balanced breakfast.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> The hell it is.
> 
> They resist ANY control of antisocial behavior and drives to work social-engineering.  When the voters in a state REJECT sodomite sham-marriage, THEY TAKE IT UP THE LIBERAL COURTS.


Most libertarians are Right-leaning, and I would bet a sizable majority are personally opposed to gay marriage. They simply recognize that the wedding custom is, altogether, a matter the government should not involve itself with - it's down to regional governments, and the relevant facilities providing ceremonies. That sounds like common sense to me.



> Likewise the dope laws.  I find this brand of "libertarianism" quite curious - ANY antisocial deviance should be okay; long-lasting hallucinogenic drugs; public nudity and sexual behavior; open borders; no restrictions whatsoever on conduct.


You misinterpret the libertarian position on narcotics and sexuality. I don't know any serious advocate who believes people should be free to go out and smoke hard drugs in the daylight open. It's all about what you do, as a responsible adult, behind closed doors. Employers would have the full right to reprimand useless potheads on their payroll, as they do alcoholics; the same laws which apply to beer-induced antisocial behavior would be applied to disorderly conduct by merit of drug use. As previously, enforcement and legislation would be a local affair.

What's the alternative to drug liberalization, anyway? Billions of dollars squandered on failed initiatives? Thousands of dead Colombians and Afghans? It's not as if everybody's going to become an overnight heroin addict just 'cos drugs are legal.



> BUT...just let someone try and KEEP WHAT HE EARNS!  These stalwarts of personal liberty start frothing at their mouths about "_CORPORATIONS!!_"


 @squidward nailed this one.



> No.  You're not about liberty.  You're about chaos and destroying the culture.


You're about the Drug Catastrophe. You're about denying businesses and families the right to operate on their own terms. You're about preserving the status quo, despite its abject empirical failure. You're the enemy of liberty here, not me.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Why do you think that economic collapse isn't part of the plan?? That's where you're being naive.
> 
> The '29 crash was certainly a planned event, just as the depression was kept artificially going by the Money Trust that controlled both the Federal Reserve and FDR. The stock market crash allowed them to swoop in and buy up stock in companies for pennies on the dollar, but more importantly it allowed them to build the regulatory framework from which they could manipulate and control entire industries thru government regulation and controls.
> 
> It was the Money Trust that schemed up the New Deal, regulations, and social welfare programs that have handed them complete control of our society.
> 
> You might think economic collapse is a bad thing, but international bankers don't. For them it is just another device or maneuver to manipulate society into shackles. Just as most people would view terrorism as a bad thing - to the terrorist, or the powered interests behind the act, it is simply a vehicle to achieve another end. 
> 
> I find it amazing that more people don't think their way thru historical and supposedly tragic events. They aren't accidents - there are always winners and losers. Why is so impossible to understand that there are evil people in this world who are entirely capable if visiting misery upon everyone and anyone simply to achieve their nefarious goals??
> ...


Here we go with the "Cornsthpeeristhy" crap.  Sure, the crash of 1929 was deliberate.

Why?  Who benefitted?  Uh, duh...the Bildebergers?  The Masons?

The 1929 market crash was a correction on a market bubble.  Created by speculative investment using borrowed money with no collateral.  When the market started going down, speculators who bought using the stock as collateral had to sell because suddenly the stock wasn't worth the borrowed money - not enough collateral.  That created a downward spiral.

But this is too long and involved for the cornsthpeerishty enthusiasts, who love to think they have "_Super-Secret INSIDE INFORMATION!!_"  I guess that makes them feel powerful and plugged in.  When in fact it makes them look ignorant and moronic.

When the next crash comes, the dollar itself is gonna be worthless.  Ripping off the government is good sport - so long as one doesn't kill the Golden Goose.  But, what happens when your stolen wealth is DOLLARS - and DOLLARS are suddenly VALUELESS because of the destruction of the American economy?

What is a dollar worth when it's worth nothing?  What's a Zimbabwe dollar worth?  What was a mark worth in the Wiemar Republic of Germany?

Those were't worth the paper they were printed on.

----------


## squidward

> No.
> 
> I showed you how and why Barry and his buds are stupid.
> 
> Because this game has only two endings:  Prison or economic collapse.  What good are dollars going to be when dollars are worthless?  This isn't robbing the petty-cash till.  These are of such scale they can and WILL cause a complete collapse.  
> 
> And Barry will be on trial for his life or fleeing like Idi Amin Dada.
> 
> *The "naive view" is to somehow attribute all this wrongdoing to "corporations."*  Before there were corporations there were friends of the King or Emperor.  Before that there was Ghengis Khan - who also had a penchant for stealing.
> ...


nobody attributed the wrongdoing to "corporations". It has been attributed to a government and corporate tag team.
None of these people "rip off the government" without the collusion of government. 

Why do you think the we blame "corporations" only ?    Corporations can't inflict this type of damage without government privilege.  It takes both partners to dance. 
"Corporations" are not the problem. I have three of them. 
 A handful of specific entities (which happen to be corporations), in conjunction with government is the problem.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> nobody attributed the wrongdoing to "corporations". It has been attributed to a government and corporate tag team.
> None of these people "rip off the government" without the collusion of government. 
> 
> Why do you think the we blame "corporations" only ?    Corporations can't inflict this type of damage without government privilege.  It takes both partners to dance. 
> "Corporations" are not the problem. I have three of them. 
>  A handful of specific entities (which happen to be corporations), in conjunction with government is the problem.


You have three of them?  Wow.  You must really like paying income tax, that you want to pay taxes for three entities.  Or at the very least, file for three entities; and that after filing for Articles of Incorporation and all assorted state and legal fees.

----------


## squidward

> None of this has to do with "corporations" as a legal structure.


nobody made this claim.  




> WHICH IS WHAT CORPORATIONS ARE:  groups of people working together to a common purpose under a legal charter.  Usually to conduct business for a profit; but not always.  Your local Elks Club is probably a corporation.  Your city is.  So is your dentist.
> 
> It's an organizational charter.


why are you ranting about this ? This is common knowledge. Nobody has a beef with this.






> What you're complaining of, is CORRUPTION.  That's as old as Adam.  And Barry is less able to resist the temptation to violate the law to favor his "friends" - for the same reason other stupid people tend to break the law.  Because they're stupid.


corruption is not necessarily "stupid".
When the dollar collapses, these "stupid" people will have already converted trillions of dollars into tangible wealth, and will likely be the engineers of the next currency forced upon us. 
You and i will be forced into the next government/corporate arrangement, that benefits them and not us. 

"barry" is as culpable as "dub", who along with Paulson, rushed out with an open checkbook to save their wall street buddies.

----------


## squidward

> You have three of them?  Wow.  You must really like paying income tax, that you want to pay taxes for three entities.  Or at the very least, file for three entities; and that after filing for Articles of Incorporation and all assorted state and legal fees.


The issue at hand is the gross corporate/government collusion and corruption that is ruining our country

Start another thread if you'd like to talk about my fondness of personal corporate taxes and fees.  That would be quite boring, and I'm sure nobody would participate.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> corruption is not necessarily "stupid".


This kind of "corruption" is suicidal.  

Burning your house down for insurance money is arson - a crime, corruption.

Doing it while you're IN it...is asinine.




> When the dollar collapses, these "stupid" people will have already converted trillions of dollars into tangible wealth, and will likely be the engineers of the next currency forced upon us.


What "tangible wealth"?  GM stock?

Industry, at least American industry, won't SURVIVE an American economic collapse.




> You and i will be forced into the next government/corporate arrangement, that benefits them and not us. 
> 
> "barry" is as culpable as "dub", who along with Paulson, rushed out with an open checkbook to save their wall street buddies.


The "powerful" of today are weak and short-sighted.  The powerful that will take over after the collapse will be nothing like these weak-eyed female bankers.

It will be ugly.  Savage.  The Really Smart People will have all these printouts with all those dollars...meaningless.  Won't know how to snare a single rabbit; and won't be able to steal one from someone who does.

----------


## squidward

> This kind of "corruption" is suicidal.  
> 
> Burning your house down for insurance money is arson - a crime, corruption.
> 
> Doing it while you're IN it...is asinine.


They will have bailed out long before the house burns. You and I will be left inside. They will be the ones left holding the land, resources and military power. 








> What "tangible wealth"?  GM stock?


only the suckers will be left holding the stock. They will be holding the land and resources. 
They will dictate the next currency. What ever tangible wealth you may have accumulated will be taken from you by government edict. The little people will cheer your demise. 




> Industry, at least American industry, won't SURVIVE an American economic collapse.


i doubt that they care. 
They will be holding all of the land and resources. They will control the new currency. The politicians will continue to collude with them for their own personal power and wealth. 
We will work in their new factories, and have the standards of living that the third world now enjoys. 







> The "powerful" of today are weak and short-sighted.  The powerful that will take over after the collapse will be nothing like these weak-eyed female bankers.


  they will be the same corrupt individuals as today. There we be a whole lot less of us left alive. 




> It will be ugly.  Savage.  The Really Smart People will have all these printouts with all those dollars...meaningless.  Won't know how to snare a single rabbit; and won't be able to steal one from someone who does.


 Yes, it will be ugly and savage. If you are alive, they will have already boot stomped your face into submission.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> So yielding freedom to leftist, democratic, authoritarian government is "grown up"??
> 
> Libertarians view government as our Founding Fathers viewed it - useful when severely restricted and limited, dangerous when unconstrained and ruled by passions.
> 
> Most libertarians are also federalists, as were most of our Founding Fathers. Previous generations of Americans were largely libertarian in their world views - live and let live. To be sure there were abuses on the state level, but at least those abuses were contained to an individual state as opposed to a cancer that engulfs the entire country.
> 
> Freedom is being destroyed in Amerika - it is being destroyed with every new law passed, encroachment by the federal government upon state and individual rights, the abandonment of our borders, the wild and irresponsible "printing" of money, the outrageous debt, etc, etc...
> 
> Progressive interpretations of the Constitution have cleared the way for the Establishment to bankrupt our country, and bring us to the brink of collapse. We are $175 trillion in debt as of 2017 - there is simply no recovering from that. It is the worst case scenario that could be imagined - yet you think the actual antidote is somehow not "grown up"??
> ...


When Libretardians preach to suckers and useful idiots about "justice," they really mean "Just Us."  They want to impose absolute rule by the 1%, unrestricted by any GUBMINT protection from the Greedhead beasts' economic tyranny.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> Why do you think that economic collapse isn't part of the plan?? That's where you're being naive.
> 
> The '29 crash was certainly a planned event, just as the depression was kept artificially going by the Money Trust that controlled both the Federal Reserve and FDR. The stock market crash allowed them to swoop in and buy up stock in companies for pennies on the dollar, but more importantly it allowed them to build the regulatory framework from which they could manipulate and control entire industries thru government regulation and controls.
> 
> It was the Money Trust that schemed up the New Deal, regulations, and social welfare programs that have handed them complete control of our society.
> 
> You might think economic collapse is a bad thing, but international bankers don't. For them it is just another device or maneuver to manipulate society into shackles. Just as most people would view terrorism as a bad thing - to the terrorist, or the powered interests behind the act, it is simply a vehicle to achieve another end. 
> 
> I find it amazing that more people don't think their way thru historical and supposedly tragic events. They aren't accidents - there are always winners and losers. Why is so impossible to understand that there are evil people in this world who are entirely capable if visiting misery upon everyone and anyone simply to achieve their nefarious goals??
> ...


