I notice that I am extreme

[The T]

Have we redefined the word 'enemy' now?

As far as I am aware, one can only be 'fleeced' if one allows someone to fleece one. That's an individual choice, but if you need a nanny, feel free to employ one.

It's not the country's problem if you are an idiot.

Now, now...be nice lest they accuse you of being a rugged responsible individualist...

Me? A responsible individual? Perish the thought!

 

[alan1]

I prefer a limited federal government.
I prefer lower taxes.
I prefer the government leaving me (and you) the **** alone.
I am an extremist.

I'm sure then that you agree with me on these statements......

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as abortion.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal conversations between patients and doctors. If a patient doesn't want their doctor to ask about guns in the home they can simply not answer or change doctors.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as euthanaisia.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as recreational drug use.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as life and death decision like it did with Terri Schiavo's family.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as whether a woman (or man) chooses to sell their time and bodies for sexual services.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in spying on me and support repeal of the so-called Patriot Act.

Because anyone who cannot support the statements above cannot possibly be for "limited government".

Pretty much everything but your first statement.

From The Declaration of Independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

At the point that an abortion occurs, all three of those unalienable rights have been removed. Obviously, the point that life begins is still hotly debated, I prefer to err on the side of caution.

 

[Amelia]

Extremism in defense of liberty isn't as extreme is libs would have us believe.

Moderation in support of moderation is wishy washy.

All those who refuse to engage in and firmly believe in liberalism and group think will be punished.

meh, it would be as bad for a Republican to try to completely change the tax code as it was for Obama to saddle us with his healthcare godzilla.

Too much change too fast is politically untenable and economically suicidal.

Call that wishy washy if you want. I call it realism.

I call that daffynition of "wishy washy" just plain silly.

Too much change? It isn't too much. It's urgently needed.

Too fast?

Wrong. Living with it at all is absurd. When something obviously doesn't work, why even bother trying to keep it?

FIX IT.

Your notion of "realism" accepts the unacceptable.

As an extreme example: abolitionists maintained, without equivocation, that slavery was flatly wrong and had to be eradicated.

Your notion of "too much change too fast" "realism" would have sought to temporize the abolitionist movement. It would maintain that, "sure, slavery is wrong, but we can't disrupt our society and the South's economic underpinnings by abolishing slavery in one fell swoop. Too much change too fast is unworkable!"

Now, I'll grant you, the evil of slavery isn't on the same moral plane as our abomination of a tax code. Slavery is much worse; a dramatic evil. But the principle that rejects your concern with "too much change too fast" is nevertheless still applicable to throwing out our moronic tax code.

Exactly, slavery is not on the same moral plane as our tax code.

The tax code is not sufficiently abominable to justify civil war. Nor to justify complete contraction of our economy and the decades it would take to rebuild it. Just think how much more crime there would be while the economic system is reordering itself after so many programs are cut off cold turkey from government funds. Atlanta would burn again. And Detroit. And Boston. And New York. And LA. And ......


But more importantly, anyone who thinks he can get a flat tax, for example, through the congress is too naive to be president.







But anyway ... the point is .... the people in charge of dispensing the RWNJ label think you and I are both it.

 

[The T]

I prefer a limited federal government.
I prefer lower taxes.
I prefer the government leaving me (and you) the **** alone.
I am an extremist.

I'm sure then that you agree with me on these statements......

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as abortion.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal conversations between patients and doctors. If a patient doesn't want their doctor to ask about guns in the home they can simply not answer or change doctors.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as euthanaisia.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as recreational drug use.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as life and death decision like it did with Terri Schiavo's family.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as whether a woman (or man) chooses to sell their time and bodies for sexual services.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in spying on me and support repeal of the so-called Patriot Act.

Because anyone who cannot support the statements above cannot possibly be for "limited government".

Pretty much everything but your first statement.

From The Declaration of Independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

At the point that an abortion occurs, all three of those unalienable rights have been removed. Obviously, the point that life begins is still hotly debated, I prefer to err on the side of caution.

And that excerpt from the DOI...as codified with the Constitution is what so many fail to see but for political agenda...

 

[Amelia]

I prefer a limited federal government.
I prefer lower taxes.
I prefer the government leaving me (and you) the **** alone.
I am an extremist.

Yeah, I guess I am too. I do want my government to protect me from all enemies both foreign and domestic. That includes those who try to fleece me or oppress me or others who know no better.

Have we redefined the word 'enemy' now?

As far as I am aware, one can only be 'fleeced' if one allows someone to fleece one. That's an individual choice, but if you need a nanny, feel free to employ one.

It's not the country's problem if you are an idiot.

^^^^^^^

that

 

[Amelia]

Boards such as these are filled with extremists, the mainstream of American politics is typified by blissful, uninformed disinterest, being interested enough to spend time arguing about it puts most of us into some kind of extremist camp. We are not normal, I personally accept that with pride.

Good point!

 

[Amelia]

have we redefined the word 'enemy' now?

As far as i am aware, one can only be 'fleeced' if one allows someone to fleece one. That's an individual choice, but if you need a nanny, feel free to employ one.

