Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!

[AntiParty]

Government isn't "Evil"

Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.

Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.

So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution? Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!

Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right? HOLY SHIT!

LMFAO!

Where did I say we need to give politicians more power? Never did man. I stand against Citizens United.

 

[AntiParty]

Government isn't "Evil"

Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.

Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.

Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?

Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.

If you don't agree with him, he will attack. He's the only person that is correct in America! LOL.

He doesn't even know how many things we agree on because he's probably seen me not agree with him on a topic or two. It's pathetic.

 

[AntiParty]

Congress and the President are doing bad is one thing to say. "Government is bad" is a totally different thing to say.

Congress and the President work for We The People.

Government is a good thing.

We The People are failing because of monetary interests.

Let me see if I can explain this to you using small words.

The use of force to accomplish your goals is wrong. Using the government to accomplish your goals is using force. Forcing people to do things just because you can is evil. Ergo, government is evil.

You bring up a good topic. Using force to install rules.

When debating Liberty there is a question that always has to be asked.

"Necessity vs. Risk"

I'm sure you are mad right now because you probably think Liberty is Freedom and we need it no matter what!

There are HUNDREDS of examples but I always discuss Biker Helmets, because Bikers are generally Libertarians. Let's discuss the helmet "Liberty".

What does the Biker gain? Freedom of riding a motorcycle without a helmet. So tough!

What is the risk? The biker is very likely to lay the bike over when it hits an onslaught of things that aren't predictable.

So the gain may be Freedom but the risk is an entire family that has to visit you in the hospital when you are on the vent in critical condition driving up everyone's healthcare costs. You have now "infringed" the Liberty of your family members and the people in your healthcare network because you were too stupid to make a common sense decision.

Risk vs. Necessity.

 

[AntiParty]

Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?

Politicians, banks and Corporations get away with murder.

The people suffer.

Yet you support laws that enable the very thing you say you want to end. What does that make you?

What laws are those kiddo..

 

[AntiParty]

Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?

Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.

Diversions?

The law challenged in the Citizens United made it illegal for anyone to spend money on ads that said negative things about politicians during an election. According to the government, this would have even enabled them to ban books. Funny thing, it didn't actually apply to incumbent politicians, just normal people.

If you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that AntiParty is the one that brought up Citizens United, I was just attempting to get him to explain, again, why he thinks it is permissible to restrict free speech in order to give corrupt politicians more power while ranting about politicians who have too much power.

Come to think of it, I would love it if you could explain the same thing.

Oh, I absolutely stand against Citizens United lol! It seems you don't know what Citizens United actually is.........

Citizens United is what originally stated money is speech. What ever Fox News told you about banning books is just garbage media, or maybe you just made that up.

YOU seem to be the one that is standing for the very thing you hate.

I say it all the time though and here it is again. Why do Right Wingers ONLY read the title of things! Patriot act, anti-outsourcing bill, Operation Iranian Freedom, Citizens United..........Just because the name is good or bad has not relevance to the actual bill! Read the Bill for god sakes!

 

[AntiParty]

"End the bias" by dropping out? How much sense does that make? Anybody can register independent and every American can vote based on their intellect and awareness of the issues. Why organize a negative political organization?

If you have seen America lately, you would notice that EVERY party is purchased by $ and don't represent the people. You would see that people submit to platforms and argue for things they wouldn't necessarily argue for, but they do because they can relate more to that platform. Yet all platforms have one common link. Corporations.

I am simply saying THINK FOR YOURSELF. Not for the platform that is closest to your opinion.

It's strange how many attacks you get when you tell people to think for themselves today. It's an embarrassment to the USA.

 

[AntiParty]

Yes, both parties are bad. Horribly bad, but progressivism is a disease that must not be allowed to infect this country. If progressives are able to baffle the masses the bloodshed will be worse than was ever visited on the Russians and German Jews.

Hyperbole? What is it w/ rw'ers and calling for revolutionary rhetoric if their ideology isn't implemented? Also, last I heard, ideologies aren't against the law. I can run for an office based on almost any ideology I can think of tomorrow and it isn't illegal. I'm also a gun-owning vet BUT a Progressive. Stop w/ the broad-brushing.

Hyperbole? Not hardly. Try history bub. I am in favor of a good mix of both liberal and capitalistic ideals in my country. When either side gets too much control the PEOPLE are harmed. Anti-party and progressives in general are extremists. You show me any country where extremism has been beneficial to the PEOPLE.

Go ahead, I dare you.

I stopped reading at "Liberal and Capitalistic"..........The majority of Left Wingers are Capitalists and the majority of Liberals are Republicans. But I use the words by definitions.

Most Left Wingers notice the flaws in Capitalism. It doesn't mean they are all against it. The Right tends to see it as an attack on Capitalism and wants to attack them for it instead of fixing the flaws. It's like someone telling you that your motor isn't functioning properly and you put sugar in the gas tank , boy you showed them.

