CDZ If you . . .

[Brian Blackwell]

I'm a proud member of the Mind Your Own F@#&ing Business Party.

The one and only policy is shut your mouth and stop telling people what to do.

What a concept! You must be some kind of wheelchair-bound genius to come up with this. I mean, who could possibly conceive of such a thoroughly lucid, paradise-yielding idea???

Oh wait... every single fucking person, if their minds weren't torn to shit by sociopathic hypnotists.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm a proud member of the Mind Your Own F@#&ing Business Party.

The one and only policy is shut your mouth and stop telling people what to do.

What a concept! You must be some kind of wheelchair-bound genius to come up with this. I mean, who could possibly conceive of such a thoroughly lucid, paradise-yielding idea???

Oh wait... every single fucking person, if their minds weren't torn to shit by sociopathic hypnotists.

And yet you didn't post it first.

hmmm

 

[Pete7469]

I'm noticing a lack of "Progressives" in this thread. I would think one or two would chime in, if for no other reason to give the impression that they actually do make thoughtful arguments.

But then again, maybe they just don't?

I dunno

Funny...

2 minutes after you posted that, wrongwinger shows up.

Rather than question any liberal lunacy however, he pulls a fakey and tells us he was once a republicrat.

Like I've said before.

If a democrook is communicating, they're either lying or repeating a lie they got from someone else.

I seriously doubt we will see ANY of the forum's foaming at the mouth moonbats disagree with their party dogma in any real way. Most all of them are parrots or posting bots at best anyway, but as we have all seen liberals behave on a national level in real life, dissent is not permitted on the regressive side of the political spectrum.

They have to conform. They have to hate the rich, hate people who own guns, embrace all sorts of perversion and ignore any nefarious act of their political whores no matter how egregious.

That's why I have absolutely no respect for them.


.

 

[Votto]

I'm noticing a lack of "Progressives" in this thread. I would think one or two would chime in, if for no other reason to give the impression that they actually do make thoughtful arguments.

But then again, maybe they just don't?

I dunno

Funny...

2 minutes after you posted that, wrongwinger shows up.

Rather than question any liberal lunacy however, he pulls a fakey and tells us he was once a republicrat.

Like I've said before.

If a democrook is communicating, they're either lying or repeating a lie they got from someone else.

I seriously doubt we will see ANY of the forum's foaming at the mouth moonbats disagree with their party dogma in any real way. Most all of them are parrots or posting bots at best anyway, but as we have all seen liberals behave on a national level in real life, dissent is not permitted on the regressive side of the political spectrum.

They have to conform. They have to hate the rich, hate people who own guns, embrace all sorts of perversion and ignore any nefarious act of their political whores no matter how egregious.

That's why I have absolutely no respect for them.


.

I don't think Dims are capable of recognizing personal failure or ever being wrong.

That is part of the problem

No, they are only hear to obtain power and save the rest of us from ourselves.

 

[rightwinger]

As far as gay marriage goes, for me, I couldn't care less about it. It affects me in no way whatsoever, and I have yet to hear a valid argument that goes against it. If two gay people want to be married, I don't see how that should be a problem for anyone else. That's how I feel about that particular issue.

My issue is that the federal government has no right to force a State to allow it if the State doesn't want it. What the feds CAN do is force states to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States under full faith and credit, same as driver's licenses, and one of these days I hope, CCW's.

Well, I am more for individual rights I guess. I don't think the state or the feds have a right to tell the people what they can do as long as it is not classified as a "crime" and they are not harming anyone else by doing whatever it is that they are doing. Of course, there are some exceptions to that rule, when it comes to children, the mentally disabled, people who can't consent for whatever reasons, etc.

The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.

And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?

Well, I don't think they should have such powers to control people and who other people marry or who can have an abortion and who can't. I do not think they are trustworthy or competent enough to make such decisions for anyone else. Governments are, after all, made up of just human beings who are as fallible as any other human beings.

We already say 3 people can't marry each other, or you can't have an abortion after 24 weeks in most places. It's not a black/white thing with control, its about degrees.

It's also about how local you can make the choices.

