An article you should read. Calling out the R's and D's for being equally stupid.

[SniperFire]

It helps to read before you open your mouth. I'm not saying that at all.

I am going by your general body of posting 'work' of that of you and your idiot Libertarian/ anarchist brethren who like to pretend real America are embracing your ideology, but those evil 'Rs and Ds' keep leading us down a path which nobody votes for or demands.

Remember, your candidates get about half a percent of the popular vote for a reason.

I never pretend "real America", whatever that is, is embracing my ideas. If they were these kind of articles wouldn't be authored.

You can't entirely blame the people. The Government, with lots of help from the media, makes the people think they are in constant danger from terrorists and so the people go along with the loss of their rights in the name of Security Theater. Likewise, they push propaganda that says we need all these social programs, and that they work, and so the people eat it up. I still blame the people for being too stupid to see the forest through the trees.

Sure you can.

The people just put Obama back in office knowing he plans to continue forcing thru trillion dollar deficits paid for by the grandchildren.

 

[LibertyLemming]

For better or worse, our two-party system has provided a more stable government than most parliamentary multi-party systems. Where it seems to break down is when one party has complete control of government (e.g., 1977-80, 1993-94, 2001-2002 and 2009-2010. Since WW2, one of the best combinations seems to be a Dem President with a GOP Congress (e.g., Truman and Clinton). The reverse, not so much.

Yeah Truman was great he only killed a few hundred thousand innocent civilians in one fell swoop. I know, I know, imagine the number of lives that were saved by doing it. Last time I checked, we are at nonstop war now because some terrorists attacked civilians.

 

[jwoodie]

It was actually two fell swoops, and neither of them killed as many people as the fire bombing of Dresden. But then that doesn't play into your liberal/racist narrative, does it?

 

[LibertyLemming]

It was actually two fell swoops, and neither of them killed as many people as the fire bombing of Dresden. But then that doesn't play into your liberal/racist narrative, does it?

Uh, I try not to justify killing innocent people by saying others did it before/more often/etc.

Besides, you are way the fuck off:

The Bombing of Dresden was an attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, that took place in the final months of the Second World War. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city.[1] The resulting firestorm destroyed fifteen square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre. At least 22,000, at most 25,000 people were killed.

vs.


Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day.

In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians.


This is where you quit replying to this thread.

 

[g5000]

What liberty have I given up in the Patriot Act?

First, fourth, and fifth amendment rights. Read it.

I guess you are unaware that federal courts struck down several provisions.

You stupid libertarians and liberals cry and cry about that, but the last time I looked, the ONLY people suffering under it, ARE TERRORISTS.

Then you have not been paying attention. At all. Millions of Americans' phone records have been searched without warrants. Then there are the "sneak and peek" warrantless searches of property, effects, and papers. NDLs. Warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. The list of violations is quite long.

I have asked liberal after liberal, what freedom they have lost with the terrorist act. They start screaming about something that "might" happen, but they never can give me on thing that has happened to them.

But, you want to know all the terrorists acts that have been stopped because of the Patriot Act?

Dick Morris made my hair stand on end, relating all of the attacks in New York alone that were stopped because of the Patriot Act.

Unfortunately, it's in a documentary about terorrism, and is not on Youtube. I wish it was.

You ever wonder why there are no more 9/11s. Well it isn't because we got lucky! We caught them because we didn't have to jump through hoops of red tape.

The Constitution is not red tape. Do you HEAR yourself?

Ah. Dick Morris. That explains a lot.

 

[LibertyLemming]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to g5000 again

 

[jillian]

The Institutionalization of Tyranny

Republicans and conservative Americans are still fighting Big Government in its welfare state form. Apparently, they have never heard of the militarized police state form of Big Government, or, if they have, they are comfortable with it and have no objection.

you might want to review board copyright rules.

and you need a link.

 

[jillian]

people are stupid

people are strange

 

[LibertyLemming]

The Institutionalization of Tyranny

Republicans and conservative Americans are still fighting Big Government in its welfare state form. Apparently, they have never heard of the militarized police state form of Big Government, or, if they have, they are comfortable with it and have no objection.

you might want to review board copyright rules.

and you need a link.

You'll forgive me if I just risk it and don't read them. I gave you the name of the author and the title of the article, if you can't figure it out, well, you're dumb. <3

 

[jillian]

It was actually two fell swoops, and neither of them killed as many people as the fire bombing of Dresden. But then that doesn't play into your liberal/racist narrative, does it?

liberal racist narrative?

that doesn't even have a basis in reality.

and I hardly think LL is any type of liberal.... unless by liberal you mean he isn't a reactionary extremist.

