Let's NOT become a liberal police state.

Telling me not to light off a firework=police state
Telling me to put down the pop=police state
Telling me to pay for parasites=police state
Telling me to support a third world shit hole through force=police state

Forcing women to have an unwanted baby=Police state
Invading another country for oil=Police state
Denying targeted minorities the rights and privlidges that come with the right to marry or serve in the military=Police state
Voter suppression=Police state

Yes, by all means, no police state.
 
Telling me not to light off a firework=police state
Telling me to put down the pop=police state
Telling me to pay for parasites=police state
Telling me to support a third world shit hole through force=police state

Forcing women to have an unwanted baby=Police state
Invading another country for oil=Police state
Denying targeted minorities the rights and privlidges that come with the right to marry or serve in the military=Police state
Voter suppression=Police state

Yes, by all means, no police state.

Also, integrating Business and Government to exercise complete control over the citizenry. This is the Right Wing agenda, it is fascist, and it ushers in a police state.
 
Let's not become a liberal police state. Ok. In fact, let's not become a police state at all. I don't wish to qualify it like you did.


Exactly. Obama didn't start the warrantless wiretaps and waterboarding.
But he has also done absolutely bupkis to roll back those police/snoop state abominations.

Rendition, USAPATRIOT Act, NDAA, Gitmo, DHS/TSA, killing Americans by executive fiat, on and on.

He's as bad a police state tyrant as anyone else.
 
Telling me not to light off a firework=police state
Telling me to put down the pop=police state
Telling me to pay for parasites=police state
Telling me to support a third world shit hole through force=police state

Forcing women to have an unwanted baby=Police state
Invading another country for oil=Police state
Denying targeted minorities the rights and privlidges that come with the right to marry or serve in the military=Police state
Voter suppression=Police state

Yes, by all means, no police state.

Also, integrating Business and Government to exercise complete control over the citizenry. This is the Right Wing agenda, it is fascist, and it ushers in a police state.
Democrats are all aboard for that shit too.

You've met the fascist and he is you.
 
Telling me not to light off a firework=police state
Telling me to put down the pop=police state
Telling me to pay for parasites=police state
Telling me to support a third world shit hole through force=police state

Forcing women to have an unwanted baby=Police state
Invading another country for oil=Police state
Denying targeted minorities the rights and privlidges that come with the right to marry or serve in the military=Police state
Voter suppression=Police state

Yes, by all means, no police state.

Living in chicago = gangster state...
I heard when you jog at night in englewood you can actually gain weight...:D
 
There is no such thing as a "liberal police state." That's an oxymoron. Police states are, by definition, right wing governments.

How do you comport limited government with a police state? All dictatorships rely on a strong central government to exert control over the population.

Wouldn't it depend on which part of the government is limited? I doubt many dictatorships have a big investment in standardized housing, agriculture, environmental protection or foreign aid.

I mean, to become a "police state" you need security forces which is usually the purview of the Military. Obviously the connotation of police state is much more likely under the direction of a government that favors a large military.

The right wing mental jujitsu on this topic always makes me laugh. There are lies you tell yourself guys but you probably should not BS yourself so blatantly.
 
There is no such thing as a "liberal police state." That's an oxymoron. Police states are, by definition, right wing governments.

How do you comport limited government with a police state? All dictatorships rely on a strong central government to exert control over the population.

Wouldn't it depend on which part of the government is limited? I doubt many dictatorships have a big investment in standardized housing, agriculture, environmental protection or foreign aid.

I mean, to become a "police state" you need security forces which is usually the purview of the Military. Obviously the connotation of police state is much more likely under the direction of a government that favors a large military.

The right wing mental jujitsu on this topic always makes me laugh. There are lies you tell yourself guys but you probably should not BS yourself so blatantly.

Hi candyass, http://www.usmessageboard.com/6345736-post9.html ...:D
 
How do you comport limited government with a police state? All dictatorships rely on a strong central government to exert control over the population.

Wouldn't it depend on which part of the government is limited? I doubt many dictatorships have a big investment in standardized housing, agriculture, environmental protection or foreign aid.

I mean, to become a "police state" you need security forces which is usually the purview of the Military. Obviously the connotation of police state is much more likely under the direction of a government that favors a large military.

The right wing mental jujitsu on this topic always makes me laugh. There are lies you tell yourself guys but you probably should not BS yourself so blatantly.

Hi candyass, http://www.usmessageboard.com/6345736-post9.html ...:D

Dont be afraid little boy....we are not;

FactCheck.org : Obama’s ‘National Security Force?’

Why is it that right wing posters have to make things up? There is plenty to criticize about your President. You do not have to make things up.
 
Wouldn't it depend on which part of the government is limited? I doubt many dictatorships have a big investment in standardized housing, agriculture, environmental protection or foreign aid.

I mean, to become a "police state" you need security forces which is usually the purview of the Military. Obviously the connotation of police state is much more likely under the direction of a government that favors a large military.

The right wing mental jujitsu on this topic always makes me laugh. There are lies you tell yourself guys but you probably should not BS yourself so blatantly.

Hi candyass, http://www.usmessageboard.com/6345736-post9.html ...:D

Dont be afraid little boy....we are not;

FactCheck.org : Obama’s ‘National Security Force?’

Why is it that right wing posters have to make things up? There is plenty to criticize about your President. You do not have to make things up.



I knew obongo was a liar...:D


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s]Obama Civilian Security - YouTube[/ame]

...
 

Dont be afraid little boy....we are not;

FactCheck.org : Obama’s ‘National Security Force?’

Why is it that right wing posters have to make things up? There is plenty to criticize about your President. You do not have to make things up.
I knew obongo was a liar...:D
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s]Obama Civilian Security - YouTube[/ame]
...