And that is the problem with politics today
There used to be a middle ground where deals could be made. Used to be trade off of ....I will give you this, if you will give me that

Now, anyone attempting compromise is set upon by the wolves at the extremes

 

[Votto]

My issue is that the federal government has no right to force a State to allow it if the State doesn't want it. What the feds CAN do is force states to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States under full faith and credit, same as driver's licenses, and one of these days I hope, CCW's.

Well, I am more for individual rights I guess. I don't think the state or the feds have a right to tell the people what they can do as long as it is not classified as a "crime" and they are not harming anyone else by doing whatever it is that they are doing. Of course, there are some exceptions to that rule, when it comes to children, the mentally disabled, people who can't consent for whatever reasons, etc.

The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.

And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?

Well, I don't think they should have such powers to control people and who other people marry or who can have an abortion and who can't. I do not think they are trustworthy or competent enough to make such decisions for anyone else. Governments are, after all, made up of just human beings who are as fallible as any other human beings.

We already say 3 people can't marry each other, or you can't have an abortion after 24 weeks in most places. It's not a black/white thing with control, its about degrees.

It's also about how local you can make the choices.

And that is the problem with politics today
There used to be a middle ground where deals could be made. Used to be trade off of ....I will give you this, if you will give me that

Now, anyone attempting compromise is set upon by the wolves at the extremes

Middle ground is the problem?

Really?

So let's say the Dims want to imprison innocent Japanese Americans again, mainly because they take too many jobs and university spots from other minorities.

What middle ground should I take?

 

[Pop23]

I'm noticing a lack of "Progressives" in this thread. I would think one or two would chime in, if for no other reason to give the impression that they actually do make thoughtful arguments.

But then again, maybe they just don't?

I dunno

Funny...

2 minutes after you posted that, wrongwinger shows up.

Rather than question any liberal lunacy however, he pulls a fakey and tells us he was once a republicrat.

Like I've said before.

If a democrook is communicating, they're either lying or repeating a lie they got from someone else.

I seriously doubt we will see ANY of the forum's foaming at the mouth moonbats disagree with their party dogma in any real way. Most all of them are parrots or posting bots at best anyway, but as we have all seen liberals behave on a national level in real life, dissent is not permitted on the regressive side of the political spectrum.

They have to conform. They have to hate the rich, hate people who own guns, embrace all sorts of perversion and ignore any nefarious act of their political whores no matter how egregious.

That's why I have absolutely no respect for them.


.

I just posted on another forum about some Home Inspector, roaming around a vacant house when a neighbor confronts him and asked him what he was doing in the house. He said he explained to the home owner that he was their doing a pre-closing home inspection BUT REFUSED TO SHOW HER HIS PAPERWORK.

His video starts well after his initial confrontation with the neighbor and after she called the police on him to verify his authority to be on the property AND NOT A RACIST THING IS SAID TO HIM by her or the police. They check his ID and his paperwork and he is good to go. BUT HE POSTS THIS ON THE INTERNET AS PROOF OF RACISM?

I have done well in excess of 100 property inspections in my lifetime and have had cops called to check me out at least a dozen times. I've also been confronted by neighbors who wanted proof as to my authority to be there. It is standard practice to carry the paperwork with you AND SHOW IT when asked by neighbors. But this wahoo thought he didn't have too? AND THAT'S RACIST? Oh, and the best part was, when the police show up, he yells at the woman THAT SHE'S GOING TO JAIL. Noooooo, he didn't raise tensions at all (sarcasm)

Talk about entitlement!

The left eats this shit up.

 

[Pete7469]

I don't think Dims are capable of recognizing personal failure or ever being wrong.

That is part of the problem

A significant part of the problem.

The gauntlet has been thrown down though. They have been challenged.

Lets see how many express support for the 2nd Amendment as it is written, not as lunatics "interpret" it.

Lets see how many call abortion what it is: INFANTICIDE.

Lets see how many admit 50 years of "War on Poverty" is an utter failure, and it has subsidized and created generations of sloths.

Lets see how many of them question the motive of those who promote "Global Warming" propaganda.

Lets see just one admit the KKK was a militant wing of of the DNC just like antifa is now.

Lets see just one of them admit the DNC Platform has more in common with The German Socialist Worker's Party than anything a republicrat believes in.

Lets even see one of them admit hitlary is a sociopath hag, and that she's guilty of any crime at all.

