This is a Cool Site and all, but....

[BillyBob]

...there aren't any libs here to smack around.

Kinda takes most of the fun out of posting. What did you guys do, beat the crap out of them without me?

[aboutime]

...there aren't any libs here to smack around.

Kinda takes most of the fun out of posting. What did you guys do, beat the crap out of them without me?


No BillyBob. Just read some of the threads, and get the Hidden, Unspoken references that expose certain members as what some would call RINO, or DINO...politically speaking.
You'll notice how you can join in...in what you call 'smack around' after you read some of the stuff here.

[fj1200]

...there aren't any libs here to smack around.

Do what some others do. Just create them in your mind.

[red states rule]

...there aren't any libs here to smack around.

Kinda takes most of the fun out of posting. What did you guys do, beat the crap out of them without me?

We have them. They pretend to be conservatives but they defend higher taxes, rights of terrorists, Obamacare, and then deny they are liberal. They also are experts at talking down to you and act like you are abusing them. You will run into them soon enough

[fj1200]

...there aren't any libs here to smack around.


Do what some others do. Just create them in your mind.

Case in point.


We have them. They pretend to be conservatives but they defend higher taxes, rights of terrorists, Obamacare, and then deny they are liberal. They also are experts at talking down to you and act like you are abusing them. You will run into them soon enough

[red states rule]

No BillyBob. Just read some of the threads, and get the Hidden, Unspoken references that expose certain members as what some would call RINO, or DINO...politically speaking.
You'll notice how you can join in...in what you call 'smack around' after you read some of the stuff here.

and it is comical to watch them desperately try to deny they are liberals.

Of course they do take the bait so easily. It is like shooting fish in a barrel

[fj1200]

and it is comical to watch them desperately try to deny they are liberals.

Of course they do take the bait so easily. It is like shooting fish in a barrel

Though not sure which is more comical; you flailing in an actual debate or you running from actual debate like your hair is on fire. It's a toss up.

[red states rule]

...there aren't any libs here to smack around.

Kinda takes most of the fun out of posting. What did you guys do, beat the crap out of them without me?

and you will be able to tell who is the liberal by the smugness of their posts and condescending attitude towards those who call them out

IOW...........


http://i639.photobucket.com/albums/uu114/loveej/Political/liberals.jpg

[fj1200]

and you will be able to tell who is the liberal by the smugness of their posts and condescending attitude towards those who call them out

Called it.


... you running...

As Emeril would say; Bam!

[red states rule]

No BillyBob. Just read some of the threads, and get the Hidden, Unspoken references that expose certain members as what some would call RINO, or DINO...politically speaking.
You'll notice how you can join in...in what you call 'smack around' after you read some of the stuff here.

It is also fun to watch liberals tell others what to do - but they refuse to do the same

Like putting people on ignore

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38752-ConHog-s-back/page3

[fj1200]

Thanks for the link:


Wow, you can hold a grudge like no other huh?

Still holds true.

[PostmodernProphet]

...there aren't any libs here to smack around.

Kinda takes most of the fun out of posting. What did you guys do, beat the crap out of them without me?

no, you're right....this place is so desperate for liberals they even accused me of being one when I first got here....I have to go elsewhere to bash liberals.....

[taft2012]

The is a dearth of uncloseted liberals, but a plethora of closeted liberals masquerading as "libertarians." They advocate smaller government positions that they know will merely lead to bigger government and greater successes of our enemies, which is right in the liberal wheelhouse.

[fj1200]

Do what some others do. Just create them in your mind.

Speaking of...


The is a dearth of uncloseted liberals, but a plethora of closeted liberals masquerading as "libertarians." They advocate smaller government positions that they know will merely lead to bigger government and greater successes of our enemies, which is right in the liberal wheelhouse.

:420:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do what some others do. Just create them in your mind.

Or just create a new member with a "special name" huh? Like you or another leftist leaning squib here has now done.

hi, BillyBob....-;)---Tyr

[Kathianne]

I've no dog in this ongoing feud, but will say that's is becoming distracting. Asking for links and defending the Constitution are not 'signs' of left leaning.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We have them. They pretend to be conservatives but they defend higher taxes, rights of terrorists, Obamacare, and then deny they are liberal. They also are experts at talking down to you and act like you are abusing them. You will run into them soon enough

We have at least two here that fit that bill to a tee IMHO....-Tyr

[BillyBob]

We have them. They pretend to be conservatives but they defend higher taxes, rights of terrorists, Obamacare, and then deny they are liberal. They also are experts at talking down to you and act like you are abusing them. You will run into them soon enough


Oh, there are Republican Congressmen posting here?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've no dog in this ongoing feud, but will say that's is becoming distracting. Asking for links and defending the Constitution are not 'signs' of left leaning.

Making a routine out of indirectly defending obama, his policies and many other liberal politicians is IMHO.. We have at least two members here that do just that on a regular basis.
I just call it like I see it myself. Not perfect but I am honest about it.-Tyr

[BillyBob]

I've no dog in this ongoing feud, but will say that's is becoming distracting. Asking for links and defending the Constitution are not 'signs' of left leaning.


Libs don't defend the Constitution, they contort it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh, there are Republican Congressmen posting here?


Valde amo praestigiator ostendo sum suus tutela per is ineo.-Tyr

[BillyBob]

Valde amo praestigiator ostendo sum suus tutela per is ineo.-Tyr

No habla.

[Kathianne]

Making a routine out of indirectly defending obama, his policies and many other liberal politicians is IMHO.. We have at least two members here that do just that on a regular basis.
I just call it like I see it myself. Not perfect but I am honest about it.-Tyr

I understand where you are coming from. OTOH, what I've read over and over again are calls for adhering to the Constitution via due process and separation of powers from those 'two lefties' you are obliquely referring to. Now, arguments can be made to 'throw out' Constitutional protections, the left calls that 'the LIVING Constitution.' Like the progressives are now feeling, what goes around tends to come around.

[Kathianne]

No habla.

and unless something has changed, there's a rule about 'English Only.'

[BillyBob]

and unless something has changed, there's a rule about 'English Only.'


How I wish that were a National rule.

[fj1200]

Or just create a new member with a "special name" huh? Like you or another leftist leaning squib here has now done.

:dunno: I have no idea what you're talking about. But I'll expect you be backing up your accusation.