Same line used against THE JEWS.    What the Libretardian Lizards really want is to get rid of all those people whom they have to pay off or pay interest to.   Then these slimey Reptile Republicans, who claim to be independent, flicker their slick tongues and spit out scare stories, hoping we will be dumb enough to hand the country over to the Jabba the Hutt CEOs and major stockholders.  Like U-Boats, these Gordon Gekko geckos have the hidden goal of unrestricted economic warfare by the private-sector Nazis against real Americans.  It shouldn't be hard for us to sink to the bottom of the sea such spoiled-rotten Sissies in Suitcoats.

----------


## Dan40

> you wasted your vote on big gov whores instead, just as your party told you to


Party?

What party.

I don't belong to a political party.

I can't vote in a party primary.

Yet you blame me because your incompetent idiotic party cannot generate any more interest than a popcorn fart in a hurricane.

YOUR BEST House of Representative candidate, in history, got 1.41% of the vote. Pitiful!

YOUR BEST Senate candidate, in history, got 1.74% of the vote. Laughable.

YOUR 11 presidential candidates have not amassed enough votes TOTAL, all 11, to remotely challenge any Republican or Democrat presidential winner or loser.

Had your last candidate been able to count every Libertarian vote for president in HISTORY, Johnson would not have come withing 45,000,000 votes of Romney.

And you try to shift the blame for that ridiculousness on to me?

That kind of stupidity is WHY the Libertarian Party FAILS miserably while harboring a host of good ideas.

When something doesn't work for me, I look to see what I did wrong.  Libertarians, YOU, look for somewhere to shift blame.

Loser!

The Libertarian Party:  Where GOOD ideas go to DIE!

----------


## JustPassinThru

> They will have bailed out long before the house burns. You and I will be left inside. They will be the ones left holding the land, resources and military power.


You keep saying that.  Where will they bail TO?
They need to eat.  Mechanized agriculture will CEASE.  Armies need to be fed.  Dollars will be worthless.





> only the suckers will be left holding the stock. They will be holding the land and resources.


How will they hold the land, when there IS no Rule of Law?  Anarchy touches on life in so many ways, some people cannot imagine.

Rich people cannot hold wide swaths of land unless there's law to protect it and/or soldiers to guard it.  The soldiers aren't going to want dollars either; and they're not going to be protecting land for nothing.




> They will dictate the next currency. What ever tangible wealth you may have accumulated will be taken from you by government edict. The little people will cheer your demise.


You don't get it.  Without their DOLLARS and the LAW...they can dictate nothing.

The world will belong to men with guns and men with gold.  They will have neither - they will have fat ledgers and lots of pieces of green-printed paper.





> i doubt that they care.


Without law, arms, or industry...THEY HAVE NOTHING.




> They will be holding all of the land and resources.


They cannot hold land without might.  Pieces of paper won't matter in this Brave New World.

Resources...will be quite different.  Many resources are only resources in an industrialized society.  We will be regressing to a hunter-gatherer society - FAST.




> They will control the new currency. The politicians will continue to collude with them for their own personal power and wealth. 
> We will work in their new factories, and have the standards of living that the third world now enjoys.


They can print up all the pretty scraps of paper they want - if they can find a printing press.

Money of value will be gold and silver.  Beyond that, there will only be barter.







> they will be the same corrupt individuals as today. There we be a whole lot less of us left alive.


Yes, most of them will die.  Those that don't, will be weak and powerless in the new jungle of de-industrialized living.




> Yes, it will be ugly and savage. If you are alive, they will have already boot stomped your face into submission.


Weak punks don't give orders in this new world.  The leaders of tomorrow are digging today's ditches.

The world will belong to the strong.  If the strong are lucky, they'll be advised by the smart.

The Punk Class will have no utility in this setting.

----------


## squidward

> Party?
> 
> What party.
> 
> I don't belong to a political party.
> 
> I can't vote in a party primary.


and you voted for every candidate the R party told you to. 

No candidate will ever be good enough for you to vote for, unless the republican party tells you they are good enough.

----------


## wist43

> Here we go with the "Cornsthpeeristhy" crap.  Sure, the crash of 1929 was deliberate.
> 
> Why?  Who benefitted?  Uh, duh...the Bildebergers?  The Masons?
> 
> The 1929 market crash was a correction on a market bubble.  Created by speculative investment using borrowed money with no collateral.  When the market started going down, speculators who bought using the stock as collateral had to sell because suddenly the stock wasn't worth the borrowed money - not enough collateral.  That created a downward spiral.
> 
> But this is too long and involved for the cornsthpeerishty enthusiasts, who love to think they have "_Super-Secret INSIDE INFORMATION!!_"  I guess that makes them feel powerful and plugged in.  When in fact it makes them look ignorant and moronic.
> 
> When the next crash comes, the dollar itself is gonna be worthless.  Ripping off the government is good sport - so long as one doesn't kill the Golden Goose.  But, what happens when your stolen wealth is DOLLARS - and DOLLARS are suddenly VALUELESS because of the destruction of the American economy?
> ...


There are a lot of good books that have been written about the Money Trust/Robber Barrons and their reasons for seizing control of our money supply (which should be obvious - yet it escapes most; you included apparently).

As Charles Lindburgh Sr. said on the floor of the Senate the day after passage of the Federal Reserve Act, formerly known as the Aldrich bill, 

"When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized... The money power overawes the legislative and executive forces of the Nation and of the States. I have seen these forces exerted during the different stages of this bill..."

"The new law will creat inflation whenever the turst want inflation. It may not do so immediately, but the want a period of inflation, because all the stocks they hold have gone down... Now if the trusts can get another period of inflation, they figure they can unload the stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement and then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices...

"The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only few years removed."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That "day of reckoning" came in October 1929. Throughout the year, the Money Trust boys slowly divested themselves of the market - selling high to unsuspecting speculators who were borrowing "money" on spec, then the powers that be triggered the collapse by calling 24-hour broker call loans...

Writing in _The United States Unresolved_ _Monetary and Political Problems_, William Bryan describes what happened:

"When everything was ready, the New York financiers started calling 24-hour broker call loans. This meant that the stockbrokers and the customers had to dump their stock on the market in order to pay the loans. This naturally collapsed the stock market and brought a banking collapse all over the country because the banks not owned by the oligarchy were heavily involved in broker call claims at this time, and bank runs soon exhausted their coin and currency [their reserves] and they had to close.

"The Federal Reserve System would not come to their aid, although they were instructed under the law to maintain an elastic currency."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Carroll Quigley covers a lot of this in _Tragedy and Hope_, and some in the _Anglo-American Establishment;_ Stanford University professor Antony Sutton wrote a good deal about the crash and FDR's involvement, i.e. doing the bidding of the Establishment.

Of course the Rockefellers, Schiffs, Baruchs, and Warburgs profited handsomely, but few know that it was the stock market crash and depression that greatly enriched the Kennedy family. Patriarch Joseph Kennedy was believed to be worth somewhere around $4 million in 1929, by 1935 his estimated worth was $100 million.

Not everyone suffered during the "depression", and not everyone got their head scalped at the crash. On the contrary, some came out with greater wealth than could be imagined at the time...

... and Americans, you, think that was one big "happy accident"?? Like I said, naive.

----------


## wist43

> When Libretardians preach to suckers and useful idiots about "justice," they really mean "Just Us."  They want to impose absolute rule by the 1%, unrestricted by any GUBMINT protection from the Greedhead beasts' economic tyranny.


Dude, where to you get this crap, lol... 

Freedom is "greed"?? 

I guess your idea of "fairness" would be everyone equally miserable and standing in lines for bread, socks, and coats??

Russian-Bread-Line-2.jpg

----------


## Dan40

> and you voted for every candidate the R party told you to. 
> 
> No candidate will ever be good enough for you to vote for, unless the republican party tells you they are good enough.


That's the dumbest post you've made so far.  But I'm afraid that you can be dumber and dumderer.

 Ron Paul is a Republican in case you weren't told.  And I never voted for him.

Johnson was a successful businessman.  Much like Romney,,,,,no more like mini-Romney.

Johnson was a successful Governor, much like Romney,,,,No, more like Romney-lite.

How in hell does that make him worth a vote?

And YOU are still blaming me for your party's failures.

That's stupid and wrong, but just for the hell of it.  Let's say you are right and the Libertarian Party abject, repeated, massive failure IS my fault.

What is YOUR remedy for YOUR problem?

----------


## squidward

> Ron Paul is a Republican in case you weren't told.  And I never voted for him.


i know you didn't. You were never instructed to.




> And YOU are still blaming me for your party's failures.


i'm blaming you for your party's failures.

----------


## squidward

> You keep saying that.  Where will they bail TO?
> They need to eat.  Mechanized agriculture will CEASE.  Armies need to be fed.  Dollars will be worthless.


they will be long out of dollars and holding real assets. They will issue the new currency that you will use by legislative decree.  







> How will they hold the land, when there IS no Rule of Law?


there will be a rule of law, and they will be crushing you. 





> Anarchy touches on life in so many ways, some people cannot imagine.


there will not be anarchy. There will be a totalitarian regime, and they will tell you when to eat, sleep and crap. 





> Rich people cannot hold wide swaths of land unless there's law to protect it and/or soldiers to guard it.  The soldiers aren't going to want dollars either; and they're not going to be protecting land for nothing.


the soldiers will choose them before you, as you will have nothing to offer them in the new world order.






> You don't get it.  Without their DOLLARS and the LAW...they can dictate nothing.


there will be a new currency and law. You will be on the short end of it. 




> The world will belong to men with guns and men with gold.


they will have more of each, and they will take yours. 







> Without law, arms, or industry...THEY HAVE NOTHING.


there will be law. They will have the arms and the currency you will use. 





> They cannot hold land without might.


they will much more might than you. 








> They can print up all the pretty scraps of paper they want


they will print the new currency and they will take every thing you have. The leeching class will cheer your demise. 









> Yes, most of them will die.


no, most of us will die. 




> The leaders of tomorrow are digging today's ditches.


the ditch diggers of today will dig the ditch you fall face first into, with a bullet in the back of your head. 




> The world will belong to the strong.  If the strong are lucky, they'll be advised by the smart.
> 
> The Punk Class will have no utility in this setting.


the weak americans will gladly accept their new currency saviors, and will cheer when you are robbed of everything and destroyed.

you need to stop watching action moves.

----------


## squidward

> Dude, where to you get this crap


where everyone gets their crap, their ass.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> they will be long out of dollars and holding real assets. They will issue the new currency that you will use by legislative decree.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there will be a rule of law, and they will be crushing you. 
> 
> 
> ...


You have no clue.

Sorry.  It shows.

----------


## Dan40

> i know you didn't. You were never instructed to.
> 
> i'm blaming you for your party's failures.


That is idiotic.  On a par with your other stupid posts.

I've told you [read this slowly], 
I
 DON'T
BELONG
 TO
 A
 POLITICAL
 PARTY. 

  I
HAVE
 NOT
 BELONGED
 TO
 A
 POLITICAL
 PARTY
 FOR
 MORE
 THAN
 30
 YEARS.

Since I don't belong to a political party, there is no way for me to know whiuch party you mean failed.

You obviously hold the opinion that the Democrat Party and/or the Republican Party has failed.  That is your opinion.  Did either of those parties fail to achieve their purpose?  Since you don't belong to either one and I don't belong to either one, how are we to know what their purpose actually is?  Shall we believe what the politicians tell us????????

Newsflash for you Libertarian Party politicians ARE politicians FIRST.  However, their failure is clear historical numerical record.  Unless the Libertarian Party purpose IS to fail.  I don't belong so I don't know.  Do you belong to the Libertarian Party?  Do you know if their purpose was to fail as spectacularly as they have consistently done?

The Libertarian Party, where good ideas go to die, and ineffective failures go to be idolized.

----------


## Cap

Maybe it just sucked

----------


## squidward

> Newsflash for you Libertarian Party politicians ARE politicians FIRST.


Genius, libertarian minded individuals are not the libertarian party. 