It's not the country's problem if you are an idiot.

in the liberal lexicon an "enemy" is anyone who wants to keep what he earns.

yep. And when you have a potus that describes his short association with the private sector as being 'a spy behind enemy lines' is quite telling. His actions to date even more profound as he pits americans against themselves.

^^^^^

!!!!!!!!

 

[alan1]

meh, it would be as bad for a Republican to try to completely change the tax code as it was for Obama to saddle us with his healthcare godzilla.

Too much change too fast is politically untenable and economically suicidal.

Call that wishy washy if you want. I call it realism.

I call that daffynition of "wishy washy" just plain silly.

Too much change? It isn't too much. It's urgently needed.

Too fast?

Wrong. Living with it at all is absurd. When something obviously doesn't work, why even bother trying to keep it?

FIX IT.

Your notion of "realism" accepts the unacceptable.

As an extreme example: abolitionists maintained, without equivocation, that slavery was flatly wrong and had to be eradicated.

Your notion of "too much change too fast" "realism" would have sought to temporize the abolitionist movement. It would maintain that, "sure, slavery is wrong, but we can't disrupt our society and the South's economic underpinnings by abolishing slavery in one fell swoop. Too much change too fast is unworkable!"

Now, I'll grant you, the evil of slavery isn't on the same moral plane as our abomination of a tax code. Slavery is much worse; a dramatic evil. But the principle that rejects your concern with "too much change too fast" is nevertheless still applicable to throwing out our moronic tax code.

Exactly, slavery is not on the same moral plane as our tax code.

The tax code is not sufficiently abominable to justify civil war. Nor to justify complete contraction of our economy and the decades it would take to rebuild it. Just think how much more crime there would be while the economic system is reordering itself after so many programs are cut off cold turkey from government funds. Atlanta would burn again. And Detroit. And Boston. And New York. And LA. And ......


But more importantly, anyone who thinks he can get a flat tax, for example, through the congress is too naive to be president.







But anyway ... the point is .... the people in charge of dispensing the RWNJ label think you and I are both it.

Neither was slavery the reason for the war between the states.

 

[Big Fitz]

Boards such as these are filled with extremists, the mainstream of American politics is typified by blissful, uninformed disinterest, being interested enough to spend time arguing about it puts most of us into some kind of extremist camp. We are not normal, I personally accept that with pride.

and yet historians view this as one of the least polarized times in our politics. You want REALLY polarized times? Try the mid 1800's, and late 1700's when people WERE regularly killed for their political beliefs and wars were started.

This? This is a temper tantrum thrown by ingrate children who never were properly raised by their filth of parents who wouldn't know morality if it bit them on the ass OR sat on their face and took a dump.

 

[Big Fitz]

A good definition of an extremist is an egocentric person who is ideologically rigid and hostile to differing opinions, a crusader, a true believer, a pain in the ass to their spouses, a ranter, a speech giver, an evangelist, a patriot. The real world finds them boring, it's the reason they end up in places like this fighting the libs or the cons for no other reason then a sense of self satisfaction.

Sooooo... the Occupados are extreme by this definition?

Good to know you get that.

I question your use of the term "patriot" as a perjorative, but at least you recognize they aren't those either.

Extremists have their place, they are the shapers of history and writers of the future. Did my post strike you as criticism? I wrote it in a neutral non partisan observational tone.

Ones who claim to be non-partisan are either ignorantly or stupidly unaware of their own partisan behavior or liars trying to hide their true intent.

I am trying to figure out why you are playing moral equivalency between groups that cannot be equated morally as equivalent.

 

[The T]

Boards such as these are filled with extremists, the mainstream of American politics is typified by blissful, uninformed disinterest, being interested enough to spend time arguing about it puts most of us into some kind of extremist camp. We are not normal, I personally accept that with pride.

and yet historians view this as one of the least polarized times in our politics. You want REALLY polarized times? Try the mid 1800's, and late 1700's when people WERE regularly killed for their political beliefs and wars were started.

This? This is a temper tantrum thrown by ingrate children who never were properly raised by their filth of parents who wouldn't know morality if it bit them on the ass OR sat on their face and took a dump.

Indeed. Dueling used to be a cherished art of Chilvary once upon a time.

Today it's called manslaughter or murder.

 

[alan1]

Sooooo... the Occupados are extreme by this definition?

Good to know you get that.

I question your use of the term "patriot" as a perjorative, but at least you recognize they aren't those either.

Extremists have their place, they are the shapers of history and writers of the future. Did my post strike you as criticism? I wrote it in a neutral non partisan observational tone.

Ones who claim to be non-partisan are either ignorantly or stupidly unaware of their own partisan behavior or liars trying to hide their true intent.

I am trying to figure out why you are playing moral equivalency between groups that cannot be equated morally as equivalent.

Good point.

I am partisan.
I am an extremist.