[fj1200]

Making a routine out of indirectly defending obama, his policies and many other liberal politicians is IMHO.. We have at least two members here that do just that on a regular basis.
I just call it like I see it myself. Not perfect but I am honest about it.-Tyr

Linky please.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I understand where you are coming from. OTOH, what I've read over and over again are calls for adhering to the Constitution via due process and separation of powers from those 'two lefties' you are obliquely referring to. Now, arguments can be made to 'throw out' Constitutional protections, the left calls that 'the LIVING Constitution.' Like the progressives are now feeling, what goes around tends to come around.

Sure, it is always a struggle to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
I make no arguments to throw out Constitutional protections myself. I also make no arguments to give certain groups a damn pass so as not to offend them. Or so as not to be veiwed as a hatemonger by their appeasing supporters. as those " two lefties" so often do.
The fact that I did not name them yet you knew who I indicated speaks for itself my friend. Hot or cold is to be preferred over lukewarm . A solid upfront strong stand over a weak but cleverly hidden defense is best.
After my recent lecture received on how I should just shut up telling the truth , how the truth presented is hate and my primary linked source is a HATE site because it presents TRUTH I can find little to agree with either of those two.
I am bullheaded like that. Once I see a massive failure in a person I tend to consider it often. No greater failure is there than believing and promoting that the truth should be hidden, ignored or denied in order to placate some person's or some group's "feelings".. As that kind of crap is a major part of the how and why this nation has gotten so messed up IMHO .. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

Sure, it is always a struggle to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
I make no arguments to throw out Constitutional protections myself. I also make no arguments to give certain groups a damn pass so as not to offend them. Or so as not to be veiwed as a hatemonger by their appeasing supporters. as those " two lefties" so often do.
The fact that I did not name them yet you knew who I indicated speaks for itself my friend. Hot or cold is to be preferred over lukewarm . A solid upfront strong stand over a weak but cleverly hidden defense is best.
After my recent lecture received on how I should just shut up telling the truth , how the truth presented is hate and my primary linked source is a HATE site because it presents TRUTH I can find little to agree with either of those two.
I am bullheaded like that. Once I see a massive failure in a person I tend to consider it often. No greater failure is there than believing and promoting that the truth should be hidden, ignored or denied in order to placate some person's or some group's "feelings".. As that kind of crap is a major part of the how and why this nation has gotten so messed up IMHO .. -Tyr

Seems most of the arguments, between some members on this topic and with these posters comes from issues like denying rights of muslims/terrorists. As I said, arguments can be made, were actually with overwhelming passage of the Patriot Act. How has that worked out? From my POV, at the time saw it as a reasonable response to what the country faced. Didn't take long though to be convinced that those safeguards in the Constitution were mighty smart writings based upon smart thinking. Damn thing should be repealed.

As said, a case can be made, but just calling folks 'closet liberals,' isn't an argument. Nor on the other hand, is a tendency of some to post with words that send many running for the dictionary, proving your point regarding condescension. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Seems most of the arguments, between some members on this topic and with these posters comes from issues like denying rights of muslims/terrorists. As I said, arguments can be made, were actually with overwhelming passage of the Patriot Act. How has that worked out? From my POV, at the time saw it as a reasonable response to what the country faced. Didn't take long though to be convinced that those safeguards in the Constitution were mighty smart writings based upon smart thinking. Damn thing should be repealed.

As said, a case can be made, but just calling folks 'closet liberals,' isn't an argument. Nor on the other hand, is a tendency of some to post with words that send many running for the dictionary, proving your point regarding condescension. ;)

^^^ A point well made my friend. How about just " bad conservatives" as a compromise..;)

And I severely limit the future use of the Latin, German/Danish and Cebuano languages I am currently studying... -Tyr

[Thunderknuckles]

I've said this before and I know Jim has mentioned it similarly in his "Vibe of the Board" thread.
Some of the conservatives on this board have a tendency to get heavy handed with any liberals, or even moderates, posting here and chase many of them away. I've seen a lot of nasty things posted and I always ask myself "really, did you have to take it to that level?". If we have an echo chamber here, I believe we have ourselves to blame.

[taft2012]

I understand where you are coming from. OTOH, what I've read over and over again are calls for adhering to the Constitution via due process and separation of powers from those 'two lefties' you are obliquely referring to. Now, arguments can be made to 'throw out' Constitutional protections, the left calls that 'the LIVING Constitution.' Like the progressives are now feeling, what goes around tends to come around.

It's not difficult to understand Kathy.

They are enamored with neither the US Constitution nor the vision of the Founders.

They are enamored with US Supreme Court rulings by liberal activist courts that granted additional protections to criminals operate freely.

The first search and seizure case did not come to the US Supreme Court until 1914, so to say the visions of the Framers was not met until 125 years after the Constitution was written is a patent absurdity. And from that first case in 1914, it's been steadily downhill from an orderly society to one where smirking murderers strut out of courtrooms on technicalities created by liberals.

These liberal activist rulings are what they refer to as "The Constitution" and Constitutional rights. There's nothing conservative about it.

[jimnyc]

I've said this before and I know Jim has mentioned it similarly in his "Vibe of the Board" thread.
Some of the conservatives on this board have a tendency to get heavy handed with any liberals, or even moderates, posting here and chase many of them away. I've seen a lot of nasty things posted and I always ask myself "really, did you have to take it to that level?". If we have an echo chamber here, I believe we have ourselves to blame.

From day one I don't think we ever had more than a handful of liberals here at any given time. Could those numbers have grown? I don't know. For sure the liberals that have posted here, weren't all peaches and cream and loving towards us, but they were outnumbered from the get go. Would many of them have stayed if the personal fighting and comments had not happened? We'll probably never know. But we can test that theory when any new liberals show up on our doorstep. We can treat them decently but remain harsh about their message. It is possible to detest the opinion of another without things turning personal.

[fj1200]

But we can test that theory when any new liberals show up on our doorstep.

There are some who just don't have that capacity. Asking for defense of X in a thread about Y repeatedly is not welcoming let alone having umpteen different threads about the evils of X.

[fj1200]

Or just create a new member with a "special name" huh? Like you or another leftist leaning squib here has now done.


:dunno: I have no idea what you're talking about. But I'll expect you be backing up your accusation.

:crickets:

[jimnyc]

There are some who just don't have that capacity. Asking for defense of X in a thread about Y repeatedly is not welcoming let alone having umpteen different threads about the evils of X.

To an extent, yes, but I think how these people get treated is what matters most. If they are treated respectfully, and even friendly in the lounge and other non-political forums, I think they will stay longer. People want to feel like a part of the community, even if in the minority. They want their points argued with, not ignored. They probably don't even mind a little "back and forth", so long as it doesn't go personal. But if they get ganged up on and feel like they are hated, they're gone.