I know I've posted threads before calling them out, and we have seen several (real) "right wingers" question the GOP platform or rebuke certain policies. You won't find democrooks willing to be ostracized for having an independent thought.

They're either deliberately ignorant, or physically handicapped with no frontal lobe.


.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, I am more for individual rights I guess. I don't think the state or the feds have a right to tell the people what they can do as long as it is not classified as a "crime" and they are not harming anyone else by doing whatever it is that they are doing. Of course, there are some exceptions to that rule, when it comes to children, the mentally disabled, people who can't consent for whatever reasons, etc.

The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.

And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?

Well, I don't think they should have such powers to control people and who other people marry or who can have an abortion and who can't. I do not think they are trustworthy or competent enough to make such decisions for anyone else. Governments are, after all, made up of just human beings who are as fallible as any other human beings.

We already say 3 people can't marry each other, or you can't have an abortion after 24 weeks in most places. It's not a black/white thing with control, its about degrees.

It's also about how local you can make the choices.

And that is the problem with politics today
There used to be a middle ground where deals could be made. Used to be trade off of ....I will give you this, if you will give me that

Now, anyone attempting compromise is set upon by the wolves at the extremes

Middle ground is the problem?

Really?

So let's say the Dims want to imprison innocent Japanese Americans again, mainly because they take too many jobs and university spots from other minorities.

What middle ground should I take?

That’s the best you could come up with?
There was no middle ground on Japanese internment
Both parties supported it

 

[Votto]

The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.

And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?

Well, I don't think they should have such powers to control people and who other people marry or who can have an abortion and who can't. I do not think they are trustworthy or competent enough to make such decisions for anyone else. Governments are, after all, made up of just human beings who are as fallible as any other human beings.

We already say 3 people can't marry each other, or you can't have an abortion after 24 weeks in most places. It's not a black/white thing with control, its about degrees.

It's also about how local you can make the choices.

And that is the problem with politics today
There used to be a middle ground where deals could be made. Used to be trade off of ....I will give you this, if you will give me that

Now, anyone attempting compromise is set upon by the wolves at the extremes

Middle ground is the problem?

Really?

So let's say the Dims want to imprison innocent Japanese Americans again, mainly because they take too many jobs and university spots from other minorities.

What middle ground should I take?

That’s the best you could come up with?
There was no middle ground on Japanese internment
Both parties supported it

Yes, the GOP rarely crosses the DNC. In fact, the last omnibus bill spent more than Obama ever did, and fully funded Planned Parenthood, and did nothing to build a border wall.

So let's say, for the sake of arugment, that growing government further the way they have been doing for decades is just as bad an idea as imprisoning Japanese Americans.

What then? Where is my middle ground?

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.

And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?

I take exception with the idea that a piece of parchment can "give power".

However, I agree that people in NY shouldn't have a say about what people in Alabama do. By this same logic, no individual or group should have a say about what any other individual or group does, as long as no one's fundamental rights are being violated. Obviously, this obviates democracy in any form.

It does give power to the various levels of government. Now If I said it gives "rights" you may have a better argument.

And the big "L" Libertarian in you of course sees it that way, but the small "l" libertarian in me sees the ability of people to consent to forms of government, such as we have, in a strict constructional federalist way (to me) of course.

 

[martybegan]

It's also about how local you can make the choices.

Absolutely. And the logical conclusion of this thinking is to localize choices down to the individual level.

As we have debated before, there has to be limits to what an individual can do unless you are dealing with robots.

 

[martybegan]

My issue is that the federal government has no right to force a State to allow it if the State doesn't want it. What the feds CAN do is force states to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States under full faith and credit, same as driver's licenses, and one of these days I hope, CCW's.

Well, I am more for individual rights I guess. I don't think the state or the feds have a right to tell the people what they can do as long as it is not classified as a "crime" and they are not harming anyone else by doing whatever it is that they are doing. Of course, there are some exceptions to that rule, when it comes to children, the mentally disabled, people who can't consent for whatever reasons, etc.

The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.

And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?

Well, I don't think they should have such powers to control people and who other people marry or who can have an abortion and who can't. I do not think they are trustworthy or competent enough to make such decisions for anyone else. Governments are, after all, made up of just human beings who are as fallible as any other human beings.

We already say 3 people can't marry each other, or you can't have an abortion after 24 weeks in most places. It's not a black/white thing with control, its about degrees.