You however voted for Bush, McCain and Romney.  What a sorry lot of big government losers.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> There are a lot of good books that have been written about the Money Trust/Robber Barrons and their reasons for seizing control of our money supply (which should be obvious - yet it escapes most; you included apparently).
> 
> As Charles Lindburgh Sr. said on the floor of the Senate the day after passage of the Federal Reserve Act, formerly known as the Aldrich bill, 
> 
> "When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized... The money power overawes the legislative and executive forces of the Nation and of the States. I have seen these forces exerted during the different stages of this bill..."
> 
> "The new law will creat inflation whenever the turst want inflation. It may not do so immediately, but the want a period of inflation, because all the stocks they hold have gone down... Now if the trusts can get another period of inflation, they figure they can unload the stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement and then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices...
> 
> "The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only few years removed."
> ...


The Capitaliban wasted money at the Wall Street casino that they should have put into further development of their businesses and the nation's human and natural resources.  The stock market must be abolished; it is more destructive than the Fed.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> Freedom is "greed"?? 
> 
> I guess your idea of "fairness" would be everyone equally miserable and standing in lines for bread, socks, and coats??
> 
> Attachment 1799


Bootlicking bloggers bloviating for brownie points from their bosses.

----------


## Dan40

> Genius, libertarian minded individuals are not the libertarian party. 
> 
> You however voted for Bush, McCain and Romney.  What a sorry lot of big government losers.


GARY jOHNSON, 1,275,971 VOTES.  0.99% OF VOTERS.  00.04% of the population.

You must be so proud.

Very nearly one full percentage point of the vote.

But NOT a new high total number or a high percentage for libertarians  RU losing ground?.

Maybe because all the good ideas of libertarianism, which I support, are buried under a thick layer of manure of wackiness?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> GARY jOHNSON, 1,275,971 VOTES.  0.99% OF VOTERS.  00.04% of the population.
> 
> You must be so proud.
> 
> Very nearly one full percentage point of the vote.
> 
> But NOT a new high total number or a high percentage for libertarians  RU losing ground?.
> 
> Maybe because all the good ideas of libertarianism, which I support, are buried under a thick layer of manure of wackiness?


Elements of the Christian Right espouse what I and many secularists would consider incredibly dangerous, unproductive and hateful ideas; they are also able to attract a huge base of support, and have a hefty presence at a national and local level. According to your logic, does that somehow make their brand of authoritarian lunacy more valid?

Heck, doesn't that mean _Obama's_ ideas are sound?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Elements of the Christian Right espouse what I and many secularists would consider incredibly dangerous, unproductive and hateful ideas; they are also able to attract a huge base of support, and have a hefty presence at a national and local level. According to your logic, does that somehow make their brand of authoritarian lunacy more valid?


Ya know what?  Whatever your personal belief, our culture was founded on Judeo-Christian traditions.  You're free to believe as you choose; but you are NOT free to take a wrecking ball to the culture for YOUR purpose and against OUR will!

You have the right to try to SELL your beliefs and values.  And when they don't sell...tough toenails.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Ya know what?  Whatever your personal belief, our culture was founded on Judeo-Christian traditions.  You're free to believe as you choose; but you are NOT free to take a wrecking ball to the culture for YOUR purpose and against OUR will!
> 
> You have the right to try to SELL your beliefs and values.  And when they don't sell...tough toenails.


Okay. And how does that address my question? Does the ability to garner more votes make your arguments more practically 'correct'?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Okay. And how does that address my question? Does the ability to garner more votes make your arguments more practically 'correct'?


Yes.  Because elections are not about being "right" based on an outside observer's estimation.  It's about the majority choice - whether they choose wisely or select the bonehead.

Seems you're not selling your candidates and your vision.  Either get the message out better; get a BETTER MESSAGE out; or find someone more persuasive to carry it.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Yes.  Because elections are not about being "right" based on an outside observer's estimation.  It's about the majority choice - whether they choose wisely or select the bonehead.
> 
> Seems you're not selling your candidates and your vision.  Either get the message out better; get a BETTER MESSAGE out; or find someone more persuasive to carry it.


So Obama's ideas are practical, sound and merit only unreasonable criticism? The masses selected him - twice - after all ...

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So Obama's ideas are practical, sound and merit only unreasonable criticism? The masses selected him - twice - after all ...


I did not say that.

The masses are asses.  Or at least they behaved like asses.

It was a perfect storm of bad choices on both sides, by individual voters and by party leaders and opinionators and the Smart Set.

But that doesn't matter; because in a democracy (our system has important aspects of democracy, although it is not one)

...in a democracy, the voters have the RIGHT...to be WRONG.

And they'll get exactly the government they deserve - get it good and hard.

That does NOT mean that Øbomba has _carte blanch_ to do whatever the fark he wants.  Ours is, supposedly, a government limited by the articles of the Constitution - which involve limits and separations of power.  How the voting public reacts to his ever-more-egregious violations, is another matter.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> I did not say that.
> 
> The masses are asses.  Or at least they behaved like asses.
> 
> It was a perfect storm of bad choices on both sides, by individual voters and by party leaders and opinionators and the Smart Set.
> 
> But that doesn't matter; because in a democracy (our system has important aspects of democracy, although it is not one)
> 
> ...in a democracy, the voters have the RIGHT...to be WRONG.
> ...


No administration in living memory has respected the articles of the Constitution, so technically, that critical majority's always been making the wrong choice.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> No administration in living memory has respected the articles of the Constitution, so technically, that critical majority's always been making the wrong choice.


Are you capable of distinguishing among LEVELS of offenses?

It's not unlike crime.  There's jaywalking - it's a crime.  Then there's blowing up a Federal office building in Oklahoma City - that's a crime, too.

So, if you have jaywalked, are you no better than Timothy McVeigh?

On to this boob in the off-white house.  Has ANY President used alleged and assumed powers, to so completely destroy an industry, one vital to health of Americans?  Has any President campaigned for a law that FORCES people, not only to buy something (bad enough) but STIPULATING how it will be bought and sold, and then, to cap it all, been UNABLE TO DELIVER when the People are forced through his turnstiles?

Have you NO sense of perspective?

----------


## squidward

> GARY jOHNSON, 1,275,971 VOTES.  0.99% OF VOTERS.  00.04% of the population.
> 
> You must be so proud.


glad I didn't vote for the loser who lost a primary to the loser that lost to Obama. 

Enjoy your Obama care, which of course, as a Medicare recipient, you fall under the control of. Ezekiel Emanuel and his complete lives system will decide what care you get, as your decrepit old body has worn out its usefulness to society

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (01-04-2014)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Are you capable of distinguishing among LEVELS of offenses?
> 
> It's not unlike crime.  There's jaywalking - it's a crime.  Then there's blowing up a Federal office building in Oklahoma City - that's a crime, too.
> 
> So, if you have jaywalked, are you no better than Timothy McVeigh?
> 
> On to this boob in the off-white house.  Has ANY President used alleged and assumed powers, to so completely destroy an industry, one vital to health of Americans?  Has any President campaigned for a law that FORCES people, not only to buy something (bad enough) but STIPULATING how it will be bought and sold, and then, to cap it all, been UNABLE TO DELIVER when the People are forced through his turnstiles?
> 
> Have you NO sense of perspective?


And what would that "jaywalking" be? Iran-Contra? The PATRIOT Act? Watergate? 

My sense of perspective doesn't run along partisan lines.

----------


## squidward

> I
>  DON'T
> BELONG
>  TO
>  A
>  POLITICAL
>  PARTY. 
> 
> 
> ...


despite your uncanny ability to play dumb, you can now refrain. Senility is not becoming




> You obviously hold the opinion that the Democrat Party and/or the Republican Party has failed.


 despite the little sense of accomplishment you get every time one of your big government two party offerings gets elected

----------


## JustPassinThru

> And what would that "jaywalking" be? Iran-Contra? The PATRIOT Act? Watergate? 
> 
> My sense of perspective doesn't run along partisan lines.


Sure doesn't run along INFORMATION lines, either.

Iran-Contra was a sham scam.  A witch hunt.

The Patriot Act was made NECESSARY - by libburls' unwillingness to forcibly EJECT alien ENEMIES!  It was a compromise; SOMETHING had to be done with numerous Islamic terrorist "students" of 35 years or older.  Libburls and their immediate knee-jerk defense of obvious enemies of the nation, brought us to that.

Now it's being abused by the same libburls.  What, I'm supposed to be blaming people who tried to do something and were stymied?

Watergate was a JOKE compared to what's being done CONTINUOUSLY today.

Oh, and - yes, your outrage tracks PERFECTLY along party lines.

You're just hoping to pretend not, thinking we won't notice.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Sure doesn't run along INFORMATION lines, either.


Pathetic.



> Iran-Contra was a sham scam.  A witch hunt.


Selling weapons to a rabid theocracy that was holding your citizens to ransom sounds a little serious to me.



> The Patriot Act was made NECESSARY - by libburls' unwillingness to forcibly EJECT alien ENEMIES!  It was a compromise; SOMETHING had to be done with numerous Islamic terrorist "students" of 35 years or older.  Libburls and their immediate knee-jerk defense of obvious enemies of the nation, brought us to that.


The Bush administration's consistent ignorance to warnings of an impending terrorist attack had nothing to do with it, then. And, please, don't Obama me again with your claims of support for "small government". The PATRIOT Act is, was and never will be necessary.



> Now it's being abused by the same libburls. What, I'm supposed to be blaming people who tried to do something and were stymied?


Yeah, yeah, I'm ahead of you on this one. It's all fine and dandy for your party to abuse their legislative functions, but for the opposition to do it is a cardinal sin.



> Watergate was a JOKE compared to what's being done CONTINUOUSLY today.


That we can agree on.



> Oh, and - yes, your outrage tracks PERFECTLY along party lines.
> 
> You're just hoping to pretend not, thinking we won't notice.


You know you're talking bullshit now.

----------


## The XL

> Sure doesn't run along INFORMATION lines, either.
> 
> Iran-Contra was a sham scam.  A witch hunt.
> 
> The Patriot Act was made NECESSARY - by libburls' unwillingness to forcibly EJECT alien ENEMIES!  It was a compromise; SOMETHING had to be done with numerous Islamic terrorist "students" of 35 years or older.  Libburls and their immediate knee-jerk defense of obvious enemies of the nation, brought us to that.
> 
> Now it's being abused by the same libburls.  What, I'm supposed to be blaming people who tried to do something and were stymied?
> 
> Watergate was a JOKE compared to what's being done CONTINUOUSLY today.
> ...


Weak justifications for the sins of the Republican party.  Makes you sound like a hack.

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (01-04-2014)

----------


## The XL

> Ya know what?  Whatever your personal belief, our culture was founded on Judeo-Christian traditions.  You're free to believe as you choose; but you are NOT free to take a wrecking ball to the culture for YOUR purpose and against OUR will!
> 
> You have the right to try to SELL your beliefs and values.  And when they don't sell...tough toenails.


What gives you the right to impose and legislate your culture on others?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Weak justifications for the sins of the Republican party.  Makes you sound like a hack.


Get off the thread, you blatant Obamabot!

----------

The XL (01-04-2014)

----------


## The XL

> Get off the thread, you blatant Obamabot!


That's all they have, really.  Like a broken record.

Total weak sauce.

----------


## Cap

"Blatant Obamabot" lol!

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (01-04-2014),The XL (01-04-2014)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> That's all they have, really.  Like a broken record.
> 
> Total weak sauce.


Dems worshiping Barry is absurd. Cons worshiping Saint Ronnie is an honorable pastime.

Obama abusing his vested powers is a national disgrace. No Republican President ever wanted to do it, but was forced into doing it by the heinous acts of a previous liberal administration and their Muslim allies.