[fj1200]

To an extent, yes, but I think how these people get treated is what matters most. ... But if they get ganged up on and feel like they are hated, they're gone.

I point to Bingster as example. A reasonable liberal, easy going, etc. and not deserving of what came his way.

[logroller]

^^^ A point well made my friend. How about just " bad conservatives" as a compromise..;)

And I severely limit the future use of the Latin, German/Danish and Cebuano languages I am currently studying... -Tyr
Define 'bad'. :coffee:
I use Latin from time to time, it's fixed and thus provides stability; but I usually provide a translation.

[Robert A Whit]

I've said this before and I know Jim has mentioned it similarly in his "Vibe of the Board" thread.
Some of the conservatives on this board have a tendency to get heavy handed with any liberals, or even moderates, posting here and chase many of them away. I've seen a lot of nasty things posted and I always ask myself "really, did you have to take it to that level?". If we have an echo chamber here, I believe we have ourselves to blame.

Color me not persuaded but for my change, FJ is no left winger. I can't call Logroller one either.

A Libertarian is no shade of left winger imho.

[Robert A Whit]

I point to Bingster as example. A reasonable liberal, easy going, etc. and not deserving of what came his way.

That is true. I enjoyed chatting with an admitted left winger.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/zPGb4STRfKw/mqdefault.jpg
"Some of my best fwiends are called Wiberal"

[red states rule]

Color me not persuaded but for my change, FJ is no left winger. I can't call Logroller one either.

A Libertarian is no shade of left winger imho.

FU is a RINO to say the least. He has been reminding me of Pit Yorkie the way he nips at the ankles :laugh2:

LR is a very angry liberal

[Robert A Whit]

FU is a RINO to say the least. He has been reminding me of Pit Yorkie the way he nips at the ankles :laugh2:

LR is a very angry liberal

I am thinking that on those two, some wires got crossed. I think what is going on is that both realize they can annoy some posters so do not mind that they get called left wingers because of the fun to them. But for my money, both have been horsing around.

[red states rule]

I am thinking that on those two, some wires got crossed. I think what is going on is that both realize they can annoy some posters so do not mind that they get called left wingers because of the fun to them. But for my money, both have been horsing around.

You lose

With FU is not horsing around he is a

http://static8.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/5/1/2/small2/215988.jpg


LR - just another angry lib

[Robert A Whit]

You lose

With FU is not horsing around he is a

http://static8.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/5/1/2/small2/215988.jpg


LR - just another angry lib

I consider you to be a kindred spirit. I realize what has been going on. He would do better to just stick to points and not bait you all the time.

I think you and he agree on just about all things having to do with Obama.

Ask him. See if he likes Obama. I don't think he is a fan of Obama or the left.

[red states rule]

I consider you to be a kindred spirit. I realize what has been going on. He would do better to just stick to points and not bait you all the time.

I think you and he agree on just about all things having to do with Obama.

Ask him. See if he likes Obama. I don't think he is a fan of Obama or the left.

Robert, I have much better things to do then waste time trying to have a discussion with FU. He is a troubled little man. He is in need of serious help. I do not have a degree in Child Psy so I am unable to assist him

[Marcus Aurelius]

I consider you to be a kindred spirit.

Hey RSR.. you gonna let him talk to you like that?:poke:

[logroller]

You lose

With FU is not horsing around he is a

http://static8.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/5/1/2/small2/215988.jpg


LR - just another angry lib
So say you. But then again, you also said I voted for Obama, and that is false. What you confuse with anger is opposition to the derogation of others; which is pointedly relevant to the thread. What you attribute as liberal is any presentation of dialectic argument-- If any say rush isn't right, on anything, they're liberal. I think you confuse conservative with close-minded.

[red states rule]

Hey RSR.. you gonna let him talk to you like that?:poke:

I do not have anything against Robert and I have gotten along with him fine.

[fj1200]

FU is a RINO to say the least. He has been reminding me of Pit Yorkie the way he nips at the ankles

Sucks for you when you run from debating me then huh?

[aboutime]

Robert, I have much better things to do then waste time trying to have a discussion with FU. He is a troubled little man. He is in need of serious help. I do not have a degree in Child Psy so I am unable to assist him


RSR. All of us can tell how troubled he, log, and jafar really are since their only defense is Denial. And that isn't just one step out of 12.

[fj1200]

RSR. All of us can tell how troubled he, log, and jafar really are since their only defense is Denial. And that isn't just one step out of 12.

Try pointing out ONE liberal position of mine. Oh, and before you say I'm against torture just remember that it's the small government position. ;)

[BillyBob]

Try pointing out ONE liberal position of mine. Oh, and before you say I'm against torture just remember that it's the small government position. ;)


Small-government proponents can't be pro-torture?

[fj1200]

Small-government proponents can't be pro-torture?

I don't think granting government that much power, the power of the State over the individual, is small government.

But... there's already a thread about that.

[aboutime]

Small-government proponents can't be pro-torture?


BillyBob. No need to explain anything. If there was anything he could brag about. Why is there any need to Defend it?

That's just a liberal trick. Where they are always taught to never answer a question without asking one that they feel comfortable with.

[BillyBob]

I don't think granting government that much power, the power of the State over the individual, is small government.

I have no problem with the military using harsh interrogation methods [some call that torture] on non-US citizens for military intel purposes. That hardly makes me a 'big government' guy.




But... there's already a thread about that.


I'm kinda new here, I haven't seen that thread. How'd it turn out?

[Robert A Whit]

I don't think granting government that much power, the power of the State over the individual, is small government.

But... there's already a thread about that.

This country has done about anything that one can accuse it of, but this topic seems to be hanging around just George. W. Bush.

Bush got legal rulings. Bush did not torture any of them. He trained them same way the Navy trains seals.

[BillyBob]

He trained them same way the Navy trains seals.

I've seen what the SEALS go through, I'd rather be tortured.

[Robert A Whit]

I do not have anything against Robert and I have gotten along with him fine.

You and I are very honest my man.

I know for a fact you believe what you say about FJ and Logroller. I think you and I have been wrong in the past and no doubt will be wrong in the future.

FJ can be a lot more clear for sure. He understands precisely how you will view his words. But he does not mind it very much or he would be 100 percent clear. Some guys love the bait and like to see others accept it. In my opinion, he is libertarian and a lot of us don't favor republicans but despise democrats ideology. I get annoyed at times with some republicans who can't seem to accept libertarians as friends. I vote republican but wish it followed the Libertarian views. I do not mean that phony jerk Maher since to me he is some clown that loves democrats.

I think we all respect our founders. I believe what they believed for the most part.