It's also about how local you can make the choices.

And that is the problem with politics today
There used to be a middle ground where deals could be made. Used to be trade off of ....I will give you this, if you will give me that

Now, anyone attempting compromise is set upon by the wolves at the extremes

the problem to me is everyone is seeing their viewpoint as "middle" and the other as "extreme"

As an example people who support RKBA have already compromised plenty, yet gun control people continue to think every RKBA supporter wants small tactical nuclear warheads in their garage.

And I Know this isn't a 2nd amendment thread, but the constitution is explicit about RKBA, and if one believes in incorporation to the States via the 14th, then one has to think any restrictions on ownership of firearms has to be very limited and in a perfect world only subject to due process removals.

 

[Pete7469]

And that is the problem with politics today
There used to be a middle ground where deals could be made. Used to be trade off of ....I will give you this, if you will give me that

Now, anyone attempting compromise is set upon by the wolves at the extremes

That's a bunch of crap.

The "middle ground" is when republicrats give the DNC almost everything it wants, and leave the door open for them to collect the rest before the ink is dry on the new legislation.

Furthermore, there is no "middle ground" when it comes to Right Vs. Wrong.

It's WRONG to have millions of people physically capable of working, but dependent on government and believing they're entitled to free shit.

It's WRONG to allow people from other countries to enter another country without being vetted.

It's WRONG to disarm honest people because "they might" go batshit and kill someone.

It's WRONG for government to steal billions of dollars from the economy, and spend it on things that only benefit lobbyists from activist organizations.

It's WRONG to have government prevent individuals from developing their own property because an "endangered" bird MIGHT nest in a tree on the property.

It's WRONG to have to pay "taxes" (RENT) on your own land or risk being thrown off of it.

It's WRONG to have half your shit taken away when you die before your own kids can inherit it.


.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, I don't think they should have such powers to control people and who other people marry or who can have an abortion and who can't. I do not think they are trustworthy or competent enough to make such decisions for anyone else. Governments are, after all, made up of just human beings who are as fallible as any other human beings.

We already say 3 people can't marry each other, or you can't have an abortion after 24 weeks in most places. It's not a black/white thing with control, its about degrees.

It's also about how local you can make the choices.

And that is the problem with politics today
There used to be a middle ground where deals could be made. Used to be trade off of ....I will give you this, if you will give me that

Now, anyone attempting compromise is set upon by the wolves at the extremes

Middle ground is the problem?

Really?

So let's say the Dims want to imprison innocent Japanese Americans again, mainly because they take too many jobs and university spots from other minorities.

What middle ground should I take?

That’s the best you could come up with?
There was no middle ground on Japanese internment
Both parties supported it

Yes, the GOP rarely crosses the DNC. In fact, the last omnibus bill spent more than Obama ever did, and fully funded Planned Parenthood, and did nothing to build a border wall.

So let's say, for the sake of arugment, that growing government further the way they have been doing for decades is just as bad an idea as imprisoning Japanese Americans.

What then? Where is my middle ground?

Your analogy sucks

 

[Votto]

And that is the problem with politics today
There used to be a middle ground where deals could be made. Used to be trade off of ....I will give you this, if you will give me that

Now, anyone attempting compromise is set upon by the wolves at the extremes

That's a bunch of crap.

The "middle ground" is when republicrats give the DNC almost everything it wants, and leave the door open for them to collect the rest before the ink is dry on the new legislation.

Furthermore, there is no "middle ground" when it comes to Right Vs. Wrong.

It's WRONG to have millions of people physically capable of working, but dependent on government and believing they're entitled to free shit.

It's WRONG to allow people from other countries to enter another country without being vetted.

It's WRONG to disarm honest people because "they might" go batshit and kill someone.

It's WRONG for government to steal billions of dollars from the economy, and spend it on things that only benefit lobbyists from activist organizations.

It's WRONG to have government prevent individuals from developing their own property because an "endangered" bird MIGHT nest in a tree on the property.

It's WRONG to have to pay "taxes" (RENT) on your own land or risk being thrown off of it.

It's WRONG to have half your shit taken away when you die before your own kids can inherit it.


.

Now, now, just because Dims like FDR were "wrong" in being ardent racists by locking up squinty eyed spooks is no reason to be so mean.