The parameters of small government don't extend to what a pair of consenting adults do in the bedroom, a state's right to dictate its own abortion policy, what kids learn in science class, and the Federal government's right to spy on you (providing a Republican's in charge).

Equating the dire record of Republican Presidents with that of Democrat Presidents makes you an Obama supporter.

I've got them all figured out. Every - fucking - one.  :Tongue20:

----------


## Cap

And this is why democracy is failing.

You cannot hand the keys to the truck over to idiots.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> And this is why democracy is failing.
> 
> You cannot hand the keys to the truck over to idiots.


Never was a democracy. Most likely never will be.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Selling weapons to a rabid theocracy that was holding your citizens to ransom sounds a little serious to me.


"_It's not the nature of the evidence; but the SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGE._"

One more hysteric.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Weak justifications for the sins of the Republican party.  Makes you sound like a hack.


Okay.  Complain about an UNAUTHORIZED burglary into ONE office...not even ordered at the top; but only covered up after the fact...

...compare that to wholesale downloads of ALL personal data ever passed over internet connections.  

Only a party idealogue would even TRY to make that comparison.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The Bush administration's consistent ignorance to warnings of an impending terrorist attack had nothing to do with it, then. .


That's been worked to death; even rabid Dumbocrat witch-hunters had to give it up.

A vague warning that "something" was going to happen - no date, time, or manner.  What the hell is the government supposed to do?  Declare indefinite martial law?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> That's been worked to death; even rabid Dumbocrat witch-hunters had to give it up.
> 
> A vague warning that "something" was going to happen - no date, time, or manner.  What the hell is the government supposed to do?  Declare indefinite martial law?


Likewise, what did you expect of the Democrats who supposedly enabled the attacks?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> "_It's not the nature of the evidence; but the SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGE._"
> 
> One more hysteric.


The nature of the evidence being that senior figures within the U.S. government sold weapons to a state holding Americans hostage, against all Congressional sanctions in place, in order to fund an obsessive campaign of terror in a sovereign nation. This doesn't strike you as faintly implicative?

----------


## The XL

> Okay.  Complain about an UNAUTHORIZED burglary into ONE office...not even ordered at the top; but only covered up after the fact...
> 
> ...compare that to wholesale downloads of ALL personal data ever passed over internet connections.  
> 
> Only a party idealogue would even TRY to make that comparison.


You really think it stops there?

Come on.  Get a clue.

----------


## Dan40

> despite your uncanny ability to play dumb, you can now refrain. Senility is not becoming
> 
>  despite the little sense of accomplishment you get every time one of your big government two party offerings gets elected


Amazing all the psychotic errors in your demented mind you credit to me.  I did this, I did that, all which ruined the nation.

What have you done but spout useless and naive philosophy.

You've listed much blame for me doing things that you actually have no way of knowing if I did them or not.

No matter, I really don't care about your stupid childish blame game.  YOU don't matter.

I would like to know though, WHAT you personally have done to improve anything.  Anything at all.  OR IF you ever intend to do anything but whine about what you erroneously believe I've done.

Or do you just want to use me as a whipping boy for your failed life?  If that's it, go ahead, blame me for all your troubles.  Doesn't mean squat to me.  You are just a series of characters on a screen.  Valueless.

----------


## squidward

> What have you done but spout useless and naive philosophy.


 ...as opposed to spouting useless complaints about big government, yet voting for it time and time again. Good job.




> You've listed much blame for me doing things that you actually have no way of knowing if I did them or not.


Ok, you really didn't, ..............giggles. 




> No matter, I really don't care about your stupid childish blame game.  YOU don't matter.


 don't reply to me if you don't want to, .....but you know you'll want to.  :Love4:

----------

The XL (01-04-2014)

----------


## The XL

> ...as opposed to spouting useless complaints about big government, yet voting for it time and time again. Good job.
> 
> Ok, you really didn't, ..............giggles. 
> 
>  don't reply to me if you don't want to, .....but you know you'll want to.


We must be gluttons for punishment, we continually argue with statists with no foundation to stand on in regards to their arguments.  Might as well yell at a wall.

----------


## Dan40

> ...as opposed to spouting useless complaints about big government, yet voting for it time and time again. Good job.
> 
> Ok, you really didn't, ..............giggles. 
> 
>  don't reply to me if you don't want to, .....but you know you'll want to.


What part of your idiocy would you like replied?

I asked some questions, you have shown you are unable to answer.

Bitch at me as childishly as makes you feel good.

But do not EVER respond to an adult question.  That is beyond your ability.

Did you peeper your panties a little when you giggled?  Would your mommy notice?

----------


## squidward

> What part of your idiocy would you like replied?
> 
> I asked some questions, you have shown you are unable to answer.
> 
> Bitch at me as childishly as makes you feel good.
> 
> But do not EVER respond to an adult question.  That is beyond your ability.
> 
> Did you peeper your panties a little when you giggled?  Would your mommy notice?


awe shucks, i must matter after all. 
You big government supporters are so cute.  :Kiss20:

----------


## squidward

> We must be gluttons for punishment, we continually argue with statists with no foundation to stand on in regards to their arguments.  Might as well yell at a wall.


 a kinder, gentler wall.

----------

The XL (01-04-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> We must be gluttons for punishment, we continually argue with statists with no foundation to stand on in regards to their arguments.  Might as well yell at a wall.


Yes, the deranged howling of the insane...draw only pity from me.

Your political views and assertions aren't making a lot of sense; and your silly, false labelings aren't impressing, either.

Where'd you pick up the label "statist"?  You might try reading some of his material.  His definition of the term is far from yours.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> No administration in living memory has respected the articles of the Constitution, so technically, that critical majority's always been making the wrong choice.


Sneaky as always, Libretardians take advantage of the fact that we are continually brainwashed to worship that Sacred Cow from the 18th Century, the Constitution.  Drop that buzz word into the conversation and you can turn us into mindless insects.  We are not bound to any document written behind close doors by lawyers for that era's 1%.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> Okay. And how does that address my question? Does the ability to garner more votes make your arguments more practically 'correct'?


You puppets of the rich always talk about how we are jealous of your puppetmasters, so we can throw it back at you and say that you are jealous of those who win nominations, elections, and votes on legislation.   Losertarians are just sore losers about how many people realize that you are the Tea Potty of Crackpots.

----------


## Dan40

> awe shucks, i must matter after all. 
> You big government supporters are so cute.


Are you trying to set a record for delusional, evasive, posts?

If that is your aim, you're doing well.  If you have any other aim,,,,,,,,,,FAIL!

I appreciate your over strong opinions.  If they had any basis in fact or reality, they would matter.  But your opinions are naive silliness.

----------


## The XL

> Yes, the deranged howling of the insane...draw only pity from me.
> 
> Your political views and assertions aren't making a lot of sense; and your silly, false labelings aren't impressing, either.
> 
> Where'd you pick up the label "statist"?  You might try reading some of his material.  His definition of the term is far from yours.


What false label?  You're a progressive Republican, no different than a liberal.  Nothing false about pointing that out.

----------


## JustPassinThru

You've already shown you're piss-poor at character judgments.

You find a buffoon a worthy candidate for the Presidency; and you find me a progressive Republican.

And you find the United States "imperialist."

Tell me...do you smoke a lot of weed?  Find it clears your head maybe?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Sneaky as always, Libretardians take advantage of the fact that we are continually brainwashed to worship that Sacred Cow from the 18th Century, the Constitution. Drop that buzz word into the conversation and you can turn us into mindless insects. We are not bound to any document written behind close doors by lawyers for that era's 1%.





> You puppets of the rich always talk about how we are jealous of your puppetmasters, so we can throw it back at you and say that you are jealous of those who win nominations, elections, and votes on legislation.   Losertarians are just sore losers about how many people realize that you are the Tea Potty of Crackpots.


What do you want everybody to do, again? You're good at peppering your posts with quasi-Marxist rhetoric and tirades against the wealthy, but never seem to present any real positions.

----------


## The XL

> You've already shown you're piss-poor at character judgments.
> 
> You find a buffoon a worthy candidate for the Presidency; and you find me a progressive Republican.
> 
> And you find the United States "imperialist."
> 
> Tell me...do you smoke a lot of weed?  Find it clears your head maybe?


I've backed all of my assertions with facts, and all you have are baseless insults. 

How old did you say you were again?  Father time has been cruel to you, all he's done is give you wrinkles, he hasn't blessed you with wisdom or knowledge.  Maturity either, it would seem.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I've backed all of my assertions with facts, and all you have are baseless insults. 
> 
> How old did you say you were again?  Father time has been cruel to you, all he's done is give you wrinkles, he hasn't blessed you with wisdom or knowledge.  Maturity either, it would seem.


No, you haven't.

You've just repeated buzzwords.

Where, again, has the United States set up occupied colonies; or appropriated resources or mineral wealth?

In WHAT WAY do I deviate from the Constitution in favor of the Marxist/Progressive Movement?

----------


## squidward

> In WHAT WAY do I deviate from the Constitution in favor of the Marxist/Progressive Movement?


by voting for neo-cons, the "viable" big government, wold policing, bank supporting, liberty suppressing candidates.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> by voting for neo-cons, the "viable" big government, wold policing, bank supporting, liberty suppressing candidates.


Yeah, instead of REAL ACHIEVERS like RON PAUL.

Here's a clue.  Run with it...

The guy you like is almost NEVER going to be on the ballot!

For a whole HOST of reasons, part of which is that you're out of tune with what most voters, including most conservative voters, look for.

But, be that as it may.  Your guy didn't make the cut.

Now you have to choose.  Who is acceptable; who is not; who might be DANGEROUS.

If you write in JOE then, what have you done?  Joe won't win.  

What if the candidate you really, really fear...doesn't have a majority but gets more than any other candidate?

...Like Clintoon got in 1992?  He WON - with 43 percent of the vote!

How's that?  Perot sucked away about eight percent of the vote; which if it had gone to Bush, as it otherwise would have, would have kept Bubba and Shrillery in Ar-Kansas.

THAT is what these stupid gestures do - the OPPOSITE of what you want.

Paul, or Joe or Ross Perot, or Gary Johnson...are not going to win.  The last Third Party candidate to win was Abraham Lincoln; and that was in the middle of the Union coming apart.

----------


## Dan40

> by voting for neo-cons, the "viable" big government, wold policing, bank supporting, liberty suppressing candidates.


You have become a one trick pony.  You are disassociated with reality.

You Do not, cannot, and will not defeat big government by slobbering platitudes.  Nor by wasting votes on ghosts that quickly fade from history.  Big government is entrenched.  You can huff and puff but you won't blow the wall down.  It has to be dug at and scraped at, probably for longer than it took to become entrenched.  NOT a job for those like you that want to endlessly whine and bitch about ONE thing.

You want mommy to kiss it and make it better.  Adult life doesn't work that way.

The problem with BIG government is that it leads to BAD government.  Fix BAD government and Big government will rectify itself.

----------


## JustPassinThru

That kind of attitude, that I'm seeing from some of my opponents here...is what I learned to associate with heavy pot use.

Impaired reasoning; rude insistence against all logic; and childlike personal attacks.

I don't know that anyone here is or is not using legal or illegal substances.  Just that when I had to oversee kids, when I saw that kind of childlike, dogged insistence that 2+2=5...I knew I was dealing with a chronic smoker.

----------


## squidward

> The guy you like is almost NEVER going to be on the ballot!


 probably




> For a whole HOST of reasons, part of which is that you're out of tune with what most voters, including most conservative voters, look for.


the guy the media tells them is "viable"




> Now you have to choose.  Who is acceptable; who is not; who might be DANGEROUS.