You are the one making things up. Tell me, when you did that with the polling data earlier this month....how did that work out for you?
 
There is no such thing as a "liberal police state." That's an oxymoron. Police states are, by definition, right wing governments.
Total lie.

Stalin and Mao both had massive police/surveillance states....So does the good ole US of A.

BTW, who was it that reauthorized USAPATRIOT Act and signed the NDAA?

Stalin and Mao were effectively right wing dictators of nations that pretended to use socialism/communism as economic models. They actually were neither socialist nor communist--they were fascist governments using command economic systems, controlled by the government.

Socialist economies are run and controlled by the workers.

Communist economies require no governance (this is, essentially, a utopian economic and social order that probably cannot exist in the current world).

Uh-huh....And war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. :rolleyes:
 
Funny, when you say, "Republican police state or Conservative police state", right away, everyone thinks "women's right" or "voter suppression" or "the abortion police" or "war" or "the war on minorities" or "the war on science" and so on. Republicans, Conservative and Police State are linked.

But "liberal police state" is a laugh. Republicans feel if they can't express their hatred through discrimination and violence and voter suppression, then their "rights" are being trampled. Therefore, we have a "liberal police state".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a reason that we don't pay as much for the basics as Europe. The free market is allowed to work here a lot more than Europe.

Once the government gets into control they want to tell you what CAN and CAN'T do. They want to tax everything and pretty soon you're talking about a lot of money. Liberalism is idiocy and leads to a police state. NO George W BUSH WASN"T A CONSERVATIVE! And in fact Obama is way worse. Look at Britain or France where they're spending a lot more for gas and food. Let's not give a damn about ones ability to move upwards in the world...

They don't give a damn about ones freedom or privacy. We should be a society that promotes more freedoms and less government...One that relies on the laws of economics and holds a little bit of self responsibility.

Let's get the government out of our lives
Let's drill for oil!
Let's do things in a way that lowers prices and makes for competition. Competition makes for lower prices!


LET'S never allow our government to become like Britain or any other police state. We must be favorable towards businesses.

LOWER TAXES, Lower Regs, More freedom, Lower prices!

Which "Law" of economics do you champion? Of course you'll provide the proof which makes it a law (you do know the difference between a law, a theory and and hypothesis I hope) Keep in mind there is a forth element and that is bullshit, a quasi-scientific theory promoted by charlatans to benefit themselves. Example? Supply Side Economics.
 
Funny, when you say, "Republican police state or Conservative police state", right away, everyone thinks "women's right" or "voter suppression" or "the abortion police" or "war" or "the war on minorities" or "the war on science" and so on. Republicans, Conservative and Police State are linked.

But "liberal police state" is a laugh. Republicans feel if they can't express their hatred through discrimination and violence and voter suppression, then their "rights" are being trampled. Therefore, we have a "liberal police state".

The "big Lie" has been more successful to the newGOPers than their policies. It's really all they have any more. Just lie.. and when confrontred ..continue lying. Nearly a quarter of the population have been duped into falling for their BS. They have Fox presenting false choices almost every day.

Note to Fox viewers.. There are not two sides to every lie.
 
Dont be afraid little boy....we are not;

FactCheck.org : Obama’s ‘National Security Force?’

Why is it that right wing posters have to make things up? There is plenty to criticize about your President. You do not have to make things up.
I knew obongo was a liar...:D
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s]Obama Civilian Security - YouTube[/ame]
...

You are the one making things up. Tell me, when you did that with the polling data earlier this month....how did that work out for you?

You're spinning again tuna breath...:D
 
There is no such thing as a "liberal police state." That's an oxymoron. Police states are, by definition, right wing governments.
Total lie.

Stalin and Mao both had massive police/surveillance states....So does the good ole US of A.

BTW, who was it that reauthorized USAPATRIOT Act and signed the NDAA?
. . . and sanctions the continued prohibition of marijuana even though he has admitted using it "frequently," himself.

But the point you're missing is Neither Stalin, Mao, or Obama fit the accepted definition of true Liberals. Stalin and Mao were autocratic despots and I regard Obama as a right-leaning moderate.

My idea of a true Liberal is Bernie Sanders.
 
Last edited:
There's a reason that we don't pay as much for the basics as Europe. The free market is allowed to work here a lot more than Europe.

Once the government gets into control they want to tell you what CAN and CAN'T do. They want to tax everything and pretty soon you're talking about a lot of money. Liberalism is idiocy and leads to a police state. NO George W BUSH WASN"T A CONSERVATIVE! And in fact Obama is way worse. Look at Britain or France where they're spending a lot more for gas and food. Let's not give a damn about ones ability to move upwards in the world...

They don't give a damn about ones freedom or privacy. We should be a society that promotes more freedoms and less government...One that relies on the laws of economics and holds a little bit of self responsibility.

Let's get the government out of our lives
Let's drill for oil!
Let's do things in a way that lowers prices and makes for competition. Competition makes for lower prices!


LET'S never allow our government to become like Britain or any other police state. We must be favorable towards businesses.

LOWER TAXES, Lower Regs, More freedom, Lower prices!
What politician is/was more for individual rights and economic freedom? Did you vote for him?
 
There is no such thing as a "liberal police state." That's an oxymoron. Police states are, by definition, right wing governments.
Total lie.

Stalin and Mao both had massive police/surveillance states....So does the good ole US of A.

BTW, who was it that reauthorized USAPATRIOT Act and signed the NDAA?

only a total hack like you would call stalin and mao liberals.

did you forget how to spell hitler, hack? :lol:

:thup: you never disappoint, john
 

Forum List

Back
Top