Is there anything left that we can come together on?

[P@triot]

Few would argue the LA Purchase was a major instrument in westward expansion.

Only a liberal would attempt to make the case that breaking the law is not only ok, but that heading south somehow leads to expanding west. The 13 oringal colonies were north of the Louisiana purchase my dear.

 

[auditor0007]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

I think we should end this bathroom debate. The simple answer is to make all public restrooms unisex as is done in many other countries. The sink areas are open to all, but the stalls are all private, and there are no open urinals for men. As it stands now, I don't really like the idea of people who completely look like men going to the women's restroom, but this is what so many conservatives want. You want transgendered women who have a penis to use the mens room and transgendered men who do not have a penis to use the women's room. The problem is that you will then have people who look like men using the women's room and people who look and act like women using the men's room. All the while the perverts whom you are so afraid of will still just hang out wherever they think they can get their rocks off regardless of any law that may say differently. The comical thing is that these transgendered people have been using the restroom of the sex they identify with for a very long time. The only reason this became an issue is that now there are some who are transgendered and still in high school who want to use the restroom with which they identify, The reason this became a problem is that everyone already knows they are changing and that just creeps people out, especially those who have way too many fears about their own sexuality.

 

[HUGGY]

Few would argue the LA Purchase was a major instrument in westward expansion.

Only a liberal would attempt to make the case that breaking the law is not only ok, but that heading south somehow leads to expanding west. The 13 oringal colonies were north of the Louisiana purchase my dear.

The Louisiana purchase gave the U S complete control over the Mississippi River. It was EXTREMELY important in the Westward expansion. 827,000 square miles of land west of the Mississippi River for $15 million.was an incredible bargain.

 

[P@triot]

Few would argue the LA Purchase was a major instrument in westward expansion.

Only a liberal would attempt to make the case that breaking the law is not only ok, but that heading south somehow leads to expanding west. The 13 oringal colonies were north of the Louisiana purchase my dear.

The Louisiana purchase gave the U S complete control over the Mississippi River. It was EXTREMELY important in the Westward expansion. 827,000 square miles of land west of the Mississippi River for $15 million.was an incredible bargain.

Well there is some "logic". All of the businesses that the Gambino, Genovese, Luchese, Bonano, and Colombo families extorted were "incredible bargains" for them. Only a libtard supports criminal activity.

 

[P@triot]

The comical thing is that these transgendered people have been using the restroom of the sex they identify with for a very long time.

Then why the sudden urgency to force legislation down the throat of the American people to make this legal? Oops....

(This hasn't been going on for a "long time". This hasn't been going on at all until the libtards took yet another step towards radicalized insanity two months ago)

 

[MisterBeale]

For those that say that the divisions we face is a chasm too deep and wide to overcome? I will politely beg to differ. We are being pitted against each other for a reason. If you have love for your fellow man and you are willing to look at how we got to this place without trying to play the "blame game"? Then you are my brother and you are my sister. We can agree to disagree and still love and respect each other. If we have a chance to throw off the shackles of this debt slavery system that we are under? Many of our differences would vanish instantly...if you believe that our rights come from a higher power or energy source than a "benevolent" government ruled by a small faction of elitists that have used their wealth to enslave humanity that can bestow privileges or withdraw them at their whim? We are kindred spirits....we don't need these people.......they can't function without us. We fix things, we have the ability to create inventions...all they have is a power that we can easily take from them if we simply wake up. I bet there isn't one globalist that would have the slightest idea on how to change a tire....because they depend on us. The system is what it is because we got fat and lazy and accepted the slow erosion of our freedoms....never questioning because our lives were so cozy....you best beware because that rug is about to be yanked out from under us....

THIS should shock everyone here. We sort of live in a political bubble around here. This is legit, I checked it out. A very small number of eligible voters are, in fact, choosing the candidates for President. The rest? Well, we can assume they either don't care, are too dumb, or know the whole thing is one giant reality show. It is one big fucking game.

In this link, you have to click on the individual states to see how few actually voted in the primaries or participated in the caucuses. It is amazing how few actually got involved compared to the number that were eligible.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0

How many were eligible? (Note, that this chart says, "In thousands (unless otherwise noted.)" So that is 219 million! If you go to that NYT link and just start adding them up in your head, it maybe starts to reach 11 or 12% of the population after NY and TX. This chart was made as of 10:00am PT March 2, 2016

Voting Age and Voting-Eligible Population, 2014 and 2010

 

[candycorn]

Few would argue the LA Purchase was a major instrument in westward expansion.

Only a liberal would attempt to make the case that breaking the law is not only ok, but that heading south somehow leads to expanding west. The 13 oringal colonies were north of the Louisiana purchase my dear.

The 13 original colonies were East of the LA Purchase. Portions of North Dakota were in the LA Purchase along with Montana, Kansas, Nebraska. Scientists tell us that Georgia was south of all of those states. But you’d have to know how to view a map to know that.

 

[candycorn]

I’ll take the USA any old day.

