The Republican/Conservative Misery Offensive.

[Kosh]

You basically come at this thinking that people in bad situations are evil.

As do most conservatives.

You believe that god or who ever blesses those he favors with riches and damns those he hates with poverty.

It's okay..that's your mindset.

That's the point of this thread. To point on the differences between us.

And why you folks really have no claim to the formation of this country nor any interest in it's upkeep.

What you want is a return to what we initially fought against.

Wrong that is a far left trait, but your far left programming won't let you see it.

Wait, what?

Okay.

What's your plan to lift people out of poverty?

To make sure the far left is ousted out of government.

 

[Sallow]

You kind of missed the whole point, didn't ya? Actually both of them.

Criminals being on the street is very costly. It's not a savings to have them out committing crimes. And the second one points out that "three" strikes means they don't seem to be too committed to getting "on the right path." They committed a crime and got convicted, they committed another crime and got convicted, then they ... wait for it ... committed another crime and got convicted. So you saying that "if" they decided to fly right the fourth time may be true, but isn't highly likely and they are probably going to be back on the street committing more crime.

You basically come at this thinking that people in bad situations are evil.

What are you talking about? I think repeat offenders are likely to continue to commit crimes. I'll leave the judging them up to you since that's apparently your gig. You made a financial argument that letting them out of jail to commit a fourth crime saves money. The recidivism rates of three time convicted offenders (statistically if they were convicted three times they committed many times that) is incredibly high on the street. It's zero if they're in jail.


I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. With the number of times we've posted in the same threads, you're just showing again what a dumb ass you are.

You believe that god or who ever blesses those he favors with riches and damns those he hates with poverty.

You snort a lot of coke, don't you? What does that have to do with your financial argument? BTW, dumb ass, I'm not even a christian.

It's okay..that's your mindset.

That's the point of this thread. To point on the differences between us.

And why you folks really have no claim to the formation of this country nor any interest in it's upkeep.

What you want is a return to what we initially fought against.

Our founding fathers were not for limited government, like I believe, they were socialists like you. Got it.

1. People basically only "repeat" criminal activity when there is no other option left to them.

2. It's basically hard to tell the difference. I've personally never met a "Libertarian" that wasn't in the Republican party, pro Gun, anti Abortion and anti immigrant.

3. I guess that all depends on what time of the day it is, don't it? My favorite "Libertarian" flip was Paul Ryan. Although Rand Paul does continue to impress.

4. The founding fathers were liberal lawyers. The "limited" government they believed in, were limits on the power of government over citizen's lives. Otherwise the federal government has some very broad and far reaching powers. Oh, and they did not believe that corporate entities were people, ace.

 

[Sallow]

Wrong that is a far left trait, but your far left programming won't let you see it.

Wait, what?

Okay.

What's your plan to lift people out of poverty?

To make sure the far left is ousted out of government.

And in a nutshell? That's all you got.

You've validated my thread.

Thanks!

 

[Sallow]

did i say violent crimes.....or non-violent?....

Seriously Harry..

Do you know what you are talking about?

Most people, and it's probably a good 80%, aren't there because they did something violent.

Many are there simply because they did drugs. Or stole something to get drugs.

But for the most part, they are there because they are poor.

seriously Sallow can you ******* read?...do you comprehend what you are reading?.....i am talking about VIOLENT criminals....not the pot smoker........every post i have done so far i have said .....VIOLENT crimes.....

I can read fine Harry.

The majority of the people in Jail didn't get there by committing violent crime.

Yet, for some strange reason..that's what you focused on.

Additionally, jail has a very bad affect on most people. It hardens them and introduces to the world of criminality..and generally winds up making them violent.

It often takes quite a long time for folks to "normalize" once they leave jail. And many times that's not even possible.

 

[Kosh]

Wait, what?

Okay.

What's your plan to lift people out of poverty?

To make sure the far left is ousted out of government.

And in a nutshell? That's all you got.

You've validated my thread.

Thanks!

Validated your thread?

That the far left needs to be thrown out of government?

Ok when did you finally come around to understanding that?

 

[Kosh]

Seriously Harry..

Do you know what you are talking about?

Most people, and it's probably a good 80%, aren't there because they did something violent.

Many are there simply because they did drugs. Or stole something to get drugs.

But for the most part, they are there because they are poor.

seriously Sallow can you ******* read?...do you comprehend what you are reading?.....i am talking about VIOLENT criminals....not the pot smoker........every post i have done so far i have said .....VIOLENT crimes.....

I can read fine Harry.

The majority of the people in Jail didn't get there by committing violent crime.

Yet, for some strange reason..that's what you focused on.