As to you being baited by the nutter, glad you did not take his bait.

[Robert A Whit]

I've seen what the SEALS go through, I'd rather be tortured.

Yup and this is why.

3 of the terrorists that were waterboarded passed the CIA test with flying colors. All added important stuff so the Feds can provide safety to the public.

Seals have a failing rate. I am not sure but I suspect over half of them can't pass the Seal course.

Sheer torture. But it is legal.

[Robert A Whit]

Try pointing out ONE liberal position of mine. Oh, and before you say I'm against torture just remember that it's the small government position. ;)

Waterboarding is only torture to a democrat and when republicans can be blamed. There is nothing in democrat dogma saying torture is wrong. It is not even on their top 100 list of wrongs. Bear in mind, were they to put it on their list, they need to explain why they favor it.

If they call it torture, why not for the Seals?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by red states rule http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=638551#post638551)
FU is a RINO to say the least. He has been reminding me of Pit Yorkie the way he nips at the ankles


Sucks for you when you run from debating me then huh?

I don't get this back and forth when you both don't like Democrats nor Obama.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert, I have much better things to do then waste time trying to have a discussion with FU. He is a troubled little man. He is in need of serious help. I do not have a degree in Child Psy so I am unable to assist him

I can't press a magic button and two adversaries will end it, but if the man is as I think, an anti obamite type and a type that is anti democrats, why cause a fuss? I am not trying in any fashion to tell adults what to say or not say.

This guy seems to take up a lot of your time anyway. See behind the smoke screen if you will.

I value your comments a lot.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There are some who just don't have that capacity. Asking for defense of X in a thread about Y repeatedly is not welcoming let alone having umpteen different threads about the evils of X.

Nobody forces you to read the evils of X threads pedro. Bitch all yoiu want to I will post the TRUTH about Islam unless I am banned .
Why don't you shower your sympathy on the victims instead of the ffing murdering scum?
That is the billion dollar question. You spend all this time appeasing for a reason. Come on , you have a muslim girlfriend or else a very friendly camel, right?:laugh:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have no problem with the military using harsh interrogation methods [some call that torture] on non-US citizens for military intel purposes. That hardly makes me a 'big government' guy.






I'm kinda new here, I haven't seen that thread. How'd it turn out?

BB our little fj complains about threads as if he is a mod. Don't feed the boy's fantasies about being a mod here. Seems he likes to favor the muslims ,, a lot!
It turned out to be a very well discussed thread and much TRUTH about Islam presented , which fj simply hates. :laugh:--Tyr

[actsnoblemartin]

libertarian = liberal :laugh:

now ive heard it all.

[BillyBob]

libertarian = liberal :laugh:

now ive heard it all.

Libertarians prefer an even smaller government than Conservatives. That places them to the right of Conservatives.

[taft2012]

Oh good Lord. Two more of them. :tinfoil:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gH7ERhVvsnE

You guys love that term "probable cause" dontcha?

Might be a good idea to learn WTF it means. :laugh2:

[BillyBob]

Cops are fascist thugs.

[taft2012]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gH7ERhVvsnE

God, I could watch that all day. :laugh:

"Yeah, I got yer warrant right here."

[taft2012]

Cops are fascist thugs.

Faux Ron Paul libertarians are phoney pretend conservatives.

[BillyBob]

That citizen should have shot the cops in the head.

[taft2012]

That citizen should have shot the cops in the head.

He did. He just did it with a camera.

Which is pretty smart... he woulda lost really bad with anything else. :laugh:

[BillyBob]

Faux Ron Paul libertarians are phoney pretend conservatives.

Libertarians aren't conservatives, conservatives are government-obedient pussies.

[taft2012]

Libertarians aren't conservatives, conservatives are government-obedient pussies.

Libertarians are libertarians because they're the only kooks who actively pursue legalized marijuana.:rolleyes:

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=638577#post638577)

Hey RSR.. you gonna let him talk to you like that?:poke:



I do not have anything against Robert and I have gotten along with him fine.

And we will remain on great terms. You at times offer me advice and of course it works two ways.

[BillyBob]

He did. He just did it with a camera.

Which is pretty smart... he woulda lost really bad with anything else. :laugh:

He had the advantage over the cops, he could easily have taken them. A quick shotgun blast to the face of each one and you'd be posting a video of the coroner's report of 4 dead cops.

As long as the citizenry is willing to be bullied by the government, the government will continue to bully them.

[BillyBob]

Libertarians are libertarians because they're the only kooks who actively pursue legalized marijuana.:rolleyes:

So you are an anti-liberty, pro-fascism fascist?

[Robert A Whit]

libertarian = liberal :laugh:

now ive heard it all.

Libertarian = liberty. At one point, as some can also tell you, no democrat dared name himself a liberal. But the term, used correctly, means maximum freedom.

Freedom is that precious that you must wear a steel fist and grab it to keep it. Others plans for you include loss of your freedoms. Witness things like Obama-Care and how the IRS treated the tea party and the moves to put down so called gun rights.

Guns do not have rights. Guns are personal property. This nation was based on personal property rights. The humans have rights. The right to select a firearm and keep it and have it at the ready.

Things Obama stands against.

[taft2012]

He had the advantage over the cops, he could easily have taken them. A quick shotgun blast to the

Wow, are you some kind of combat tactics expert?

Four cops with guns beaded on him. He just had to put his camera down and say "Excuse me officers while I retrieve my shotgun to shoot each of you in the face." :laugh:

How about just saying; "Oh, there was a call for a domestic violence incident here? Everything's OK. If you want to come in and have a quick look around and see that everybody is fine, that's OK. Come right in."

His dumbass behavior just escalated suspicion that something was wrong and heightened the need for deeper investigation.

[taft2012]

So you are an anti-liberty, pro-fascism fascist?

I'm anti-dumbass.

[BillyBob]

Wow, are you some kind of combat tactics expert?

Four cops with guns beaded on him. He just had to put his camera down and say "Excuse me officers while I retrieve my shotgun to shoot each of you in the face." :laugh:

How about just saying; "Oh, there was a call for a domestic violence incident here? Everything's OK. If you want to come in and have a quick look around and see that everybody is fine, that's OK. Come right in."

His dumbass behavior just escalated suspicion that something was wrong and heightened the need for deeper investigation.

You have already established that you are a pro-police state fascist, I'm not sure what else there is to say about it.

You wanna live your life in fear of the government, that's your choice, but it's certainly un-American.

[BillyBob]

I'm anti-dumbass.

So you are self-loathing? Got it.

[taft2012]

You have already established that you are a pro-police state fascist, I'm not sure what else there is to say about it.