Bush, Obama, McCain, Romney    all dangerous 





> What if the candidate you really, really fear...doesn't have a majority but gets more than any other candidate?
> 
> ...Like Clintoon got in 1992?  He WON - with 43 percent of the vote!


preceded by the NWO poster child and followed by the NWO child of the poster child. 

How's that?  Perot sucked away about eight percent of the vote; which if it had gone to Bush, as it otherwise would have, would have kept Bubba and Shrillery in Ar-Kansas.




> THAT is what these stupid gestures do - the OPPOSITE of what you want.


they all work for the finance sector. THe rest of the crap that scares you is political theatre. 




> Paul, or Joe or Ross Perot, or Gary Johnson...are not going to win.


neither is the country.

----------


## squidward

> You Do not, cannot, and will not defeat big government by slobbering platitudes.


you have not, could not and can never defeat it by voting for it.

----------

The XL (01-06-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> probably
> 
> the guy the media tells them is "viable"
> 
> 
> Bush, Obama, McCain, Romney    all dangerous 
> 
> 
> preceded by the NWO poster child and followed by the NWO child of the poster child. 
> ...


Your lack of coherent thought...is shocking.

Buzzwords and conspiracy theories don't take the place of intelligence.

And conspiracy theories don't alter the reality of the political situation.  Which is a constant, because that is the nature of an election.

Our system does not work well with multiple fringe parties.  I could explain why but it would go right over your head.

But IF WE DID go to a Eurotrash parliamentary system - where you vote the PARTY, instead of the person, and the seats are apportioned - if we did that, two things would happen.  

First, government would have license to jam down our throats every crackpot idea they hatch or compromise on - the government would control society instead of society controlling government and political debate.

Second, your Libertarian Party would quickly negotiate with the Dumbocrats, the American Nazi Party, and the Communists to overwhelm the Republicans and Tea Parties.  So...they'd have that big compromise coalition:  Government healthcare; Government takeover of industry; wages set by government (all of these, Communist aspirations)

...oh, and, dope is legal.  PARTY TIME!!  The Libertarians DID IT!

Except your future and life will be as bleak as a Moscow winter.  And your self-improvement will end...one more thing dope takes from you is a motivation to excel.

Such a system WAS considered by the authors of the Constitution; they rejected it.  For sound reasons you obviously cannot grasp.

----------


## Dan40

> you have not, could not and can never defeat it by voting for it.


Only accurate statement you've ever made on the internet.


Now if only you had a tiny shred of actual intelligence and could tell the difference between voting against BAD govt and wasting your vote on candidate Nobody X Nowhere.

But you do not.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> What do you want everybody to do, again? You're good at peppering your posts with quasi-Marxist rhetoric and tirades against the wealthy, but never seem to present any real positions.


The usual dishonest answer by ideologues who dismiss any position they don't want to debate.  Abolish inheritance and all other advantages of birth, for one.  If that had been done to your imaginary enemy Marx, no one would have ever heard of him, so you are not really anti-Marxist.  Von Westphalen's trophy husband was no different from Bush, a conceited fraternity drunk who tried to be born again through addicting himself to the drive for power over those his Daddy had always told him were inferior to him. Another match was that the Bush family fortune was created when Prescott became an heiress's trophy husband.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if we get the same kind of Presidents from Anna Nicole Smith's heirs.

----------


## squidward

> Your lack of coherent thought...is shocking.
> 
> Buzzwords and conspiracy theories don't take the place of intelligence.


 only democrats want to destroy the country, I forgot.  Your boys are angels. 





> First, government would have license to jam down our throats every crackpot idea they hatch or compromise on - the government would control society instead of society controlling government and political debate.


 yeah, wouldn't want that here.  :Thinking: 




> Second, your Libertarian Party would quickly negotiate with the Dumbocrats, the American Nazi Party, and the Communists to overwhelm the Republicans and Tea Parties.  So...they'd have that big compromise coalition:  Government healthcare; Government takeover of industry; wages set by government (all of these, Communist aspirations)


 why would the libertarian party not negotiate with the Reptilicans instead ?    




> ...oh, and, dope is legal.  PARTY TIME!!  The Libertarians DID IT!


booze is legal, so what ? 




> Except your future and life will be as bleak as a Moscow winter.


 your big gov boys are bringing it just fine

At one point i thought you could actually debate without hysterics. Guess i was wrong.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> only democrats want to destroy the country, I forgot.  Your boys are angels. 
> 
> 
>  yeah, wouldn't want that here. 
> 
>  why would the libertarian party not negotiate with the Reptilicans instead ?    
> 
> booze is legal, so what ? 
> 
> ...


You're not going to give up that "They're all the same except for RON PAUL!!" meme.  I can only show it to you; I can't perceive it for you.

There are political realities.  You reject them at the risk of being endlessly disappointed - and used as a pawn by false populist agitators who promise what can never be, for the freedoms that can never be recovered.

----------


## squidward

> Only accurate statement you've ever made on the internet.
> 
> 
> Now if only you had a tiny shred of actual intelligence and could tell the difference between voting against BAD govt and wasting your vote on candidate Nobody X Nowhere.
> 
> But you do not.


The dumb ones always claim intelligence.

----------


## squidward

> You're not going to give up that "They're all the same except for RON PAUL!!" meme.  I can only show it to you; I can't perceive it for you.
> 
> There are political realities.  You reject them at the risk of being endlessly disappointed - and used as a pawn by false populist agitators who promise what can never be, for the freedoms that can never be recovered.


There are political realities. The republicans support big, intrusive, market distorting, world policing, freedom grabbing, crony capitalist government, the same as the dems.

some of us fancy ourselves intelligent by voting for the lesser of two shitpiles

----------


## JustPassinThru

> There are political realities. The republicans support big, intrusive, market distorting, world policing, freedom grabbing, crony capitalist government, the same as the dems.
> 
> some of us fancy ourselves intelligent by voting for the lesser of two shitpiles


Assertion is not proof; and logical examination refutes your claim.

I tried to walk you through it.  You've reverted to cliche.

War is sometimes necessary.  And THE BEST way to avoid war is to be ready to respond to it.

Churchill once said that to have peace, a nation must prepare for war.

Subjugation as the result of war, comes after a nation plans for, struggles for, peace.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

The most potentially disastrous position libertarians take is their isolationism.

As if this world is as it was in 1776, and the US can nestle safely between two oceans and the hostility and malignity of its enemies will never manage to wash up onto its shores eventually...ridiculous!! This is the 21st century, with 21st century technological deviltries, and ostriches will soon be DEAD under these circumstances. 

That's why the whole notion of 'a war-weary nation' has to be forever swept under the rug. The only choice is to keep fighting or disappear from history, at least until those that want to see you destroyed themselves disappear. Face it: you will NEVER be at peace for at least the foreseeable future, and there will ALWAYS be enemies you need to be fighting or preparing to fight, if you want to live. THIS is the reality, for those who are partial to reality. War-weariness is NOT an option.

----------


## Dan40

> The dumb ones always claim intelligence.


Evidently YOU are now claiming to be intelligent.

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 


Did you do your homework and LEARN that your opinion about Romney and the MA healthcare law was 100% misguided, misinformed, and flat out wrong?

If you did do the research you should have done, you have taken the first step into intelligence and reality.

If you didn't do your research, then you are just a dumb ass whiny baby.

----------


## squidward

> Evidently YOU are now claiming to be intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you do your homework and LEARN that your opinion about Romney and the MA healthcare law was 100% misguided, misinformed, and flat out wrong?
> 
> If you did do the research you should have done, you have taken the first step into intelligence and reality.
> 
> If you didn't do your research, then you are just a dumb ass whiny baby.


Does somebody need a stool softener and a Boost?

----------


## Dan40

> Does somebody need a stool softener and a Boost?


Weak, pitiful, and lame.  I'm in a battle of wits with an unarmed little child.  And shit For Brains, it is YOU that is in emergency need of a mental stool softener.

Are you AFRAID to do due diligence and learn your postion has been stupidly wrong all this time?  Because it has, according to the Congressional Record of the State of MA.  Not me, not FOX, not the left, not the tea party, not the Libertarian Party, not the right.  Just the actual history of the MA healthcare law.

But you are entirely too childish and stupid to admit you were 100% wrong!

Sorry 'bout that dummy.

Now I've beaten you  so far into the dirt that you're now a bore.  No contest, no challenge, a pitiful dupe that FEARS truth.

The more you post, the more OBVIOUS the shortcomings of libertarian naivete becomes.  Idiots like you pull down a group that DOES have some terrific ideas, but dupes and dummys like you are dragging its anchor.

Beam me up Scottie, NO intelligent life in squidward land.

----------


## JustPassinThru

He sticks with, sticks up for, the Libertarians, for the same reason the liberals stay liberal.

BOTH of them get validation of their superior intelligence from others of the same mindset...by repeating the Bumper Stickers and slogans to each other.  Like liberalism, this slavish devotion to failed pols and the party that keeps wasting everyone's time, is their badge of superiority.

He's going to resist moving away from it.  Like liberals cannot admit the failures, the flawed thinking, the poor judgment, the incorrect models, that make up liberalism.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Libertarians are a bizarre tribe...their ideology is a home of dark conspiracy theorists and dope-smokers.

----------

JustPassinThru (01-07-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> He sticks with, sticks up for, the Libertarians, for the same reason the liberals stay liberal.
> 
> BOTH of them get validation of their superior intelligence from others of the same mindset...by repeating the Bumper Stickers and slogans to each other.  Like liberalism, this slavish devotion to failed pols and the party that keeps wasting everyone's time, is their badge of superiority.
> 
> He's going to resist moving away from it.  Like liberals cannot admit the failures, the flawed thinking, the poor judgment, the incorrect models, that make up liberalism.


But libertarians and the Libertarian Party DO have many very righteous ideas.  They SHOULD always be seeking TRUTH no matter the cost.  They should always be trying to hone their message to its sharpest most effective points.

They certainly have no need to believe stupid lies like liberals do.  But SOME libertarians are terrorized by truth and rationality.  That SHOULD be just the opposite, but many internet posts PROVE otherwise.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Libertarians are a bizarre tribe...their ideology is a home of dark conspiracy theorists and dope-smokers.


Yup.  They're drawn to the lure of cheap pleasure (drugs) and their shallow curiosity is satisfied with simplistic conspiracy theories.

Not a whole lot of deep thinking going on there.  Really, Ron Paul is truly one of the most complex Libertarians you'd find.

Which doesn't mean he'd be successful as President, for the reasons I'd been hammering.  Nor does it make his imbecilic foreign-policy views palatable.

But...frankly, in my old age, I'm finding shallow thinking and sloganeering as a replacement for conceptualization, a very-annoying characteristic.

----------


## squidward

> Weak, pitiful, and lame.  I'm in a battle of wits with an unarmed little child.  And shit For Brains, it is YOU that is in emergency need of a mental stool softener.
> 
> Are you AFRAID to do due diligence and learn your postion has been stupidly wrong all this time?  Because it has, according to the Congressional Record of the State of MA.  Not me, not FOX, not the left, not the tea party, not the Libertarian Party, not the right.  Just the actual history of the MA healthcare law.
> 
> But you are entirely too childish and stupid to admit you were 100% wrong!
> 
> Sorry 'bout that dummy.
> 
> Now I've beaten you  so far into the dirt that you're now a bore.  No contest, no challenge, a pitiful dupe that FEARS truth.
> ...


is your Depends soggy? You're awfully cranky.

----------


## squidward

> Yup.  They're drawn to the lure of cheap pleasure (drugs) and their shallow curiosity is satisfied with simplistic conspiracy theories.
> 
> Not a whole lot of deep thinking going on there.  Really, Ron Paul is truly one of the most complex Libertarians you'd find.
> 
> Which doesn't mean he'd be successful as President, for the reasons I'd been hammering.  Nor does it make his imbecilic foreign-policy views palatable.
> 
> But...frankly, in my old age, I'm finding shallow thinking and sloganeering as a replacement for conceptualization, a very-annoying characteristic.