Additionally, jail has a very bad affect on most people. It hardens them and introduces to the world of criminality..and generally winds up making them violent.

It often takes quite a long time for folks to "normalize" once they leave jail. And many times that's not even possible.

Oh my more far left propaganda.

 

[OODA_Loop]

But for the most part, they are there because they are poor.

Poor decision makers.

 

[kaz]

You basically come at this thinking that people in bad situations are evil.

What are you talking about? I think repeat offenders are likely to continue to commit crimes. I'll leave the judging them up to you since that's apparently your gig. You made a financial argument that letting them out of jail to commit a fourth crime saves money. The recidivism rates of three time convicted offenders (statistically if they were convicted three times they committed many times that) is incredibly high on the street. It's zero if they're in jail.


I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. With the number of times we've posted in the same threads, you're just showing again what a dumb ass you are.


You snort a lot of coke, don't you? What does that have to do with your financial argument? BTW, dumb ass, I'm not even a christian.

It's okay..that's your mindset.

That's the point of this thread. To point on the differences between us.

And why you folks really have no claim to the formation of this country nor any interest in it's upkeep.

What you want is a return to what we initially fought against.

Our founding fathers were not for limited government, like I believe, they were socialists like you. Got it.

1. People basically only "repeat" criminal activity when there is no other option left to them.

2. It's basically hard to tell the difference. I've personally never met a "Libertarian" that wasn't in the Republican party, pro Gun, anti Abortion and anti immigrant.

3. I guess that all depends on what time of the day it is, don't it? My favorite "Libertarian" flip was Paul Ryan. Although Rand Paul does continue to impress.

4. The founding fathers were liberal lawyers. The "limited" government they believed in, were limits on the power of government over citizen's lives. Otherwise the federal government has some very broad and far reaching powers. Oh, and they did not believe that corporate entities were people, ace.

First of all, slick, your point was on the financial point about prisons, a point I refuted and you can't focus on. Read your own posts.

Your knowledge of librarians is shockingly ignorant considering how many of them are on the board. Do you ever actually read posts or you just write them?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Seriously Harry..

Do you know what you are talking about?

Most people, and it's probably a good 80%, aren't there because they did something violent.

Many are there simply because they did drugs. Or stole something to get drugs.

But for the most part, they are there because they are poor.

seriously Sallow can you ******* read?...do you comprehend what you are reading?.....i am talking about VIOLENT criminals....not the pot smoker........every post i have done so far i have said .....VIOLENT crimes.....

I can read fine Harry.

The majority of the people in Jail didn't get there by committing violent crime.

Yet, for some strange reason..that's what you focused on.

Additionally, jail has a very bad affect on most people. It hardens them and introduces to the world of criminality..and generally winds up making them violent.

It often takes quite a long time for folks to "normalize" once they leave jail. And many times that's not even possible.

i focused on it because we were talking about the 3-strikes law....which you said was a bad law and i agreed....and i went on to say why i thought it was .....

 

[Sallow]

What are you talking about? I think repeat offenders are likely to continue to commit crimes. I'll leave the judging them up to you since that's apparently your gig. You made a financial argument that letting them out of jail to commit a fourth crime saves money. The recidivism rates of three time convicted offenders (statistically if they were convicted three times they committed many times that) is incredibly high on the street. It's zero if they're in jail.


I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. With the number of times we've posted in the same threads, you're just showing again what a dumb ass you are.


You snort a lot of coke, don't you? What does that have to do with your financial argument? BTW, dumb ass, I'm not even a christian.



Our founding fathers were not for limited government, like I believe, they were socialists like you. Got it.

1. People basically only "repeat" criminal activity when there is no other option left to them.

2. It's basically hard to tell the difference. I've personally never met a "Libertarian" that wasn't in the Republican party, pro Gun, anti Abortion and anti immigrant.

3. I guess that all depends on what time of the day it is, don't it? My favorite "Libertarian" flip was Paul Ryan. Although Rand Paul does continue to impress.

4. The founding fathers were liberal lawyers. The "limited" government they believed in, were limits on the power of government over citizen's lives. Otherwise the federal government has some very broad and far reaching powers. Oh, and they did not believe that corporate entities were people, ace.

First of all, slick, your point was on the financial point about prisons, a point I refuted and you can't focus on. Read your own posts.

Your knowledge of librarians is shockingly ignorant considering how many of them are on the board. Do you ever actually read posts or you just write them?

We have librarians on the board?

Are they good with the Dewey Decimal system?

 

[kaz]

1. People basically only "repeat" criminal activity when there is no other option left to them.

2. It's basically hard to tell the difference. I've personally never met a "Libertarian" that wasn't in the Republican party, pro Gun, anti Abortion and anti immigrant.