You wanna live your life in fear of the government, that's your choice, but it's certainly un-American.

So it's un-American to support the police in their efforts to investigate domestic violence allegations, and ensure that helpless women and children are not being physically abused?

So it's patriotic for Americans to turn a blind eye to this? :laugh2:

[taft2012]

So you are self-loathing? Got it.

You're apparently pro-Domestic Violence, so if there's a dumbass in this discussion....

[BillyBob]

So it's un-American to support the police in their efforts to investigate domestic violence allegations, and ensure that helpless women and children are not being physically abused?

So it's patriotic for Americans to turn a blind eye to this? :laugh2:

It's unAmerican to allow the police to enter your house without a warrant. It's unAmerican to defend the use of police/government brutality.

[BillyBob]

You're apparently pro-Domestic Violence, so if there's a dumbass in this discussion....

The definition of that term has been reduced and watered-down to the point of meaninglessness so the fascist cops can use it as an excuse to violate the civil rights of American citizens.

So yeah, we all know who the dumbass here is.....and willing fascist participant.

[taft2012]

It's unAmerican to allow the police to enter your house without a warrant. It's unAmerican to defend the use of police/government brutality.

Sorry slick. It's perfectly legal for the polcie to enter your house without a warrant in a case like this. The police know it, because that's their job to know it.

You don't know it because you don't want to know it.

[taft2012]

The definition of that term has been reduced and watered-down to the point of meaninglessness .

Are you talking about domestic violence, your argument, or your grasp of reality?

[BillyBob]

Are you talking about domestic violence, your argument, or your grasp of reality?

Says the self-proclaimed, willing fascist.

[taft2012]

Says the self-proclaimed, willing fascist.

Gee, what do you call those guys who always get flustered in debates and then call conservatives "fascists"?

Oh yeah; "Liberals" :laugh2:

[BillyBob]

Gee, what do you call those guys who always get flustered in debates and then call conservatives "fascists"?

Oh yeah; "Liberals" :laugh2:

Says the guy who openly supports government abuse.

[taft2012]

Says the guy who openly supports government abuse.

New Definition of "Government Abuse": Police investigation domestic violence and making sure no women or children are being physically abused. :lol:

Sez the guy who wants to see the Democrat rolls expand.

Next up: Illegal immigration.

[Robert A Whit]

So it's un-American to support the police in their efforts to investigate domestic violence allegations, and ensure that helpless women and children are not being physically abused?

So it's patriotic for Americans to turn a blind eye to this? :laugh2:

So, you support cops entering a home about an alleged domestic abuse call, do ya?

True story follows. My last wife lied a lot. She called 911 to report she was about to be harmed by me. The cops show up and demand I leave my home.

I had done nothing. Not one thing. She lied. She was pissed about something and she lied about me to the cops and had lied about her two earlier husbands. Took me a long time to find that out.

I was upset the cops put me out of my home.

Being innocent causes one to freak out about the unfairness of taking a liars word.

I drove to my office, about 30 minutes away and my phone was ringing. I picked up the phone to hear the wife pleading with me to come home and she was sorry.

I was scared she was also lying and was trying to get me back to get me arrested.

She had to talk to me for a few more calls before i took her word. I got home and it was all over. She simply lied.

But cops got paid to believe the liar over the person telling the truth.

Oh why you may ask did she lie? Well, she was a liar and that is what they do.

I was at Kauai to my step sons home and he and his younger brother both called her a liar. The whole family called her a liar. She died in 2011 mid summer apparently the ocean got her and put her down. Kauai has some terrible rip tides and though she was a good swimmer, the tides kill very good swimmers all the time on that island. We know she drank a bottle of vodka the day she showed up missing.

[BillyBob]

New Definition of "Government Abuse": Police investigation domestic violence and making sure no women or children are being physically abused. :lol:

Sez the guy who wants to see the Democrat rolls expand.

Next up: Illegal immigration.


More lies. Why are all you fascists liars?

[taft2012]

So, you support cops entering a home about an alleged domestic abuse call, do ya?

True story follows. My last wife lied a lot.

So your point is that at every domestic violence call the police should just walk away if someone at the front door tells them "Everything's OK" without any investigation?

:rolleyes:

This conversation has drifted into the realm of idiotic. :laugh2:

[BillyBob]

So your point is that at every domestic violence call the police should just walk away if someone at the front door tells them "Everything's OK" without any investigation?

:rolleyes:

This conversation has drifted into the realm of idiotic. :laugh2:

I've noticed that, too. It started at the same time you showed up. OK, that was probably uncalled for. But you aren't being honest about what others have been posting. Why do you suppose that is?

[taft2012]

To the contrary I've been perfectly honest. Robert provide an anecdotal example of why police shouldn't be given entry into a home for domestic violence.

Obviously the intent was because of said incident, police should not be given entry to homes to investigate domestic violence.

Is that difficult for you to follow?

Dude, you better go back to pretending to argue with liberals. You can't dance with the conservative big boys.

[BillyBob]

To the contrary I've been perfectly honest. Robert provide an anecdotal example of why police shouldn't be given entry into a home for domestic violence.

Obviously the intent was because of said incident, police should not be given entry to homes to investigate domestic violence.

Is that difficult for you to follow?

Dude, you better go back to pretending to argue with liberals. You can't dance with the conservative big boys.


You obviously didn't read [couldn't understand] what he wrote. If you're the best Conservatism has to offer, you guys are doomed. And your support of a fascist government makes you no different than the libs you claim to despise. Imagine the irony from where I'm standing.

[aboutime]

You obviously didn't read [couldn't understand] what he wrote. If you're the best Conservatism has to offer, you guys are doomed. And your support of a fascist government makes you no different than the libs you claim to despise. Imagine the irony from where I'm standing.


BillyBob. Your disguise has been exposed. Whoever you really are. Makes no difference. Liars come in all sizes, shapes and colors.
So..which one are you?

Your attempts at pretending to be less than a racist failed.

[BillyBob]

BillyBob. Your disguise has been exposed. Whoever you really are. Makes no difference. Liars come in all sizes, shapes and colors.
So..which one are you?

Your attempts at pretending to be less than a racist failed.


Oh please, I'm a racist because I have pointed out that taft is a fascist?

Gimme a break.

[aboutime]

Oh please, I'm a racist because I have pointed out that taft is a fascist?

Gimme a break.


You want a break? I didn't say that. You are a racist because of your slippery kind of watermelon attitude directed at people you don't like. And I know how that works. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck this morning.
You are a phony.