 

[g5000]

What liberty have I given up in the Patriot Act?

You stupid libertarians and liberals cry and cry about that, but the last time I looked, the ONLY people suffering under it, ARE TERRORISTS.

I have asked liberal after liberal, what freedom they have lost with the terrorist act. They start screaming about something that "might" happen, but they never can give me on thing that has happened to them.

But, you want to know all the terrorists acts that have been stopped because of the Patriot Act?

Dick Morris made my hair stand on end, relating all of the attacks in New York alone that were stopped because of the Patriot Act.

Unfortunately, it's in a documentary about terorrism, and is not on Youtube. I wish it was.

You ever wonder why there are no more 9/11s. Well it isn't because we got lucky! We caught them because we didn't have to jump through hoops of red tape.

Suppose I were to argue that throwing out the Constitution would make it a lot easier to catch bad guys; that doing searches of people's homes without warrants, and waterboarding and beating suspects had stopped a lot of crimes and put away a lot of bad guys.

Would you be cheerleading such things because the cops "didn't have to jump through hoops of red tape"?

The problem with unchecked governments is that they have this really nasty tendency to find what they are looking for.

You really should stop and examine your tyrannical tendencies, my friend, and stop listening to nazi wannabes like Dick Morris.

 

[jillian]

The Institutionalization of Tyranny



you might want to review board copyright rules.

and you need a link.

You'll forgive me if I just risk it and don't read them. I gave you the name of the author and the title of the article, if you can't figure it out, well, you're dumb. <3

i didn't make the rules here.

and i'm not supposed to have to work that hard to find something i don't agree with in any event.

 

[LibertyLemming]

You'll forgive me if I just risk it and don't read them. I gave you the name of the author and the title of the article, if you can't figure it out, well, you're dumb. <3

i didn't make the rules here.

and i'm not supposed to have to work that hard to find something i don't agree with in any event.

Which part of the the article do you disagree with?

 

[jillian]

ah... the daily paul.. .what a shock.

here's the thing, though. saying there is no difference between the two parties is nonsense... especially if you're a real libertarian and not a pretend libertarian

1. the democratic party doesn't care what church you go to and isn't trying to codify church law
2. the judges appointed by democrats support equal pay for equal work
3. the judges appointed by democrats support individual right to make their own reproductive choices
4. democratic legislatures aren't wasting their time with "personhood laws" when what we need are jobs.
that's just a start...
5. democratic courts and legislatures support marriage equality

yes, there are things wrong with both parties... i think most go back to the constant need for money to campaign for re-election. so if we had real electoral finance reform, most of the things that dog both parties would disappear. (p.s. democrats don't appoint judges who believe that corporations are people)

but don't ever kid yourself that there's no difference.

 

[LibertyLemming]

ah... the daily paul.. .what a shock.

here's the thing, though. saying there is no difference between the two parties is nonsense... especially if you're a real libertarian and not a pretend libertarian

1. the democratic party doesn't care what church you go to and isn't trying to codify church law
2. the judges appointed by democrats support equal pay for equal work
3. the judges appointed by democrats support individual right to make their own reproductive choices
4. democratic legislatures aren't wasting their time with "personhood laws" when what we need are jobs.
that's just a start...

yes, there are things wrong with both parties... i think most go back to the constant need for money to campaign for re-election. so if we had real electoral finance reform, most of the things that dog both parties would disappear. (p.s. democrats don't appoint judges who believe that corporations are people)

but don't ever kid yourself that there's no difference.

Well, I never said there was no difference, just that the lines are blurring really quickly. I actually got the article from lewrockwell.com, not the dailypaul whatever that is.

As for your list. I don't agree with #2 at all. Employees should decide what they pay their employees and be mandated by government to pay a certain wage or hire certain people.

#3 I don't agree with either because I don't think the government, let alone the Federal Government, has any part passing any kind of legislation regarding Abortion. They have no business in it at all and the Democrats have certainly tried to force their viewpoints down others throats. I'd prefer no laws at all on it, but if any, do them at a state level.

#4 I guess I don't understand what you mean by "personhood" laws. I would consider the ability to kill your own citizens without due process a "personhood" law. I would actually consider any law that usurps my liberty to be a "personhood" law. As for creating jobs, I'm not sure how raising taxes on over 70% of people is going to help, among other fuck ups.