But that's just it - you hate the USA and everything it stands for. You spit on the U.S. Constitution.

You’re lotsa fun.

 

[candycorn]

No Air Force, no NASA, no Louisiana Purchase….

And your point would be???

As far as the Air Force - that's nonsensical. The U.S. Constitution absolutely grants authority for defense to the federal government (multiple times in fact). If you want to get technical about the name so you can cut off your nose just to spite your face - no problem. We can let the Navy or the Army absorb them. They'll still provide the same services.

As far as NASA - you are correct. A waste of trillions of dollars. However, there have been some defense applications that came out of it. That institution should be completely shut down and any part of it that does have military applications should be absorbed by the military.

And as far as the Louisiana Purchase, once again I must ask, your point would be???

Only if you interpret the Constitution (hiss!!!!) does it include an air force. It does not grant an authority for such a force. Otherwise you could quote where it does. You can’t. NASA has lead to more societal and worldwide advances than any other investment made by the people of the US. Few would argue the LA Purchase was a major instrument in westward expansion.

None of the above was constitutional from a strict reading of the document. Maybe in the new country you morons want to inhabit, you can use tin cans and wire, have no air force, and live in the square footage you yourself only occupy. No thanks. I’ll take the USA any old day.

So to be clear - you believe it's ok to break the law if you deem the results justify it?

The founding fathers did.

 

[MisterBeale]

What I'm saying, is this has nothing to do with "libertarian" or "progressives," or the "left" or the "right."

It has to do with the good people of this land freeing themselves of control of the Deep State. It has to do with individual sovereignty and bringing back the protections of the Bill of Rights. We need eliminate the Imperial Presidency and bring back the rule of law.

Why did Ike warn us of the military-industrial-complex? Why did JFK want to reduce the scope and power of the CIA?

Seems the only people that really get it are Alaskans. They just won't have the folks on the left or right divided by the globalists.

Two notable anti-globalists, from the left and the right.

Left wingers are dedicated to implementing exactly what you oppose. So how do you propose to "come together" with them?

I don't paint everyone with a broad brush. Stereo-typing is not something I like to do.

Have you ever read "A People's History of the United States?" or "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media?"

There is a substantial difference between your garden variety voluntary cooperatives and state forced collectivization. I believe anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist side by side. The key is voluntarism.


I'd rather be a member of a credit union than a customer of a bank any day.

Believe it or not, in my youth, I lived in a housing co-operative. It was during the time when Clinton was running against Bush. And wouldn't you know it, there was actually some members, a very few, but some, who wanted Bush to win. . .

Ah, how young and stupid we all were. I think a few of the wiser ones might have seen the writing on the wall, but that was long ago. . . . far away now. . . . .

Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States" is a Stalinist, and Noam Chomsky, the author of "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" is a Maoist. Neither anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist, period. They are both contradictions in terms. Given the material you read, it's easy to understand why you believe these systems are feasible.

Both credit unions and housing cooperatives exist within the context of a market economy where people are free to contract as they like. That's the only thing that keeps them tolerable.

Although I don't agree with everything that Zinn and Chomsky write and believe, your misrepresentation of them is laughable. It is clear that you have tunnel vision and only read or view those sources that you believe are amiable to your POV.

I doubt you have read any of their work. I doubt you have read either Marx or Lenin either for that matter. Zinn is a Democratic Socialist, Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist.





Unless you think they are lying? You would just rather believe the characterization of those sources that you like, rather than the philosophers themselves? That's rich.

The phrase "libertarian socialist" is a contradiction in terms. You can't be a libertarian and also a socialist. Chomsky once defended the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia that murdered 3 million people. That's all you need to know about him.

Zinn's history of American could have been written by Pravda during the Soviet era. It's an anti American piece of trash.

Listen bripat, we obviously aren't going to agree on this, and I respect that. I agree on you with your posts on the Syrian question.

You must have missed my posts earlier in this thread about the Deep State. It is my belief that both Zinn and Chomsky are opposed to the Deep State. I am primarily interested in Chomsky's work as a linguist. I don't like to engage in poisoning the well fallacies. That is to say, if an author or philosopher has done this or that, or written this or that, it doesn't necessarily invalidate the whole body of their work.

Frederick Hayek was known to support Augusto Pinochet. Yet, I fully believe that Austrian economics is superior to Keynesian economics. Does Hayek's support of Pinochet invalidate Austrian economics? No, again, I think that would be a poisoning the well fallacy. By trade, Chomsky is a linguist, and Hayek is an Economist. Both are prone to bad judgements. All men are fallible.

 

[MisterBeale]

What I'm saying, is this has nothing to do with "libertarian" or "progressives," or the "left" or the "right."

It has to do with the good people of this land freeing themselves of control of the Deep State. It has to do with individual sovereignty and bringing back the protections of the Bill of Rights. We need eliminate the Imperial Presidency and bring back the rule of law.

Why did Ike warn us of the military-industrial-complex? Why did JFK want to reduce the scope and power of the CIA?