[BillyBob]

You want a break? I didn't say that. You are a racist because of your slippery kind of watermelon attitude directed at people you don't like.

That's racist!!!



And I know how that works. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck this morning.

That's bigoted!!!!



You are a phony.

A phony what?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by aboutime http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=638706#post638706)

BillyBob. Your disguise has been exposed. Whoever you really are. Makes no difference. Liars come in all sizes, shapes and colors.
So..which one are you?

Your attempts at pretending to be less than a racist failed.




Oh please, I'm a racist because I have pointed out that taft is a fascist?

Gimme a break.

That is how he starts it again.

Watch, you will find out.

[BillyBob]

That is how he starts it again.

Watch, you will find out.


I'll go microwave some popcorn.....this is becoming entertaining.

[Marcus Aurelius]

And we will remain on great terms. You at times offer me advice and of course it works two ways.

interesting how you can quote me while I am on 'ignore' ROFLMFAO

[Marcus Aurelius]

So, you support cops entering a home about an alleged domestic abuse call, do ya?

True story follows. My last wife lied a lot. She called 911 to report she was about to be harmed by me. The cops show up and demand I leave my home.

I had done nothing. Not one thing. She lied. She was pissed about something and she lied about me to the cops and had lied about her two earlier husbands. Took me a long time to find that out.

I was upset the cops put me out of my home.

Being innocent causes one to freak out about the unfairness of taking a liars word.

I drove to my office, about 30 minutes away and my phone was ringing. I picked up the phone to hear the wife pleading with me to come home and she was sorry.

I was scared she was also lying and was trying to get me back to get me arrested.

She had to talk to me for a few more calls before i took her word. I got home and it was all over. She simply lied.

But cops got paid to believe the liar over the person telling the truth.

Oh why you may ask did she lie? Well, she was a liar and that is what they do.

I was at Kauai to my step sons home and he and his younger brother both called her a liar. The whole family called her a liar. She died in 2011 mid summer apparently the ocean got her and put her down. Kauai has some terrible rip tides and though she was a good swimmer, the tides kill very good swimmers all the time on that island. We know she drank a bottle of vodka the day she showed up missing.

me thinks he doth protest too much.

[tailfins]

So, you support cops entering a home about an alleged domestic abuse call, do ya?

True story follows. My last wife lied a lot. She called 911 to report she was about to be harmed by me. The cops show up and demand I leave my home.

I had done nothing. Not one thing. She lied. She was pissed about something and she lied about me to the cops and had lied about her two earlier husbands. Took me a long time to find that out.

I was upset the cops put me out of my home.

Being innocent causes one to freak out about the unfairness of taking a liars word.

I drove to my office, about 30 minutes away and my phone was ringing. I picked up the phone to hear the wife pleading with me to come home and she was sorry.

I was scared she was also lying and was trying to get me back to get me arrested.

She had to talk to me for a few more calls before i took her word. I got home and it was all over. She simply lied.

But cops got paid to believe the liar over the person telling the truth.

Oh why you may ask did she lie? Well, she was a liar and that is what they do.

I was at Kauai to my step sons home and he and his younger brother both called her a liar. The whole family called her a liar. She died in 2011 mid summer apparently the ocean got her and put her down. Kauai has some terrible rip tides and though she was a good swimmer, the tides kill very good swimmers all the time on that island. We know she drank a bottle of vodka the day she showed up missing.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The first time should have been the last time.

[Abbey Marie]

Regarding cops not entering a home on a domestic violence call, the cops in Cleveland did just that, leaving those three young women hostage for several more years. Hmmm...

[red states rule]

Nobody forces you to read the evils of X threads pedro. Bitch all yoiu want to I will post the TRUTH about Islam unless I am banned .
Why don't you shower your sympathy on the victims instead of the ffing murdering scum?
That is the billion dollar question. You spend all this time appeasing for a reason. Come on , you have a muslim girlfriend or else a very friendly camel, right?:laugh:--Tyr

Even when members do not respond to his garbage posts he continues to follow them around nipping at their heals like a small dog. Another sign of a troubled individual seeking attention

Perhaps he did not receive enough attention as a child and is reliving his childhood

[actsnoblemartin]

cops, arrgh


Oh good Lord. Two more of them. :tinfoil:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gH7ERhVvsnE

You guys love that term "probable cause" dontcha?

Might be a good idea to learn WTF it means. :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

women arent always the victim you know, a lot of the time they are the abuser.


So it's un-American to support the police in their efforts to investigate domestic violence allegations, and ensure that helpless women and children are not being physically abused?

So it's patriotic for Americans to turn a blind eye to this? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/foundingliberal.jpg

[fj1200]

I have no problem with the military using harsh interrogation methods [some call that torture] on non-US citizens for military intel purposes. That hardly makes me a 'big government' guy.

I don't have a problem with interrogation, I do have a problem with torture for various reasons one being granting the State that much power over the individual.


I'm kinda new here, I haven't seen that thread. How'd it turn out?

OK for me. :)

[fj1200]

Nobody forces you to read the evils of X threads pedro. Bitch all yoiu want to I will post the TRUTH about Islam unless I am banned .
Why don't you shower your sympathy on the victims instead of the ffing murdering scum?
That is the billion dollar question. You spend all this time appeasing for a reason. Come on , you have a muslim girlfriend or else a very friendly camel, right?:laugh:--Tyr

I wasn't referring to your hate Islam threads. But thanks for showing that's all you see.


BB our little fj complains about threads as if he is a mod. Don't feed the boy's fantasies about being a mod here. Seems he likes to favor the muslims ,, a lot!
It turned out to be a very well discussed thread and much TRUTH about Islam presented , which fj simply hates. :laugh:--Tyr

Show me where I favor "the muslims."


libertarian = liberal :laugh:

now ive heard it all.

Exactly.

[fj1200]

I'll go microwave some popcorn.....this is becoming entertaining.

Oh, it gets better. :laugh:

[fj1200]

... he continues to follow them around nipping at their heals...

:laugh: Says the guy who constantly refers to me and my posts but never engages in debate. Hypocrisy thy name is rsr. :slap:

[taft2012]

You obviously didn't read [couldn't understand] what he wrote.

Really? Maybe you can assist me in uncovering the deeper meaning hidden within.

Does one need to consume some sort of hallucinogenic to understand it?

Or is it like The Beatles' White Album, and I need to put it on my turntable and play it backwards to divine its hidden truth?

[taft2012]

women arent always the victim you know, a lot of the time they are the abuser.

Yes, we're all aware of that. What's the point though?