 

[jillian]

ah... the daily paul.. .what a shock.

here's the thing, though. saying there is no difference between the two parties is nonsense... especially if you're a real libertarian and not a pretend libertarian

1. the democratic party doesn't care what church you go to and isn't trying to codify church law
2. the judges appointed by democrats support equal pay for equal work
3. the judges appointed by democrats support individual right to make their own reproductive choices
4. democratic legislatures aren't wasting their time with "personhood laws" when what we need are jobs.
that's just a start...

yes, there are things wrong with both parties... i think most go back to the constant need for money to campaign for re-election. so if we had real electoral finance reform, most of the things that dog both parties would disappear. (p.s. democrats don't appoint judges who believe that corporations are people)

but don't ever kid yourself that there's no difference.

Well, I never said there was no difference, just that the lines are blurring really quickly. I actually got the article from lewrockwell.com, not the dailypaul whatever that is.

As for your list. I don't agree with #2 at all. Employees should decide what they pay their employees and be mandated by government to pay a certain wage or hire certain people.

#3 I don't agree with either because I don't think the government, let alone the Federal Government, has any part passing any kind of legislation regarding Abortion. They have no business in it at all and the Democrats have certainly tried to force their viewpoints down others throats. I'd prefer no laws at all on it, but if any, do them at a state level.

#4 I guess I don't understand what you mean by "personhood" laws. I would consider the ability to kill your own citizens without due process a "personhood" law. I would actually consider any law that usurps my liberty to be a "personhood" law. As for creating jobs, I'm not sure how raising taxes on over 70% of people is going to help, among other fuck ups.

well, # 2 wouldn't affect you. but i should be paid the same as a man doing the same work if we are employed by the same company. employers don't have the right to discriminate.

the right to reproductive choice only exists if it's federally protected and the states aren't allowed to give lesser constitutional protections than the fed. so, unless one is opposed to reproductive choice, one shouldn't be raising it as a state issue any more than segregation is a state issue.

personhood laws have a particular definition: it's radical religious right legislation declaring zygotes have the rights of citizenship... it's a walk in crazyhood...

cutting taxes for 1% doesn't add jobs.

but paying for infrastructure does...

the lines are only blurred in a very few areas.

 

[LibertyLemming]

ah... the daily paul.. .what a shock.

here's the thing, though. saying there is no difference between the two parties is nonsense... especially if you're a real libertarian and not a pretend libertarian

1. the democratic party doesn't care what church you go to and isn't trying to codify church law
2. the judges appointed by democrats support equal pay for equal work
3. the judges appointed by democrats support individual right to make their own reproductive choices
4. democratic legislatures aren't wasting their time with "personhood laws" when what we need are jobs.
that's just a start...

yes, there are things wrong with both parties... i think most go back to the constant need for money to campaign for re-election. so if we had real electoral finance reform, most of the things that dog both parties would disappear. (p.s. democrats don't appoint judges who believe that corporations are people)

but don't ever kid yourself that there's no difference.

Well, I never said there was no difference, just that the lines are blurring really quickly. I actually got the article from lewrockwell.com, not the dailypaul whatever that is.

As for your list. I don't agree with #2 at all. Employees should decide what they pay their employees and be mandated by government to pay a certain wage or hire certain people.

#3 I don't agree with either because I don't think the government, let alone the Federal Government, has any part passing any kind of legislation regarding Abortion. They have no business in it at all and the Democrats have certainly tried to force their viewpoints down others throats. I'd prefer no laws at all on it, but if any, do them at a state level.

#4 I guess I don't understand what you mean by "personhood" laws. I would consider the ability to kill your own citizens without due process a "personhood" law. I would actually consider any law that usurps my liberty to be a "personhood" law. As for creating jobs, I'm not sure how raising taxes on over 70% of people is going to help, among other fuck ups.

well, # 2 wouldn't affect you. but i should be paid the same as a man doing the same work if we are employed by the same company. employers don't have the right to discriminate.

the right to reproductive choice only exists if it's federally protected and the states aren't allowed to give lesser constitutional protections than the fed. so, unless one is opposed to reproductive choice, one shouldn't be raising it as a state issue any more than segregation is a state issue.

personhood laws have a particular definition: it's radical religious right legislation declaring zygotes have the rights of citizenship... it's a walk in crazyhood...

cutting taxes for 1% doesn't add jobs.

but paying for infrastructure does...

the lines are only blurred in a very few areas.

Strange how people managed to get abortions before it was made the law of the land. The bottom line is that it is not an enumerated power and therefore it belongs to the States to decide.

 

[jillian]

What liberty have I given up in the Patriot Act?