3. I guess that all depends on what time of the day it is, don't it? My favorite "Libertarian" flip was Paul Ryan. Although Rand Paul does continue to impress.

4. The founding fathers were liberal lawyers. The "limited" government they believed in, were limits on the power of government over citizen's lives. Otherwise the federal government has some very broad and far reaching powers. Oh, and they did not believe that corporate entities were people, ace.

First of all, slick, your point was on the financial point about prisons, a point I refuted and you can't focus on. Read your own posts.

Your knowledge of librarians is shockingly ignorant considering how many of them are on the board. Do you ever actually read posts or you just write them?

We have librarians on the board?

Are they good with the Dewey Decimal system?

"not liberal" is as deep as it goes for you...

What's interesting though is that there's more diversity between "libertarians" then there is between Republicans and Democrats, and yet you can't tell us from Republicans.

 

[Sallow]

First of all, slick, your point was on the financial point about prisons, a point I refuted and you can't focus on. Read your own posts.

Your knowledge of librarians is shockingly ignorant considering how many of them are on the board. Do you ever actually read posts or you just write them?

We have librarians on the board?

Are they good with the Dewey Decimal system?

"not liberal" is as deep as it goes for you...

What's interesting though is that there's more diversity between "libertarians" then there is between Republicans and Democrats, and yet you can't tell us from Republicans.

You might want to help me out then..

Which Politicians, that have actually won office, are Libertarian?

I know of:

Ron Paul - Republican.
Rand Paul - Republican.
Paul Ryan - Republican.
(damn..that's a lot of Pauls).
Bob Barr - Republican.
Tea Party - Republican.

Help me out here.

 

[Sallow]

We have librarians on the board?

Are they good with the Dewey Decimal system?

"not liberal" is as deep as it goes for you...

What's interesting though is that there's more diversity between "libertarians" then there is between Republicans and Democrats, and yet you can't tell us from Republicans.

You might want to help me out then..

Which Politicians, that have actually won office, are Libertarian?

I know of:

Ron Paul - Republican.
Rand Paul - Republican.
Paul Ryan - Republican.
(damn..that's a lot of Pauls).
Bob Barr - Republican.
Tea Party - Republican.

Help me out here.

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

Gee..nuttin'

 

[Kosh]

We have librarians on the board?

Are they good with the Dewey Decimal system?

"not liberal" is as deep as it goes for you...

What's interesting though is that there's more diversity between "libertarians" then there is between Republicans and Democrats, and yet you can't tell us from Republicans.

You might want to help me out then..

Which Politicians, that have actually won office, are Libertarian?

I know of:

Ron Paul - Republican.
Rand Paul - Republican.
Paul Ryan - Republican.
(damn..that's a lot of Pauls).
Bob Barr - Republican.
Tea Party - Republican.

Help me out here.

Typical far left can not see that there is a two party system in place.

Although the only two choices the far left want you to have is vote for their guy or not at all.

 

[kaz]

"not liberal" is as deep as it goes for you...

What's interesting though is that there's more diversity between "libertarians" then there is between Republicans and Democrats, and yet you can't tell us from Republicans.

You might want to help me out then..

Which Politicians, that have actually won office, are Libertarian?

I know of:

Ron Paul - Republican.
Rand Paul - Republican.
Paul Ryan - Republican.
(damn..that's a lot of Pauls).
Bob Barr - Republican.
Tea Party - Republican.

Help me out here.

Typical far left can not see that there is a two party system in place.

Although the only two choices the far left want you to have is vote for their guy or not at all.

I tried, but my head hit my desk falling asleep from boredom. It explains your view though, you think libertarians are Republican because you only look at Republicans. None of them are "libertarian." They are all fiscal conservatives, which is consistent with libertarian. Some have other libertarian traits. Ron Paul is probably the most, but he's such an attention whore I have a hard time taking him seriously. Bob Barr is probably the least, he was the Libertarian party whoring itself for attention.

That you are on this board and think all libertarians are Republicans is too dull to argue, you obviously are not reading, just posting. Until the last election, I hadn't voted Republican for President since 1988. I argued on the board that Comrade Obama had delivered on his promise to rule as a Marxist, and that rose to the level of voting for his Republican opponent. I got no argument on the Marxist, and yet little support on the voting for Romney. I did, I think they were fools. But they weren't Republicans. Sorry, Charlie.

 

[Sallow]

"not liberal" is as deep as it goes for you...

What's interesting though is that there's more diversity between "libertarians" then there is between Republicans and Democrats, and yet you can't tell us from Republicans.

You might want to help me out then..