Is that supposed to be another reason the police should not investigate domestic violence?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Regarding cops not entering a home on a domestic violence call, the cops in Cleveland did just that, leaving those three young women hostage for several more years. Hmmm...

Robert apparently approves of the police inaction in that case.

[taft2012]

Regarding cops not entering a home on a domestic violence call, the cops in Cleveland did just that, leaving those three young women hostage for several more years. Hmmm...

Obviously the benefits of rescuing victims like those women has to be weighed against the possibility of police also discovering marijuana in the residence, the primary concern of a large part of our membership.

[BillyBob]

Obviously the benefits of rescuing victims like those women has to be weighed against the possibility of police also discovering marijuana in the residence, the primary concern of a large part of our membership.


Ah, tying together 2 completely unrelated topics. Deflection seems to be your shtick.

[aboutime]

Ah, tying together 2 completely unrelated topics. Deflection seems to be your shtick.


BillyBob. Do you know, or recognize how familiar you sound? Where did you come from? What board were you on before coming here?

Just wondering.

[BillyBob]

BillyBob. Do you know, or recognize how familiar you sound?

Um...well...yes, I sound familiar to me. I am quite used to hearing my own opinions and can almost predict what I am going to say next with near perfect accuracy.



Where did you come from? What board were you on before coming here?

Just wondering.

I have been posting all over the internet since the day after Algore invented it. Pretty much kept the same username all these years.

[Abbey Marie]

Um...well...yes, I sound familiar to me. I am quite used to hearing my own opinions and can almost predict what I am going to say next with near perfect accuracy.




I have been posting all over the internet since the day after Algore invented it. Pretty much kept the same username all these years.

:laugh2: Well whoever you are, that thar's funny.

[aboutime]

:laugh2: Well whoever you are, that thar's funny.


Even Larry agree's...5014.

[jimnyc]

Um...well...yes, I sound familiar to me. I am quite used to hearing my own opinions and can almost predict what I am going to say next with near perfect accuracy.




I have been posting all over the internet since the day after Algore invented it. Pretty much kept the same username all these years.

How did you end up in our neck of the woods? Referral?

And BTW, welcome to DP! :salute:

[BillyBob]

How did you end up in our neck of the woods? Referral?

I was googling for some new forums to post at and found yours.


And BTW, welcome to DP! :salute:

Thank you.

[revelarts]

the problem is definitions.
and some peoples idea that they can divine people "reallll" motives. (they teach that in police academy, i guess.)

also the blunt uses of terms.

to some people either you'se a liberal or you'se a conservative .."like me" that's it. end of story.
Never mind that you weren't a conservative like you 20 years ago.

some people cannot fathom that some people don't fit that mold.
they can not imagine or bring them selves to admit that there might in the whole world be people that are not the same kind of conservatives they are. it's somehow inconceivable. and flatly rejected as 'LIBERAL' rarrr .


Nixon would be considered Liberal by the standards here. William Buckley, "mmm smell like a LIBERAL.". Barry Goldwater.... "LIBERAL!"
Reagan too. He refused to attack Lebanon after the base was blown up. Said he didn't want to waste soldiers lives, ..'WHAT KINDA LIBERALTALK IS THAT??!! rraarr'.


But the fact is that there are lots of nuanced conservative positions.

there are fascist conservatives, then neo con conservatives.
there's libertarian conservatives, then constitutional conservatives
there are moderate conservatives
then RINO's which aren't conservative on any issue kinda like Romney in MA.

but here's something else.
some people can have different views on various issues and not really care what label they fall under they just think some things are right FOR THERE OWN SAKE labels be d@mned.

some positions might be extremely conservative other may seem the opposite.
But there are those here that will not even acknowledge points that are agreed on if they feel there's to much "liberal" in other things they say.

Some of neo-cons on this board have decided they are the final arbiters of what "REAL" conservatism is.
They are the Plum line. And they can divine the true motives, from all of the constitution, free markets, rights, moral, humanity, and suicide christian talk. they know better they won't be fooled by those logic or reality TRICKS.
they knows better.

[red states rule]

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1108/websters-newest-edition-democrats-liberals-funny-politics-1313300844.jpg

[logroller]

:popcorn:

Um...well...yes, I sound familiar to me. I am quite used to hearing my own opinions and can almost predict what I am going to say next with near perfect accuracy.


I have been posting all over the internet since the day after Algore invented it. Pretty much kept the same username all these years.
:lmao:

[taft2012]

the problem is definitions.
and some peoples idea that they can divine people "reallll" motives.

No, we understand it all quite well. There are legitimate libertarians, and have been for years.

Looking at the 2012 presidential election results they polled just under 1% of the vote nationally.

Yet, when one visits internet forums, or listens to talk-radio, one would think they represent 20% to 30% of the voting population. Where do these alleged hard-line libertarians go in the general election? They obviously do not return to the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul is a legitimate kooky libertarian and does gets a fairly consistent low percentage in GOP primaries. But with all of the open primary states in the process, it's difficult to know how much of his support comes from the GOP, Dems, or registered Libertarians.

His 1988 presidential campaign was a big, fat, nothing. What accounts for his subsequent "explosion" in popularity from the nothing performance in 1988? Is is just coincidence that the Ron Paul/libertarian movement gained momentum at the precise same time that the "legalize marijuana" movement gained momentum?

I doubt it's a coincidence, especially since comments related to the subject are his biggest applause lines in speeches and debates. And since the legalized marijuana position is so imperative to them, which party is it most likely they will join in the general elections? Numbers demonstrate it's not the Libertarian Party. So which of the two major parties is more sympathetic to their key cause? The answer is self-evident; the Democrats.

I'm certain that if Ron Paul ran in the 2016 Democrat primaries, he'd be able to pull in the same numbers. Maybe even more.

If Ron, or his son Rand, ever changed their position on legalized drugs their support would vanish overnight and we'd be right back to 1988. And they'd be relegated again to what the Libertarian Party actually is; a theory-based little parlor room debating society.

[taft2012]

And since the legalized marijuana position is so imperative to them, which party is it most likely they will join in the general elections? Numbers demonstrate it's not the Libertarian Party. So which of the two major parties is more sympathetic to their key cause? The answer is self-evident; the Democrats.




And consider; what did they advise us to do in the general election?

Just think back a few months; they were here telling us not vote for Romney, not to vote for the "lesser of two evils", to vote for a third party candidate, etc.

So where did this massive libertarian movement take their votes then? Look at the 2012 returns. The Libertarian Party did the best of the three parties and didn't even muster a full 1%. So where do you think all of these hard-line Libertarians went? The ones who admonished conservatives not to vote the GOP line? They obviously didn't flock to a 3rd Party, they wouldn't go to the GOP, they told us not to stick with the GOP... so they went where?