You stupid libertarians and liberals cry and cry about that, but the last time I looked, the ONLY people suffering under it, ARE TERRORISTS.

I have asked liberal after liberal, what freedom they have lost with the terrorist act. They start screaming about something that "might" happen, but they never can give me on thing that has happened to them.

But, you want to know all the terrorists acts that have been stopped because of the Patriot Act?

Dick Morris made my hair stand on end, relating all of the attacks in New York alone that were stopped because of the Patriot Act.

Unfortunately, it's in a documentary about terorrism, and is not on Youtube. I wish it was.

You ever wonder why there are no more 9/11s. Well it isn't because we got lucky! We caught them because we didn't have to jump through hoops of red tape.

dick morris is full of it.

and it's not that there shouldn't have been the wiretaps. those would have existed anyway. it's the fact that the patriot act as amended under baby bush, did away with a requirement that a warrant be sought within 72 hours after implementation of the wiretap.

those warrants were denied in only about three instances. but there was oversight... which is what the bush administration didn't want.

but you'd have to know what the statute says to know that.

 

[jwoodie]

It was actually two fell swoops, and neither of them killed as many people as the fire bombing of Dresden. But then that doesn't play into your liberal/racist narrative, does it?

Uh, I try not to justify killing innocent people by saying others did it before/more often/etc.

Besides, you are way the fuck off:

The Bombing of Dresden was an attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, that took place in the final months of the Second World War. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city.[1] The resulting firestorm destroyed fifteen square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre. At least 22,000, at most 25,000 people were killed.

vs.


Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day.

In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians.


This is where you quit replying to this thread.

There will never be a definitive answer on the total deaths from either bombing. In the case of Dresden, many say the city was full of refugees from the East fleeing the Red Army. The figure ranges from 35,000 to 100,000. The anonymous refugees will always make the total number unknown. Hiroshima has a figure of about 45,000 on the first day of attack and some 15-20,000 or more during the next four months from radiation burns.

However, you conveniently sidestep the more relevant issue, which is why you are so incensed about the deaths of Japanese civilians in WW2, but don't give a damn about German (or other European) deaths. I don't suppose you care about Chinese deaths, either, because they were caused by the poor Japanese instead of the evil Americans.

 

[jillian]

Well, I never said there was no difference, just that the lines are blurring really quickly. I actually got the article from lewrockwell.com, not the dailypaul whatever that is.

As for your list. I don't agree with #2 at all. Employees should decide what they pay their employees and be mandated by government to pay a certain wage or hire certain people.

#3 I don't agree with either because I don't think the government, let alone the Federal Government, has any part passing any kind of legislation regarding Abortion. They have no business in it at all and the Democrats have certainly tried to force their viewpoints down others throats. I'd prefer no laws at all on it, but if any, do them at a state level.

#4 I guess I don't understand what you mean by "personhood" laws. I would consider the ability to kill your own citizens without due process a "personhood" law. I would actually consider any law that usurps my liberty to be a "personhood" law. As for creating jobs, I'm not sure how raising taxes on over 70% of people is going to help, among other fuck ups.

well, # 2 wouldn't affect you. but i should be paid the same as a man doing the same work if we are employed by the same company. employers don't have the right to discriminate.

the right to reproductive choice only exists if it's federally protected and the states aren't allowed to give lesser constitutional protections than the fed. so, unless one is opposed to reproductive choice, one shouldn't be raising it as a state issue any more than segregation is a state issue.

personhood laws have a particular definition: it's radical religious right legislation declaring zygotes have the rights of citizenship... it's a walk in crazyhood...

cutting taxes for 1% doesn't add jobs.

but paying for infrastructure does...

the lines are only blurred in a very few areas.

Strange how people managed to get abortions before it was made the law of the land. The bottom line is that it is not an enumerated power and therefore it belongs to the States to decide.

not strange at all.. it wasn't politicized by the radical religious right.

and a 'libertarian' should expect it not to be the subject of STATE legislation. if you actually read the line of cases starting with Griswold v CT, into Loving v VA, and going into Roe v Wade, it's clear that the interest of the individual over his/her own affairs takes precedence. it's not the rights of the states that has to be protected, it's the right of the individual. real libertarians used to know that.

there are more 'rights' than what you clain are 'enumerated' because ultimately, the constitution is there to protect the individual, and some yahoo in north dakota doesn't have the right to divest a woman over dominion over her own body. and i'd suggest you look to the caselaw since that is what determines the application of the document.

i find it amazing that a 'libertarian' is ok with women being forced to carry a pregnancy to term.