Looking back on a life of voting for big government statists can take a toll on one. 
Enjoy your medicare too. Ezekiel Emanuel has a complete lives score card with your name on it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Looking back on a life of voting for big government statists can take a toll on one. 
> Enjoy your medicare too. Ezekiel Emanuel has a complete lives score card with your name on it.


I'm not impressed by your COMPLETE inability to distinguish between suitable political leaders and unsuitable punks.

There's more to it than an *L* behind the name and a promise to repeal marijuana laws.

----------


## squidward

> I'm not impressed by your COMPLETE inability to distinguish between suitable political leaders and unsuitable punks.
> 
> There's more to it than an *L* behind the name and a promise to repeal marijuana laws.


You're pretty big on this dope thing.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You're pretty big on this dope thing.


Yup.

Encourage the public to become intoxicated on a drug that makes them STUPID for LONG PERIODS...and you won't have freedom.

You'll have widespread passivity while the Obamas of the world seize your OTHER choices.  Like, work...area to live...car to drive...rural-versus-urban...air conditioning, all for he, none for thee...

It's something to inert and stupify the public and make them unable to mount a resistance.

No, I don't think choosing to be stupid and vegitative is what freedom is about.  NEVER in our history were the intoxicated tolerated.  That was what the original jails were for - for drunks to sober up while being mocked and abused by the public.

----------


## Dan40

> is your Depends soggy? You're awfully cranky.


What a sad little waste of air you are.  Have you ever had an original thought?

Scratch that.  you have no way of knowing.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You're pretty big on this dope thing.


It's wrong to have choices, unless they are choices he and his fellow progressives believe that you ought to make.

----------


## Network

Jacob Appelbaum - queer
Glenn Greenwald - queer
Laura Poitras - queer
Bradley Chelsey Manning - queer

I'm catching a whistleblowing queer buzz.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> is your Depends soggy? You're awfully cranky.


I usually picture this



The cloud looks like a liberal, or something.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> It's wrong to have choices, unless they are choices he and his fellow progressives believe that you ought to make.


Freedom is not license.

And freedom, personal liberty, comes with heavy personal responsibility.

No free society has allowed free use of psychoactive hallucinogens.  Or even narcotics.  Even alcohol has always been heavily controlled.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I don't think a civilization has ever existed that was based on doing ANYTHING one wanted, even one as libertine as Rome had things that were forbidden and looked-down-upon.

You simply can't create conditions of a decent, civilized life for people solely based on the dictum 'Do what thou wilt'. That's howling chaos and the most insensate savagery that will ultimately end in the fiercest tyranny.

----------

JustPassinThru (01-07-2014),thedarkdaimon (01-08-2014)

----------


## squidward

> Yup.
> 
> Encourage the public to become intoxicated on a drug that makes them STUPID for LONG PERIODS...and you won't have freedom.


 Like bud light ?




> You'll have widespread passivity while the Obamas of the world seize your OTHER choices.  Like, work...area to live...car to drive...rural-versus-urban...air conditioning, all for he, none for thee...
> 
> It's something to inert and stupify the public and make them unable to mount a resistance.
> 
> No, I don't think choosing to be stupid and vegitative is what freedom is about.  NEVER in our history were the intoxicated tolerated.  That was what the original jails were for - for drunks to sober up while being mocked and abused by the public.


so you are against the legalization of alcohol too ? 
You don't mind a public stupified on ethanol ?

----------


## squidward

> It's wrong to have choices, unless they are choices he and his fellow progressives believe that you ought to make.


like voting for an R or D progressive ?

----------


## squidward

> I don't think a civilization has ever existed that was based on doing ANYTHING one wanted, even one as libertine as Rome had things that were forbidden and looked-down-upon.
> 
> You simply can't create conditions of a decent, civilized life for people solely based on the dictum 'Do what thou wilt'. That's howling chaos and the most insensate savagery that will ultimately end in the fiercest tyranny.


Who advocated "do what thou wilt", or did you just make that up to provide an argument to argue against ?

----------


## Network

Ghost made it up.

Sorry I've focused on the psyop agent Snowed In instead of helping the libertarian argument.  But I don't like that guy and his fag friends, they are distraction agents 100%

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Who advocated "do what thou wilt", or did you just make that up to provide an argument to argue against ?


It's the libertarian attitude in a nutshell.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Like bud light ?
> 
> so you are against the legalization of alcohol too ? 
> You don't mind a public stupified on ethanol ?


Whether or not the potheads want to admit it...there's a difference, a BIG difference, between a SHORT-TERM impairment, marked also by the stink of booze, that alcohol causes; and the LONG-TERM, many week, impairment caused by a psychoactive hallucinogenic that's fat-soluable and remains in the bloodstream for a month or more after use.

Winston Churchill said it best.

At an official party, he was braced by a society lady who accused him of being drunk.

He looked her in the eye:

"Madam," he said, "Come morning, I will be sober.  And you will still be ugly."

That sums it up.  A drinker isn't stupified for long-periods - longer than he'd want to do without his buzz, with the overlap meaning he's never free of the drug.

Yes, there are chronic drunks.  *They generally die in a relatively-short period.*  The issue is self-managing; and in the meantime, it's easy to spot a drunk; avoid him, throw him out of your store or restaurant.

A stoner is harder to spot.  And under the influence for many days after his toke-and-joke session.  Just because the user isn't in a giggle fit doesn't mean the hallucinogenic action in the brain has stopped.  If the drug is in blood it's in the brain - that's common sense.  Just as you cannot take medicine that goes only to your big toe.

The blood goes 'round and 'round.

You can make an argument for Prohibition.  Many did.  But alcohol is one of the oldest practices of man; and efforts to legislate morality fail.

What, laws against marijuana are the same?  Yes and no.  Marijuana was never the custom in Western civilization.  And Western civilization wouldn't have been Western civilization if it had been.

The laws preventing it were intended to work, as laws do, as a REINFORCEMENT of community and home customs and prohibitions.  TOGETHER.  We don't commit murder JUST because it's not legal; we don't do it because we're socialized not to.

We don't smoke opium for the same reasons.  It's illegal, sure - but it's also strongly discouraged.

The drug laws have lost that reinforcement in the culture; and without it, and with a pro-drug counterculture emerging, the laws are working as Prohibition worked.

As I said, the toothpaste is out of the tube.  There is no going back.

And you won't like where this takes us.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> like voting for an R or D progressive ?


If you don't like the choices...why not work with the SERIOUS parties to find a slate more palatable?

Actually, I know why.  You'd be outed as a bozo in the first five minutes.  But that's how it goes - the parties are like tools.

You don't have a shovel dig your hole - you USE the shovel to dig the hole YOURSELF.  If you don't use that shovel - the political party - others will.  You won't like the hole they dig.

Joining a kook fringe party is a fine way of hanging a JACKASS sign on the back of your shirt.

----------


## squidward

> If you don't like the choices...why not work with the SERIOUS parties to find a slate more palatable?
> 
> Actually, I know why.  You'd be outed as a bozo in the first five minutes.  But that's how it goes - the parties are like tools.
> 
> You don't have a shovel dig your hole - you USE the shovel to dig the hole YOURSELF.  If you don't use that shovel - the political party - others will.  You won't like the hole they dig.
> 
> Joining a kook fringe party is a fine way of hanging a JACKASS sign on the back of your shirt.


your results are astounding. 
Why is it you cry every day that "Obama" is taking the country over ? I have an idea, vote for another big gov politician and see if it's different this time ?
Speaking of tools.........

----------


## squidward

> Yes, there are chronic drunks.  *They generally die in a relatively-short period.*  The issue is self-managing; and in the meantime, it's easy to spot a drunk; avoid him, throw him out of your store or restaurant.
> 
> A stoner is harder to spot.  And under the influence for many days after his toke-and-joke session.  Just because the user isn't in a giggle fit doesn't mean the hallucinogenic action in the brain has stopped.  If the drug is in blood it's in the brain - that's common sense.  Just as you cannot take medicine that goes only to your big toe.
> 
> The blood goes 'round and 'round.


i imagine you could produce some scientific data to quantify your position.  I do have a big imagination however.

----------


## squidward

> It's the libertarian attitude in a nutshell.


when you have an argument, feel free to present it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> your results are astounding. 
> Why is it you cry every day that "Obama" is taking the country over ? I  have an idea, vote for another big gov politician and see if it's  different this time ?
> Speaking of tools.........


We always go back on this one.

Obama's just like Romney.  They're both lazy and self centered and accomplished nothing.

Now, if you got Joe Schmuckatelli, Libertarian, in there...and he did exactly the same, because the President is not a superhero and his job is administration, not redistribution...

...would you turn on Joe?  I doubt it; because you're told what to think.  You're party first party only standards are what we have to blur.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> i imagine you could produce some scientific data to quantify your position.  I do have a big imagination however.


You could find it.  

There's such a think as "common knowledge."  I should waste my time for someone who won't read it because he's here to drive an agenda?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I don't think a civilization has ever existed that was based on doing ANYTHING one wanted, even one as libertine as Rome had things that were forbidden and looked-down-upon.
> 
> You simply can't create conditions of a decent, civilized life for people solely based on the dictum 'Do what thou wilt'. That's howling chaos and the most insensate savagery that will ultimately end in the fiercest tyranny.


In a supposedly free society it is not the dictates of the state that determine right from wrong. In fact, it it is the state that strips individuals of responsibility for deciding right from wrong. Do we live free and enforce morality through the means at our disposal that do not involve force or do we give that responsibility to bureaucrats and police? Progressives choose the latter and have no logical basis for complaints when the morals of the state surpass their own.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> It's the libertarian attitude in a nutshell.


Alright. Then you must love to lie to your mother and cheat on your wife. Those things are not illegal and so you must countenance and even encourage them. It's "do what thou wilt" in your mind unless your big pappa government forbids it. It is no wonder the country is so screwed up. It is populated by adult children who express the sort of attire toward moral behavior that you express.

----------


## Dan40

> Alright. Then you must love to lie to your mother and cheat on your wife. Those things are not illegal and so you must countenance and even encourage them. It's "do what thou wilt" in your mind unless your big pappa government forbids it. It is no wonder the country is so screwed up. It is populated by adult children who express the sort of attire toward moral behavior that you express.


Ludicrous!

oibobo was reelected because too many conservatives of all stripes stayed home and did not vote.  Libertarians wasting votes on nobodies did not cause the loss.  Conservative apathy did.

But libertarians have not come within millions of votes of EVER electing anyone to national office.  And ALL libertarian votes for their presidential candidates would not get them anywhere near SECOND place in any presidential election.

So do you libertarians look to see what YOU are doing wrong?  42 years of absolute nothing and do you look in a mirror and say, "How can I, we, FIX this?"  No you say it is other conservatives that are at fault for not being insanely, wacko conservatives.

The template is laid out for you to read and heed, by the tea party.  In 2 years of a short list of FOCUSED ideas, the tea party accomplished more, and continues to accomplish more than libertarians have in 42 years.

Instead of LEARNING from the obvious, libertarians bitch about the tea party too.

You all sound just like liberals with different, equally unworkable ideas.

Like bring ALL troops home, let the world fend for itself.  GOOD idea, wonderful idea, saves our money, saves our lives.  That is an idea that is as warm and compassionate as any liberal idea.  And as unworkable and as unsustainable.

I too hate that the USA is the World Police Force.  But recognize it has to be that way.

Want to bring all out military back to the USA?  Start by eliminating ALL police forces in your home town.  See how that works out for you.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Dan, it was a lesson that had to be taught.   Unfortunately.   We're fighting two fronts.