I've met very few Left Wingers that stand for what Fox news says they are. Most of them have guns and brains.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why don't you make a list of your beliefs for all to see, and stop your trolling..................

Mr. mouthpiece for the left.

 

[AntiParty]

"End the bias" by dropping out? How much sense does that make? Anybody can register independent and every American can vote based on their intellect and awareness of the issues. Why organize a negative political organization?

Don't be fooled he supports the Liberals, thus the democratic party. he is just trying to convince conservatives to drop out. Or maybe you can find a post or thread by him where he has ever attacked cajoled or made fun of ANY liberal policies attitudes or positions? he has been asked to link to any and never has managed to do it.

In fact in most threads when confronted with his failure to actually be against all the parties he usually runs away.

So the posts where I'm discussing my torn opinion on whether to vote for Rand Paul vs. Chris Christie won't do?

People like you should read instead of hate. You can't learn anything by hating. In fact my blood is boiling over with hatred making me want to vote for the Left because the Right is so intolerant of free thinking. But I am stronger than the small brains and want what is best for America.

 

[AntiParty]

There you go again.

My position is that government is evil, and needs to be restrained. Your position is that it is good and that we need to give it more power. The fact that you cl;aim to be independent is completely irrelevant to me, you are pro government, and live for everything I oppose.

I have been thinking about this for over 40 years, this is not new to me. I have dealt with people like you before, and will again, you are just rehashing the same things we discussed after we watched the hippies become the man.

Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have.

To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.

Actually, the Constitution embraces a just government that respects it and the people while remaining within its confines. And it is the people's duty to understand their rights so they can shove them down the government's throat.

So you added the word "just" to my statement and think you are correcting me?

 

[AntiParty]

Why don't you make a list of your beliefs for all to see, and stop your trolling..................

Mr. mouthpiece for the left.

It would have nothing to do with the OP kiddo.

The OP is about THINK FOR YOURSELF ON EVERY TOPIC. Why can you not understand that?

 

[eagle1462010]

Why don't you make a list of your beliefs for all to see, and stop your trolling..................

Mr. mouthpiece for the left.

It would have nothing to do with the OP kiddo.

The OP is about THINK FOR YOURSELF ON EVERY TOPIC. Why can you not understand that?

Why can't you understand that I think your anti party agenda is BS.

 

[AntiParty]

Why don't you make a list of your beliefs for all to see, and stop your trolling..................

Mr. mouthpiece for the left.

It would have nothing to do with the OP kiddo.

The OP is about THINK FOR YOURSELF ON EVERY TOPIC. Why can you not understand that?

Why can't you understand that I think your anti party agenda is BS.

I understand your perspective. You don't understand mine. But thanks for all of that factual information troll.

 

[eagle1462010]

Lol

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.

Diversions?

The law challenged in the Citizens United made it illegal for anyone to spend money on ads that said negative things about politicians during an election. According to the government, this would have even enabled them to ban books. Funny thing, it didn't actually apply to incumbent politicians, just normal people.

If you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that AntiParty is the one that brought up Citizens United, I was just attempting to get him to explain, again, why he thinks it is permissible to restrict free speech in order to give corrupt politicians more power while ranting about politicians who have too much power.

Come to think of it, I would love it if you could explain the same thing.

Oh, I absolutely stand against Citizens United lol! It seems you don't know what Citizens United actually is.........

Citizens United is what originally stated money is speech. What ever Fox News told you about banning books is just garbage media, or maybe you just made that up.

YOU seem to be the one that is standing for the very thing you hate.

I say it all the time though and here it is again. Why do Right Wingers ONLY read the title of things! Patriot act, anti-outsourcing bill, Operation Iranian Freedom, Citizens United..........Just because the name is good or bad has not relevance to the actual bill! Read the Bill for god sakes!

I agree that the name of a bill doesn't mean -shit- about what's actually in it.

I find it funny that you recognize this, but when it comes to "conservatives", you automatically assume that the English definition of the label defines their philosophy.

Likewise, you feel that the implications of the word "progress" are what defines someone who is a "progressive".

Labels don't define bills, but they -do- define political movements? Gotcha.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Government isn't "Evil"

Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.

Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.

So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution? Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!

Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right? HOLY SHIT!

LMFAO!

Where did I say we need to give politicians more power? Never did man. I stand against Citizens United.

You never say it outright, but you imply it often. For instance, look at the very post that I quoted.

"The people need to decipher what is best for the country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians." The obvious implication is that the people need to decide on how to regulate the control that corporations exert over politicians.

Once the people decide on how to regulate this, they empower politicians to enforce that regulation. When you empower politicians to regulate, you increase the amount of power they are able to sell to their billionaire overlords.