Seems the only people that really get it are Alaskans. They just won't have the folks on the left or right divided by the globalists.

Two notable anti-globalists, from the left and the right.

Left wingers are dedicated to implementing exactly what you oppose. So how do you propose to "come together" with them?

I don't paint everyone with a broad brush. Stereo-typing is not something I like to do.

Have you ever read "A People's History of the United States?" or "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media?"

There is a substantial difference between your garden variety voluntary cooperatives and state forced collectivization. I believe anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist side by side. The key is voluntarism.


I'd rather be a member of a credit union than a customer of a bank any day.

Believe it or not, in my youth, I lived in a housing co-operative. It was during the time when Clinton was running against Bush. And wouldn't you know it, there was actually some members, a very few, but some, who wanted Bush to win. . .

Ah, how young and stupid we all were. I think a few of the wiser ones might have seen the writing on the wall, but that was long ago. . . . far away now. . . . .

Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States" is a Stalinist, and Noam Chomsky, the author of "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" is a Maoist. Neither anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism can exist, period. They are both contradictions in terms. Given the material you read, it's easy to understand why you believe these systems are feasible.

Both credit unions and housing cooperatives exist within the context of a market economy where people are free to contract as they like. That's the only thing that keeps them tolerable.

Although I don't agree with everything that Zinn and Chomsky write and believe, your misrepresentation of them is laughable. It is clear that you have tunnel vision and only read or view those sources that you believe are amiable to your POV.

I doubt you have read any of their work. I doubt you have read either Marx or Lenin either for that matter. Zinn is a Democratic Socialist, Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist.





Unless you think they are lying? You would just rather believe the characterization of those sources that you like, rather than the philosophers themselves? That's rich.

It seems like you are a conspiracy theorist.

As an FYI far more conspiracies are disproved rather than proven. That isn't that I'm saying that conspiracies don't exist nor that there aren't conspiracies that are not going on as we speak...what I AM saying is that if you believe them as a rule rather than as an exception you have a far more distorted view of reality than the person that just believes the picture presented to them (at least in America, not so much for some other nations).

Nope, I don't think there is an "organized conspiracy" per sea.

What we have is more like, clandestine interest groups.

It is the height of naivete to say that America is more immune to these interests than other nations though.

The bigger the spoils, the more powerful the competing interests.

 

[Dr Grump]

What a fuckstick. It's turds like you that has made this country the laughing stock of the globe.

You want the US to become the true laughing stock of the world? Vote Trump....

Who cares what you losers think?

Plenty do.

 

[rdean]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

The GOP/Bush administration created enormous damage to this country. If we can't all agree on that, then what is there to talk about?

 

[kaz]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

Leftists want the whole pie, they aren't taking half

 

[P@triot]

So to be clear - you believe it's ok to break the law if you deem the results justify it?

The founding fathers did.

So here is a fact for you - the rate of babies being born has steadily been going down. Since that is threat to the survival of man, you logically agree that it's ok for men to start raping you and other women so we can have more pregnancies and births. Right?

 

[P@triot]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

The GOP/Bush administration created enormous damage to this country. If we can't all agree on that, then what is there to talk about?

Not nearly as much as the Democrats and Barack Obama did. Right?

 

[Moonglow]

So to be clear - you believe it's ok to break the law if you deem the results justify it?

The founding fathers did.

So here is a fact for you - the rate of babies being born has steadily been going down. Since that is threat to the survival of man, you logically agree that it's ok for men to start raping you and other women so we can have more pregnancies and births. Right?

A decline in population does not threaten society, unless that society is on the verge of extinction, with 6 billion humans, there is no shortage...

 

[P@triot]

So to be clear - you believe it's ok to break the law if you deem the results justify it?

The founding fathers did.

So here is a fact for you - the rate of babies being born has steadily been going down. Since that is threat to the survival of man, you logically agree that it's ok for men to start raping you and other women so we can have more pregnancies and births. Right?

A decline in population does not threaten society, unless that society is on the verge of extinction, with 6 billion humans, there is no shortage...

And how do you know that tomorrow, Ebola mixed with Zika won't wipe out 5.5 billion?

Besides - why do you have to avoid the question? Do you fear it proves you wrong?

 

[Moonglow]

So to be clear - you believe it's ok to break the law if you deem the results justify it?

The founding fathers did.

So here is a fact for you - the rate of babies being born has steadily been going down. Since that is threat to the survival of man, you logically agree that it's ok for men to start raping you and other women so we can have more pregnancies and births. Right?

A decline in population does not threaten society, unless that society is on the verge of extinction, with 6 billion humans, there is no shortage...

And how do you know that tomorrow, Ebola mixed with Zika won't wipe out 5.5 billion?

Besides - why do you have to avoid the question? Do you fear it proves you wrong?

I've already produced more humans than you wish you could...Spread the seed I always say...

 

[Wildman]

You Takers are funny.

and NOT laughable funny, but "funny" as in lacking brain power.