----------


## Dan40

> Dan, it was a lesson that had to be taught.   Unfortunately.   We're fighting two fronts.


The liars on one front and the naive dumb ass dreamers on the other front.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Ludicrous!
> 
> oibobo was reelected because too many conservatives of all stripes stayed home and did not vote.  Libertarians wasting votes on nobodies did not cause the loss.  Conservative apathy did.


What's ludicrous is your assumption that the decline of this nation started with Obama. We are stuck with Obama because of the 8 disastrous years of Bush, and the decline began long before him as well.

Conservatives are no different from liberals when it comes to using law as a bludgeon to enforce their moral worldview. You are all government-worshiping, authoritarian progressives to those of who have real principles.




> I too hate that the USA is the World Police Force.  But recognize it has to be that way.


As  I said, no principles. If it feels like it's necessary, then that is what is important to you. Having principles would mean having dedication and commitment to finding solutions that match those principles, rather than doing what is expedient and then foisting that responsibility off onto the nebulous "taxpayers" and government enforcers. It's why you need politicians and bureaucrats that create laws that determine right and wrong for you. Your moral compass is in Washington, D.C.

----------


## Dan40

> What's ludicrous is your assumption that the decline of this nation started with Obama. We are stuck with Obama because of the 8 disastrous years of Bush, and the decline began long before him as well.
> 
> Conservatives are no different from liberals when it comes to using law as a bludgeon to enforce their moral worldview. You are all government-worshiping, authoritarian progressives to those of who have real principles.
> 
> 
> 
> As  I said, no principles. If it feels like it's necessary, then that is what is important to you. Having principles would mean having dedication and commitment to finding solutions that match those principles, rather than doing what is expedient and then foisting that responsibility off onto the nebulous "taxpayers" and government enforcers. It's why you need politicians and bureaucrats that create laws that determine right and wrong for you. Your moral compass is in Washington, D.C.


WHERE did you get the idea that I blame obobo for everything"

That's your ridiculous useless "thinking.

obobo IS the worst president ever.  If you paid ANY attention you would find that I've bitched about bad Congresses and bad presidents since Carter.

And let us not forget, the HERO of the impotent libertarians has been a CONGRESSMAN since 1976.  37 years ago and has accomplished, NOT one stinking thing.  You MIGHT have noticed I bitched about that for many years too.

A completely ineffective, impotent congressman is not one bit better than a lying liberal, or a reelection seeking conservative.

But perhaps you might do some research and find that what we have is riddled with faults but remains the best governmental system in  the history of man.

It could be piss poor, and often IS, but still is FAR better than anything else that has EVER existed.

Having the intelligence to realize there is NO viable alternative, AND THERE IS NOT, I'm for fixing as much as possible, the system we have.  Striving for perfection in government and politics is FOLLY, really stupid folly.  Wasted naive dreaming.  Unless you know of a way to eliminate entirely, HUMANS.

There never will be a perfect system with humans involved.

----------


## squidward

> Now if only you had a tiny shred of actual intelligence and could tell the difference between voting against BAD govt and wasting your vote on candidate Nobody X Nowhere.


Yes, intelligence, voting for big government in oder to vote against big government. Got it. 
You sure am smart.

----------


## squidward

> And let us not forget, the HERO of the impotent libertarians has been a CONGRESSMAN since 1976.  37 years ago and has accomplished, NOT one stinking thing.


As you, along with all the other big government supporters in the congress, are perfectly happy with big government. 
Pray your medicare subsidy lasts.

----------


## squidward

> In a supposedly free society it is not the dictates of the state that determine right from wrong. In fact, it it is the state that strips individuals of responsibility for deciding right from wrong. Do we live free and enforce morality through the means at our disposal that do not involve force or do we give that responsibility to bureaucrats and police? Progressives choose the latter and have no logical basis for complaints when the morals of the state surpass their own.


they love state sanctioned morals, unless those morals disagree with their own. Then they whine.

----------


## squidward

> You could find it.  
> 
> There's such a think as "common knowledge."  I should waste my time for someone who won't read it because he's here to drive an agenda?


as suspected, you were talking out of your ass.

----------


## Dan40

> As you, along with all the other big government supporters in the congress, are perfectly happy with big government. 
> Pray your medicare subsidy lasts.


I note that you continue to be AFRAID to answer any questions about the true FACTS of Romney and the MA healthcare law he vetoed.

But you foam at the mouth to defend Ron Paul, a lifelong politician, NOTHING but a politician, that never earned one days pay in a 30 year career.  ONE bill passed in his career.  ONE.  Libertarian bill?  No, just a little bit of PORK for his home district.

But I do not begrudge him at all for that.  I'm disgusted with him because he ALWAYS failed to accomplish ANYTHING in many IMPORTANT bills..  Not just failed.  He NEVER came close to getting anything passed so that someone else might pick up the mantle and get something done.  Paul is a complete and total failure.

Yet you bad mouth Romney because you don't know, OR CARE, about actual facts.  You like so many that CAUSE the Libertarians to be laughed at, just enjoy ranting without ANY knowledge.  THAT. exactly like Paul, accomplishes nothing.  But you rant on, its all you're good at.

----------


## squidward

> I'm disgusted with him because he ALWAYS failed to accomplish ANYTHING in many IMPORTANT bills..


your boys passed many important bills........................Gramm Leech Bliley to name one.

----------


## Dan40

> your boys passed many important bills........................Gramm Leech Bliley to name one.


Romney, MA healthcare law.  You do avoid that.

Gramm Leech Bliley , how many Democrats voted yea, how many nay?  How many Republicans voted yea, Nay?

How many INDEPENDENTS  voted yea or nay?  Because your long cured cement cannot absorb the fact that I'm an Independent.

Your long cured cement also cannot absorb the fact that championing stupidity is stupid.  And that is your form of libertarianism.

I keep asking you to present FACTS and I keep asking you to throw off the stupidity of libertarianism and focus on a FEW key issues that CAN produce winners.

And you keep accusing me of being a Democrat liberal.

It is EASY to see why the Libertarian Party has NOT gained even half a million members [0.0011] of the population in 42 years, and why no Libertarian Party candidate has ever been elected to any national office.

You love to mindlessly and stupidly rant, and nothing else.  A pitiful dupe.

libertarians, where good ideas go to die, and stupidity flourishes.

----------


## squidward

> Romney, MA healthcare law.  You do avoid that.


what about it ?




> Gramm Leech Bliley , how many Democrats voted yea, how many nay?  How many Republicans voted yea, Nay?
> 
> How many INDEPENDENTS  voted yea or nay?


Senate :    yes   53R     1D   
                 no      0R   44D

House  :    yes   207R  153D   2I
                 no         5R   51D    1I




> Because your long cured cement cannot absorb the fact that I'm an Independent.


who always votes for republicans. 




> Your long cured cement also cannot absorb the fact that championing stupidity is stupid.


like the stupidity of voting for big government politicians ? 




> And that is your form of libertarianism.


not voting for big government politicians. 

You don't do shit to get politicians on the ballot, you just vote for whatever shit they give you. 




> I keep asking you to present FACTS and I keep asking you to throw off the stupidity of libertarianism and focus on a FEW key issues that CAN produce winners.


 Big government winners,  ......no thanks. 




> And you keep accusing me of being a Democrat liberal.


nope, a big government republican supporter. 




> It is EASY to see why the Libertarian Party has NOT gained even half a million members [0.0011] of the population in 42 years, and why no Libertarian Party candidate has ever been elected to any national office.


 because you love big government and will always side with what the big government politicians tells you is proper. 




> You love to mindlessly and stupidly rant, and nothing else.  A pitiful dupe.


 says one who votes for big government and complains about it time and time again. 




> libertarians, where good ideas go to die, and stupidity flourishes.


old age, where brain cells die and the only good argument you have is to call others stupid for not blindly following big government prostitutes.

----------


## Dan40

> what about it ?
> 
> 
> Senate :    yes   53R     1D   
>                  no      0R   44D
> 
> House  :    yes   207R  153D   2I
>                  no         5R   51D    1I
> 
> ...


Thought that  went into establishing your opinion?  Little to none.  If any it was the shallowest thinking possible.

Research done to establish your opinions.  Absolute zero.

Brainwashing used to establish your opinions. TOTAL.

And what about Romney and the MA healthcare law?  Did your fogged brain CONVENIENTLY forget that I challenged you to research the truth about Romney and the passage of the MA healthcare law, and you have pointedly avoided posting a word about your research.

Do you not know HOW to do research?  Silly question, it is evident you do not.

You state that I always vote for Republicans.  First, you obviously do not know that to be fact.  But lack of factual information means nothing to a mindless ranter like yourself.  Second, YOU either vote for total losers,,, OR waste your vote by staying home and ranting.

You, like your failed hero RP, accomplish nothing.   Pitiful.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Brainwashing used to establish your opinions. TOTAL.
> 
> You state that I always vote for Republicans.  First, you obviously do not know that to be fact.  But lack of factual information means nothing to a mindless ranter like yourself.  Second, YOU either vote for total losers,,, OR waste your vote by staying home and ranting.


The brainwashing starts with your belief that by voting for the winner in an election, you are a winner as well. They got you early and trained your mind well.

Since it is your belief that voting for failed politicians makes one a loser, then you must believe that anyone here who votes for a politician that you that doesn't win the election is also a loser. You've probably never given much thought to the fact that you believe many of those who agree with your views are losers, since they live in areas where their favored politicians cannot win. If you did give it any thought, you'd have to realize what a hypocrite you are.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I think most thoughtful people who vote pick the best candidate and cross their fingers and hope for the best, without an undue degree of optimism. 

Also, if you are to any degree a conservative, who ELSE would you vote for other than a Republican? Conservative Democrats are an increasingly endangered species. Libertarians are jokes. What alternative IS there, apart from not voting at all?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The brainwashing starts with your belief that by voting for the winner in an election, you are a winner as well. They got you early and trained your mind well.
> 
> Since it is your belief that voting for failed politicians makes one a loser, then you must believe that anyone here who votes for a politician that you that doesn't win the election is also a loser. You've probably never given much thought to the fact that you believe many of those who agree with your views are losers, since they live in areas where their favored politicians cannot win. If you did give it any thought, you'd have to realize what a hypocrite you are.


What is the purpose of an election?  Is the voter's choice based on PRINCIPLES - or on emotional appeal?

And is it not probable that just as there's a desired outcome, there's also a likely BAD outcome?

So...you vote for the candidate you like.  We'll stipulate, for principled reasons.  Only trouble is, he doesn't have an icicle's chance in Hell.

He doesn't win, and you feel proud.  Except that Sam Scumbag, the Marxist candidate, was neck in neck with the RINO candidate.  

And because of your vote for Herb Hero, Rob Rino did NOT get  your vote - and didn't pull ahead of Scumbag.

And Scumbag WINS - with 43 percent of the vote.  What you LEAST wanted, YOU GOT.

Fantasy?  That IS what happened with Perot's fake challenge in 1992.

PRIMARY time is the time to fight it out; vote the best.  Example:  In 2000, I was intrigued with Steve Forbes' campaign - and yes, I did vote for him as the GOP nominee.  Meantime there's that frat-boy, George Bush...with a light resume and lighter persona.

The results are history - Bush got the nod.  No, I wasn't thrilled - but Algore was too terrible to contemplate.

I did what I could; I was outnumbered; but I wasn't going to be Peroted TWICE.

----------

Perianne (01-14-2014)

----------


## Perianne

> Example:  In 2000, I was intrigued with Steve Forbes' campaign - and yes, I did vote for him as the GOP nominee.