You also make the argument about motorcycle helmets, and how forcing people to wear them decreases their risk and, by some leap of logic that I still can't follow, increases the "liberty" of their families (I'm still not sure how you define liberty, as you've said it's different from freedom. You'll have to expound on what you mean by that and where you acquired your definition of liberty).

Your implication there is that, for the greater good, the government (politicians) should be empowered to regulate individual behaviors that, while victimless (I don't victimize anybody by smashing my head in a motorcycle accident), are risky to the individual acting. You're empowering politicians to decide what safety equipment I need to purchase to protect me from myself.

Now, I'm making a bit of a leap here regarding your beliefs, but I did notice on the "should people without children be forced to pay more" thread you said that they should, because they aren't having children to support their social security and medicare down the road (which is already bullshit, because everyone pays into both of those things their whole lives. Why do they also have to have a kid paying in before they're given back the shit that was taken out of their checks all their lives? Different argument, I'll stay on topic). This implies that, in the case of helmets, you'd probably argue that, because some of those motorcyclists can't afford their own medical bills, they would be victimizing society at large with their medical bills. That, in turn, implies that you feel it perfectly just that the government forces us to pay for each other's medical expenses.

Rather than leaving people free to fuck their own heads up on motorcycles, you feel it just that the government force us to pay for the broken headed idiots and then fine them when they risk their own health. You want to empower government to force people to buy safety equipment to protect them from their own choices, and you don't see how this is tantamount to wanting to give politicians the very power that you lament their propensity to sell to the highest bidder?

Holy shit. Do you not even understand the nature of your own philosophy? You do, indeed, value a powerful and intrusive government, but somehow manage to reconcile this with the acknowledgement that politicians will sell their power and ability to intrude.

 

[KokomoJojo]

yeh get the anti party movement to take hold and it will morph into the 2 issue system in a 1000 issue venue.

 

[KokomoJojo]

So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution? Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!

Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right? HOLY SHIT!

LMFAO!

Where did I say we need to give politicians more power? Never did man. I stand against Citizens United.

You never say it outright, but you imply it often. For instance, look at the very post that I quoted.

"The people need to decipher what is best for the country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians." The obvious implication is that the people need to decide on how to regulate the control that corporations exert over politicians.

Once the people decide on how to regulate this, they empower politicians to enforce that regulation. When you empower politicians to regulate, you increase the amount of power they are able to sell to their billionaire overlords.

You also make the argument about motorcycle helmets, and how forcing people to wear them decreases their risk and, by some leap of logic that I still can't follow, increases the "liberty" of their families (I'm still not sure how you define liberty, as you've said it's different from freedom. You'll have to expound on what you mean by that and where you acquired your definition of liberty).

Your implication there is that, for the greater good, the government (politicians) should be empowered to regulate individual behaviors that, while victimless (I don't victimize anybody by smashing my head in a motorcycle accident), are risky to the individual acting. You're empowering politicians to decide what safety equipment I need to purchase to protect me from myself.

Now, I'm making a bit of a leap here regarding your beliefs, but I did notice on the "should people without children be forced to pay more" thread you said that they should, because they aren't having children to support their social security and medicare down the road (which is already bullshit, because everyone pays into both of those things their whole lives. Why do they also have to have a kid paying in before they're given back the shit that was taken out of their checks all their lives? Different argument, I'll stay on topic). This implies that, in the case of helmets, you'd probably argue that, because some of those motorcyclists can't afford their own medical bills, they would be victimizing society at large with their medical bills. That, in turn, implies that you feel it perfectly just that the government forces us to pay for each other's medical expenses.

Rather than leaving people free to fuck their own heads up on motorcycles, you feel it just that the government force us to pay for the broken headed idiots and then fine them when they risk their own health. You want to empower government to force people to buy safety equipment to protect them from their own choices, and you don't see how this is tantamount to wanting to give politicians the very power that you lament their propensity to sell to the highest bidder?

Holy shit. Do you not even understand the nature of your own philosophy? You do, indeed, value a powerful and intrusive government, but somehow manage to reconcile this with the acknowledgement that politicians will sell their power and ability to intrude.

show me one, just one fundamental amendment that the people at large voted on? The states do the voting without the people. "We the States" do hereby.....blah blah blah....

The problem is the system is not set up that way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Government isn't "Evil"

Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.

Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.

So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution? Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!

Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right? HOLY SHIT!

LMFAO!

Where did I say we need to give politicians more power? Never did man. I stand against Citizens United.

If you oppose Citizens United you oppose giving the little guy an opportunity to speak out against politicians, that means you are for giving them more power. You really should dig into the facts before you declare yourself the master of the debate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?

Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.

If you don't agree with him, he will attack. He's the only person that is correct in America! LOL.

He doesn't even know how many things we agree on because he's probably seen me not agree with him on a topic or two. It's pathetic.

I am not the guy that said he is never wrong.