Which Politicians, that have actually won office, are Libertarian?

I know of:

Ron Paul - Republican.
Rand Paul - Republican.
Paul Ryan - Republican.
(damn..that's a lot of Pauls).
Bob Barr - Republican.
Tea Party - Republican.

Help me out here.

Typical far left can not see that there is a two party system in place.

Although the only two choices the far left want you to have is vote for their guy or not at all.

It's a pretty simple task, kaz.

Name a "Libertarian" that ran completely on his/her "principles" and made it into congress.

Like say, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Go!

 

[Sallow]

You might want to help me out then..

Which Politicians, that have actually won office, are Libertarian?

I know of:

Ron Paul - Republican.
Rand Paul - Republican.
Paul Ryan - Republican.
(damn..that's a lot of Pauls).
Bob Barr - Republican.
Tea Party - Republican.

Help me out here.

Typical far left can not see that there is a two party system in place.

Although the only two choices the far left want you to have is vote for their guy or not at all.

I tried, but my head hit my desk falling asleep from boredom. It explains your view though, you think libertarians are Republican because you only look at Republicans. None of them are "libertarian." They are all fiscal conservatives, which is consistent with libertarian. Some have other libertarian traits. Ron Paul is probably the most, but he's such an attention whore I have a hard time taking him seriously. Bob Barr is probably the least, he was the Libertarian party whoring itself for attention.

That you are on this board and think all libertarians are Republicans is too dull to argue, you obviously are not reading, just posting. Until the last election, I hadn't voted Republican for President since 1988. I argued on the board that Comrade Obama had delivered on his promise to rule as a Marxist, and that rose to the level of voting for his Republican opponent. I got no argument on the Marxist, and yet little support on the voting for Romney. I did, I think they were fools. But they weren't Republicans. Sorry, Charlie.

Sorry Charlie, what?

That's another trademark of conservatism...calling everyone they don't agree with Marxist.

Libertarian/Conservative/Modern Republican.

Rose by any other name that still stinks.

 

[kaz]

You might want to help me out then..

Which Politicians, that have actually won office, are Libertarian?

I know of:

Ron Paul - Republican.
Rand Paul - Republican.
Paul Ryan - Republican.
(damn..that's a lot of Pauls).
Bob Barr - Republican.
Tea Party - Republican.

Help me out here.

Typical far left can not see that there is a two party system in place.

Although the only two choices the far left want you to have is vote for their guy or not at all.

It's a pretty simple task, kaz.

Name a "Libertarian" that ran completely on his/her "principles" and made it into congress.

Like say, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Go!

strawman, you added the hurdle of got into congress. I have said that many librarians are in the Republican party, I am just disputing your view that all of them are. and pointing out that you really don't read on this board, you just post.

 

[kaz]

That's another trademark of conservatism...calling everyone they don't agree with Marxist.

Maybe, but I'm a libertarian and I only call people Marxists who overwhelmingly adhere to the principles of the Communist manifesto, which includes Obama, the Democratic Party leadership and you.

It's funny how you not only use the ideas but the rhetoric from the manifesto and revel in it. But then you bristle at the word. And what we have is:

Democratic Party/Communist - same views, same rhetoric, but no, they aren't the same

Libertarian/conservative - we oppose use of the military for anything but direct defense of the US and oppose our entire presence in the middle east and we are pro-choice (usually) and against laws restricting drugs, prostitution, gambling and other morality and we are far more fiscally conservative than conservatives as we support government far smaller than they do. But they are the same.

That is why you are dull. I wouldn't care if I were called a Marxist or a conservative or whatever if it reflected accurately my view. Why does it bother you?

 

[Sallow]

That's another trademark of conservatism...calling everyone they don't agree with Marxist.

Maybe, but I'm a libertarian and I only call people Marxists who overwhelmingly adhere to the principles of the Communist manifesto, which includes Obama, the Democratic Party leadership and you.

It's funny how you not only use the ideas but the rhetoric from the manifesto and revel in it. But then you bristle at the word. And what we have is:

Democratic Party/Communist - same views, same rhetoric, but no, they aren't the same

Libertarian/conservative - we oppose use of the military for anything but direct defense of the US and oppose our entire presence in the middle east and we are pro-choice (usually) and against laws restricting drugs, prostitution, gambling and other morality and we are far more fiscally conservative than conservatives as we support government far smaller than they do. But they are the same.

That is why you are dull. I wouldn't care if I were called a Marxist or a conservative or whatever if it reflected accurately my view. Why does it bother you?

Words have meaning to humans.

To reptiles, insects, sociopaths, fascists, conservatives and libertarians?

Not so much.