Can you imagine the financial turnaround Forbes would have brought to this country?  Steve Forbes is smart-smart.  I also pulled for him.  @JustPassinThru, you are the only other person I know who supported Forbes.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Can you imagine the financial turnaround Forbes would have brought to this country?  Steve Forbes is smart-smart.  I also pulled for him.  @JustPassinThru, you are the only other person I know who supported Forbes.


That was an opportunity lost.  Forbes would have done well as SecTresury; as IRS commissioner, as head of a blue-ribbon tax-reform panel.  Or, lastly, as Vice President.

But it was not to be, sadly.  I don't think Forbes could help us now - the problem of the day isn't taxes so much as all this Obamadebt.

----------


## squidward

> PRIMARY time is the time to fight it out; vote the best.  Example:  In 2000, I was intrigued with Steve Forbes' campaign - and yes, I did vote for him as the GOP nominee.  Meantime there's that frat-boy, George Bush...with a light resume and lighter persona.
> 
> The results are history - Bush got the nod.  No, I wasn't thrilled - but Algore was too terrible to contemplate.
> 
> I did what I could; I was outnumbered; but I wasn't going to be Peroted TWICE.


your choices will always be low quality as long as you insist on voting for the party offerings.

----------


## squidward

> Brainwashing used to establish your opinions.


Oh no!........... the highly eloquent "BRAINWASHING" argument.  Run away!

----------


## Dan40

> Oh no!........... the highly eloquent "BRAINWASHING" argument.  Run away!


Your posts make it abundantly clear that you have dedicated your life to running away from truth and facts.  And worshiping fantasy.

----------


## squidward

> Your posts make it abundantly clear that you have dedicated your life to running away from truth and facts.  And worshiping fantasy.


wow, another well spoken, thought provoking post. Amazing. 
You must have on a fresh depends.

----------


## Dan40

> The brainwashing starts with your belief that by voting for the winner in an election, you are a winner as well. They got you early and trained your mind well.
> 
> *Since it is your belief that voting for failed politicians makes one a loser, then you must believe that anyone here who votes for a politician that you that doesn't win the election is also a loser.* You've probably never given much thought to the fact that you believe many of those who agree with your views are losers, since they live in areas where their favored politicians cannot win. If you did give it any thought, you'd have to realize what a hypocrite you are.


*"Since it is your belief that voting for failed politicians makes  one a loser, then you must believe that anyone here who votes for a  politician that you that doesn't win the election is also a loser. "*

A. I'm assuming you don't mean a politician that has a history of failure, not the one that loses an election.

A1.  Of course we do have ONE politician that has a career of total failure, and also has NEVER won any contested election.  Voting for him is conclusive proof that the voter cannot get more stupid.

B. *That is not my belief. * 
Evidently it is yours.


You are attempting to paint me with your brush.  It is quite revealing.

1. I've never hinted that voting for an election winner makes the voter a winner.  That comes from your head, not mine.

2 I've never said that voting for the election loser makes the voter a loser.  Again, your brainwashed preconceived notion, not mine.

My vote sadly, and no one is more sad about this than I, is for the lesser evil.  Hopefully the country gets some gain for a lesser evil in power.  But I've not for a nanosecond thought that made me a winner.  My life, my brain, my conduct, make me a winner.

3 What you grossly misinterpret through your own mental filter is that I'm saying anyone is a loser for voting for someone that has no chance to win.

Those voters aren't losers, they are stupid dupes.  Election day is NOT the day to stage a one person "protest."  If one wants to protest, then do it as close to the polling place as possible and make your protest visible.  A protest VOTE, is a stupidly wasted VOTE.

Next time you want to analyze me, look in the mirror and realize you are analyzing and revealing yourself, not me.

But on the plus side, now you know some personal problems you need to correct.

Glad to have been of help.

----------


## Dan40

> wow, another well spoken, thought provoking post. Amazing. 
> You must have on a fresh depends.


As opposed to your lifelong soiled diaper?  The dumbest asses on this forum are those that think age slams mean something.

Well they do have a little meaning, they mean you're a dumb ass.

Age to me, is wonderful.  I know that in bygone years I might have been as completely stupid as you.  But I've lived long enough to learn.  You have that ahead of you.  No guarantee that it will be successful.  Hope is dim.

----------


## Perianne

> As opposed to your lifelong soiled diaper?  The dumbest asses on this forum are those that think age slams mean something.
> 
> Well they do have a little meaning, they mean you're a dumb ass.
> 
> Age to me, is wonderful.  I know that in bygone years I might have been as completely stupid as you.  But I've lived long enough to learn.  You have that ahead of you.  No guarantee that it will be successful.  Hope is dim.


 @Dan40, go change your Depends.  It is disgusting to wear the same one after it is soiled.  Geez.  I change mine regularly.

----------


## squidward

> As opposed to your lifelong soiled diaper?  The dumbest asses on this forum are those that think age slams mean something.
> 
> Well they do have a little meaning, they mean you're a dumb ass.
> 
> Age to me, is wonderful.  I know that in bygone years I might have been as completely stupid as you.  But I've lived long enough to learn.  You have that ahead of you.  No guarantee that it will be successful.  Hope is dim.


Awe shucks, somebody thinks this is the springer show, where the loudest bark wins.  Can you do that rooster neck thing too ?

----------


## Dan40

> Awe shucks, somebody thinks this is the springer show, where the loudest bark wins.  Can you do that rooster neck thing too ?


Childish, naive, and stupid.  And those are your talents.

And you are still afraid to post the truth about Romney and the MA healthcare law.  Coward.

----------


## Dan40

> @Dan40, go change your Depends.  It is disgusting to wear the same one after it is soiled.  Geez.  I change mine regularly.



Ah doan need no stinkin' depends!

----------


## Perianne

> Ah doan need no stinkin' depends!


You don't need "no stinkin' depends" because you already have them on.  What you need are clean ones.

Hahaha, I so funny long time.

----------


## Dan40

> You don't need "no stinkin' depends" because you already have them on.  What you need are clean ones.
> 
> Hahaha, I so funny long time.



Maybe when   	    makes a Depends model!

----------

Perianne (01-14-2014)

----------


## squidward

> Childish, naive, and stupid.  And those are your talents.
> 
> And you are still afraid to post the truth about Romney and the MA healthcare law.  Coward.


You brought it up. Go ahead and post.

----------


## Dan40

> You brought it up. Go ahead and post.


Now you hit a new low in cowardly sliminess.

I challenged you to find the truth about Romney and the Ma healthcare law and you cowardly avoided any response to the challenge or to the truth.

And now you post like you don't know it ever happened.

Is you uni-molecular brain that fried?

And you post age bullshit trying to give me the red ass about age.  Shit for brains, I knew when I was 21 that in a year I'd be 22 or dead.  I knew it then and accepted it.  What I found that as each year went by I was older, AND smarter.
If you live, you will simply age, your posts show you lack any chance of becoming smarter.

I might as well be debating a tree as you.  But the tree is smarter than you.

----------


## squidward

> I challenged you to find the truth about Romney and the Ma healthcare law


Goody for you. 
If you've got something to say about it, go ahead. 






> Shit for brains, I knew when I was 21 that in a year I'd be 22 or dead. I knew it then and accepted it.


Oh my a drama queen and a wee little Marlin Brando impersonator.

----------


## Dan40

> Goody for you. 
> If you've got something to say about it, go ahead. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my a drama queen and a wee little Marlin Brando impersonator.


You are a pitiful coward and as stupid as one person can get.  IF you ever have an original thought, you might find it enjoyable.  If so savor it.  More than one is unlikely for you.

----------


## squidward

> You are a pitiful coward and as stupid as one person can get.  IF you ever have an original thought, you might find it enjoyable.  If so savor it.  More than one is unlikely for you.


Oh no,.................... the "you're stupid" argument.
Oh no again, ...........the " you're a coward" argument.     

What's next, the "If you don't like it you can get out" argument ?  Perhaps the "i can kick your ass" argument ?

----------


## Dan40

> Oh no,.................... the "you're stupid" argument.
> Oh no again, ...........the " you're a coward" argument.     
> 
> What's next, the "If you don't like it you can get out" argument ?  Perhaps the "i can kick your ass" argument ?


No, you're not worth the attention.

Stupid and coward do apply.  If you're desiring more truth, misinformed is equally applicable.

Here is a little gem of wisdom that you Libertarians MUST ignore, because to face it would be too painful for you.

Background:

While you were still shitting your diapers, I was 100% behind Ron Paul and many of his issues.  But I eventually tired of complete failure.   Not just failure, failure without even the thinnest bit of progress,,,,,,,,,,NONE!

Libertarian Party.  Never elected a Libertarian Party candidate to any national office.  Never came close.

All votes for the Libertarian Party candidates in ALL presidential elections, added together, would not come within MILLIONS of votes of second place in any presidential election.  Every libertarian vote in history could beat any loser.

That is failure on a scale that ONLY Ron Paul can match.

The Wisdom:

While you bitch and rail and call me names and post age slams, I am an ultra conservative that is NOT in favor of big govt in any way.  I try to tell you libertarians ways to correct your failings and join with conservatives.  You say I'm a doddering old fool.

Finally the wisdom:

In business, if business is off, No one looks to the competition to see what the competition is doing WRONG.  If you look at the competition, you look to see what they are doing right, that YOU are not. [See: TEA PARTY]  If you find the competition is not doing anything that hurts your business, WHAT DO YOU DO?

You look at your own house to see what YOU are doing wrong.  That is what you do.
[See:Libertarian Party.  Never elected a Libertarian Party candidate to any national office.
All votes for the Libertarian Party candidate in ALL presidential elections, added together, would not come within MILLIONS of votes of second place in any presidential election.]

That is all the assistance I'm giving you, and all the comments.

Out of respect for Trinnity, I'm stopping our flame war here.

NOW!

----------


## squidward

> While you bitch and rail and call me names and post age slams, I am an ultra conservative that is NOT in favor of big govt in any way.


you just vote for those who are. 




> I try to tell you libertarians ways to correct your failings and join with conservatives.


join with conservatives and vote for big government politicians ? Gee, that has gotten us far.

----------


## Dan40

> you just vote for those who are. 
> 
> join with conservatives and vote for big government politicians ? Gee, that has gotten us far.


List the Libertarians Party candidates ever elected to Federal or State governments.

It is your stupid ideas that swamp the good ones that are wasted in libertarian land.

But you HAVE TO blame anyone else for your total failure as a movement, as a Party, as a force to be considered.  You cannot look in a mirror and see the problem, but that is where the problem resides.

Instead, like a robot, over and over your say that I favor big government.

That is 1.  A LIE.  So you are just like any politician.  2. Stupid.  The Libertarian historical "progress" shows that.  3. Simply wrong.

I have a different opinion of how to ACCOMPLISH change.  

You libertarians have your entire history of accomplishing absolutely nothing..  Somehow you think that makes you right.  When I reach dementia, I might be able to understand your lunacy.

The Libertarian Party, formed 12/11/1971, 42 years ago, claims 330,811 registered members.

Roseann Barr, Rocky Anderson, Tom Hoefling, and "OTHERS," got 368,641 votes in the 2012 election.

Perhaps you might try converting THEM.

Total vote for the Libertarian Party candidate in HISTORY,

5,114,595.

Highest percentage of the vote ever received in any presidential election. 1.06% and it was in 1980. that best showing ever was followed up by 0.25% in 1984, and 0.47% in 1988 [Ron Paul,431,750 votes]

Yet you blame me!  

Shirley you should blame Bush.

Or to be actually correct, blame yourself.

I have a brain, so I'm not eligible for membership in your funny farm.

----------


## squidward

> List the Libertarians Party candidates ever elected to Federal or State governments.


list the big government whores you helped elect.
Bet you feel like a winner, ......don't ya ?

----------