After all, FDR was such a great man, he has his own little memorial in Washington and every historical scholar in academia rates him as one of the best Presidents of all time, so........

 

[rightwinger]

And that is the problem with politics today
There used to be a middle ground where deals could be made. Used to be trade off of ....I will give you this, if you will give me that

Now, anyone attempting compromise is set upon by the wolves at the extremes

That's a bunch of crap.

The "middle ground" is when republicrats give the DNC almost everything it wants, and leave the door open for them to collect the rest before the ink is dry on the new legislation.

Furthermore, there is no "middle ground" when it comes to Right Vs. Wrong.

It's WRONG to have millions of people physically capable of working, but dependent on government and believing they're entitled to free shit.

It's WRONG to allow people from other countries to enter another country without being vetted.

It's WRONG to disarm honest people because "they might" go batshit and kill someone.

It's WRONG for government to steal billions of dollars from the economy, and spend it on things that only benefit lobbyists from activist organizations.

It's WRONG to have government prevent individuals from developing their own property because an "endangered" bird MIGHT nest in a tree on the property.

It's WRONG to have to pay "taxes" (RENT) on your own land or risk being thrown off of it.

It's WRONG to have half your shit taken away when you die before your own kids can inherit it.


.

There is plenty of middle ground on taxes and spending
That is how budgets have been made for centuries

The rest of your rant is just the views of an anarchist

 

[Votto]

We already say 3 people can't marry each other, or you can't have an abortion after 24 weeks in most places. It's not a black/white thing with control, its about degrees.

It's also about how local you can make the choices.

And that is the problem with politics today
There used to be a middle ground where deals could be made. Used to be trade off of ....I will give you this, if you will give me that

Now, anyone attempting compromise is set upon by the wolves at the extremes

Middle ground is the problem?

Really?

So let's say the Dims want to imprison innocent Japanese Americans again, mainly because they take too many jobs and university spots from other minorities.

What middle ground should I take?

That’s the best you could come up with?
There was no middle ground on Japanese internment
Both parties supported it

Yes, the GOP rarely crosses the DNC. In fact, the last omnibus bill spent more than Obama ever did, and fully funded Planned Parenthood, and did nothing to build a border wall.

So let's say, for the sake of arugment, that growing government further the way they have been doing for decades is just as bad an idea as imprisoning Japanese Americans.

What then? Where is my middle ground?

Your analogy sucks

So does Stormy Daniels

Your point is?

 

[kwc57]

I was a Democrat from 1975 until 2008 when I became a Republican. I'm actually more of a libertarian, but I can't vote in my state primaries if I registered that way. In both instances, I've opposed their social issues and engineering. Run the damn government and leave our personal lives alone.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.

And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?

I take exception with the idea that a piece of parchment can "give power".

However, I agree that people in NY shouldn't have a say about what people in Alabama do. By this same logic, no individual or group should have a say about what any other individual or group does, as long as no one's fundamental rights are being violated. Obviously, this obviates democracy in any form.

It does give power to the various levels of government. Now If I said it gives "rights" you may have a better argument.

And the big "L" Libertarian in you of course sees it that way, but the small "l" libertarian in me sees the ability of people to consent to forms of government, such as we have, in a strict constructional federalist way (to me) of course.

When we say “power”, what is meant? It’s not merely the ability to do something. A document can’t establish that; the ability either exists or it does not.

So the document is trying to establish the right to do something. To accept this document, you must believe that man can create rights (via small-group consensus and writing things down, apparently). The ostensible idea here is not “We don’t have a right to do these things, but we’re going to do them anyway”; it’s “By consent of the governed we do have a right to do these things.”

Government is the claim that some may obtain rights in excess of what others have. Congress may lay and collect taxes, but you may not. And the only things that lay outside the realm of individual rights are individual “wrongs”, i.e. actions that infringe upon the rights of others. Government is literally, by definition, the right to do what is wrong; or license to act immorally.

People cannot change the nature of morality by consent. And especially not when they are “consenting” on behalf of others (an impossibility), which is precisely the situation here, since many do not consent but are made subject to government anyway.

Any moral government would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals, since rights are equal across all of humanity. So you see that government’s only distinguishing characteristic is immorality, and it must be so in all cases; there is simply no way around this.