 

[Big Fitz]

Boards such as these are filled with extremists, the mainstream of American politics is typified by blissful, uninformed disinterest, being interested enough to spend time arguing about it puts most of us into some kind of extremist camp. We are not normal, I personally accept that with pride.

and yet historians view this as one of the least polarized times in our politics. You want REALLY polarized times? Try the mid 1800's, and late 1700's when people WERE regularly killed for their political beliefs and wars were started.

This? This is a temper tantrum thrown by ingrate children who never were properly raised by their filth of parents who wouldn't know morality if it bit them on the ass OR sat on their face and took a dump.

Indeed. Dueling used to be a cherished art of Chilvary once upon a time.

Today it's called manslaughter or murder.

There'd be far less extremists and asshole morons if dueling was brought back.

An armed society with a code in which it is permissible to demand mortal punishments for slights of honor is a VERY POLITE society. Most of these Occupados would have been gunned down by now on the field of honor.

 

[Big Fitz]

Extremists have their place, they are the shapers of history and writers of the future. Did my post strike you as criticism? I wrote it in a neutral non partisan observational tone.

Ones who claim to be non-partisan are either ignorantly or stupidly unaware of their own partisan behavior or liars trying to hide their true intent.

I am trying to figure out why you are playing moral equivalency between groups that cannot be equated morally as equivalent.

Good point.

I am partisan.
I am an extremist.

Self awareness and honesty about oneself is strength.

 

[The T]

and yet historians view this as one of the least polarized times in our politics. You want REALLY polarized times? Try the mid 1800's, and late 1700's when people WERE regularly killed for their political beliefs and wars were started.

This? This is a temper tantrum thrown by ingrate children who never were properly raised by their filth of parents who wouldn't know morality if it bit them on the ass OR sat on their face and took a dump.

Indeed. Dueling used to be a cherished art of Chilvary once upon a time.

Today it's called manslaughter or murder.

There'd be far less extremists and asshole morons if dueling was brought back.

An armed society with a code in which it is permissible to demand mortal punishments for slights of honor is a VERY POLITE society. Most of these Occupados would have been gunned down by now on the field of honor.

Honor being the key word here.

 

[Big Fitz]

I prefer a limited federal government.
I prefer lower taxes.
I prefer the government leaving me (and you) the **** alone.
I am an extremist.

Yeah, I guess I am too. I do want my government to protect me from all enemies both foreign and domestic. That includes those who try to fleece me or oppress me or others who know no better.

Have we redefined the word 'enemy' now?

As far as I am aware, one can only be 'fleeced' if one allows someone to fleece one. That's an individual choice, but if you need a nanny, feel free to employ one.

It's not the country's problem if you are an idiot.

oooOOOoooo...!!

Stingy.

 

[bripat9643]

This clearly represents some bizarre, radical fringe minority view of society, naïve and unrealistic, it fails to take into consideration the interdependency of modern society; whether one likes it or approves of it is irrelevant. Debating this mentality is as pointless as the reactionary anachronism they pathetically advocate.

Whether is "radical," "fringe," "naive" or "unrealistic," it's a simple question about ethics. How does the fact that I live on the same side of some arbitrarily defined boundary justify forcing me to pay extortion money for the benefit of someone I don't know and don't care about?

None of you liberal turds can answer the question honestly.

Once again, society is not the government, and visa-versa. "Interdependence" is not a justification for extortion.

 

[Amelia]

I prefer a limited federal government.
I prefer lower taxes.
I prefer the government leaving me (and you) the **** alone.
I am an extremist.

this doesnt make you one, its the details that do. that is depending on your views, ya know?

The details rarely matter to most people who hurl the name "extremist" around. How many name callers do you know who take the time to delve into even the first level of someone's views before they start attaching negative labels?

 

[The T]

This clearly represents some bizarre, radical fringe minority view of society, naïve and unrealistic, it fails to take into consideration the interdependency of modern society; whether one likes it or approves of it is irrelevant. Debating this mentality is as pointless as the reactionary anachronism they pathetically advocate.

Whether is "radical," "fringe," "naive" or "unrealistic," it's a simple question about ethics. How does the fact that I live on the same side of some arbitrarily defined boundary justify forcing me to pay extortion money for the benefit of someone I don't know and don't care about?

None of you liberal turds can answer the question honestly.

Once again, society is not the government, and visa-versa. "Interdependence" is not a justification for extortion.

Indeed. Far too many are afraid to face life on thier own terms and rely upon others to do thier bidding even IF the others don't quite have the interest as it applies to that individual at heart but bid for the collective instead.

 

[rightwinger]

As much as you wish you could exist as a single entity without having to contribute to the society which you belong....you can't. Like it or not, you owe your current position in life to the work and labor of others. You have benefitted a great deal from the collective society we call the United States

Even if I do "owe it to others," that doesn't mean I owe it to the government. Extortionists always manage to invent some rationalization for their thievery.

I imagine you can always find some deserted outpost somewhere where you can exist on your own and not be beholden to anyone.

Good luck with that

Or I can just vote out all the scumbag thugs you are so fond of.

Now you are starting to understand what it means to be a member of a society. If you can find enough people to support your libertarian views you can change things to create the society you believe in

Until then.......you have to exist in our society