What's left?

:slap:

Wake up folks. They're a bunch of liberal Democrats.

[fj1200]

Looking at the 2012 presidential election results they polled just under 1% of the vote nationally.

Yet, when one visits internet forums, or listens to talk-radio, one would think they represent 20% to 30% of the voting population. Where do these alleged hard-line libertarians go in the general election? They obviously do not return to the Libertarian Party.

I think see the problem, you think that the on-line world equals the real world in opinion and voting pattern.

[gabosaurus]

...there aren't any libs here to smack around.


http://www.geekfill.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/funny-angry-turtle-come-at-me-bro.jpg

[fj1200]

http://www.geekfill.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/funny-angry-turtle-come-at-me-bro.jpg

Who are you kidding?

[gabosaurus]

Are you questioning my sea turtle?

[fj1200]

Are you questioning my sea turtle?

No. Unless I'm missing the resemblance.

[Drummond]

I wonder if I'm qualified to usefully comment on this thread ... interesting as it is. In my part of the world, we may know the term 'Libertarian', but then, it really doesn't get all that much of an airing in British politics.

My understanding, for what it's worth, is that Libertarianism is an especially anarchic form of Left-wing thinking. Liberty is everything ... if it means being against the law, or fighting laws you don't agree with, then Libertarians go to the maximum effort in doing all that, without caring at all about the consequences.

Is there anyone here who'd claim Margaret Thatcher wasn't a Conservative ?

Here's an extract from her 1979 election manifesto, the one which saw her elected to power, and for her to enjoy a succession of landslide victories ...

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110858


The rule of law

THE MOST DISTURBING THREAT to our freedom and security is the growing disrespect for the rule of law. In government as in opposition, Labour have undermined it. Yet respect for the rule of law is the basis of a free and civilised life. We will restore it, re-establishing the supremacy of Parliament and giving the right priority to the fight against crime.

THE FIGHT AGAINST CRIME

The number of crimes in England and Wales is nearly half as much again as it was in 1973. The next Conservative government will spend more on fighting crime even while we economise elsewhere.

Britain needs strong, efficient police forces with high morale. Improved pay and conditions will help Chief Constables to recruit up to necessary establishment levels. We will therefore implement in full the recommendations of the Edmund Davies Committee. The police need more time to detect crime. So we will ease the weight of traffic supervision duties and review cumbersome court procedures which waste police time. We will also review the traffic laws, including the totting-up procedure.

DETERRING THE CRIMINAL

Surer detection means surer deterrence. We also need better crime prevention measures and more flexible, more effective sentencing. For violent criminals and thugs really tough sentences are essential. But in other cases long prison terms are not always the best deterrent. So we want to see a wider variety of sentences available to the courts. We will therefore amend the 1961 Criminal Justice Act which limits prison sentences on young adult offenders, and revise the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 to give magistrates the power to make residential and secure care orders on juveniles.

We need more compulsory attendance centres for hooligans at junior and senior levels. In certain detention centres we will experiment with a tougher regime as a short, sharp shock for young criminals. For certain types of offenders, we also support the greater use of community service orders, intermediate treatment and attendance centres. Unpaid fines and compensation orders are ineffective. Fines should be assessed to punish the offender within his means and then be backed by effective sanctions for non-payment.

Many people advocate capital punishment for murder. This must remain a matter of conscience for Members of Parliament. But we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity for a free vote on this issue.

Unless I'm wildly off the mark, Libertarians would hate much if not most of this. But one must consider that toleration of Left-wing wrecking actions had reached a pitch in the UK where an antidote to it all was badly needed. 'Thatcherism' proved to be the answer.

And you see in the above quote just what was needed - and what Margaret Thatcher stood for.

I've also a quick comment to make to those I've 'accused' of being Left wing elsewhere, who nonetheless want to claim that they aren't. It could hardly be simpler .. my approach is that I will regard a Left-winger as being such, if said individual keeps advancing arguments which either advance a Left wing agenda, or produce opinions which Left wingers would readily identify with.

Being soft on terrorists, attributing to them a status which helps them but which they can't have possibly earned .. that's certainly a case in point. A Barack Obama who'd want to close GITMO would approve. As would a certain individual named Jimmy Carter, who's been known to be an advocate for .. get this !! .. terrorist 'human rights' ....

[fj1200]

Oh geez.

[aboutime]

Are you questioning my sea turtle?


When did you stop wearing Human dresses?
Most of us suspected you were in the Sea Turtle family. Always seeking the LOWEST levels in everything you do.

[tailfins]

I wonder if I'm qualified to usefully comment on this thread ... interesting as it is. In my part of the world, we may know the term 'Libertarian', but then, it really doesn't get all that much of an airing in British politics.

My understanding, for what it's worth, is that Libertarianism is an especially anarchic form of Left-wing thinking. Liberty is everything ... if it means being against the law, or fighting laws you don't agree with, then Libertarians go to the maximum effort in doing all that, without caring at all about the consequences.

Is there anyone here who'd claim Margaret Thatcher wasn't a Conservative ?

Here's an extract from her 1979 election manifesto, the one which saw her elected to power, and for her to enjoy a succession of landslide victories ...

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110858



Unless I'm wildly off the mark, Libertarians would hate much if not most of this. But one must consider that toleration of Left-wing wrecking actions had reached a pitch in the UK where an antidote to it all was badly needed. 'Thatcherism' proved to be the answer.

And you see in the above quote just what was needed - and what Margaret Thatcher stood for.

I've also a quick comment to make to those I've 'accused' of being Left wing elsewhere, who nonetheless want to claim that they aren't. It could hardly be simpler .. my approach is that I will regard a Left-winger as being such, if said individual keeps advancing arguments which either advance a Left wing agenda, or produce opinions which Left wingers would readily identify with.

Being soft on terrorists, attributing to them a status which helps them but which they can't have possibly earned .. that's certainly a case in point. A Barack Obama who'd want to close GITMO would approve. As would a certain individual named Jimmy Carter, who's been known to be an advocate for .. get this !! .. terrorist 'human rights' ....


Some say UKIP is a libertarian party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party

[logroller]

I wonder if I'm qualified to usefully comment on this thread ... interesting as it is. In my part of the world, we may know the term 'Libertarian', but then, it really doesn't get all that much of an airing in British politics.

My understanding, for what it's worth, is that Libertarianism is an especially anarchic form of Left-wing thinking. Liberty is everything ... if it means being against the law, or fighting laws you don't agree with, then Libertarians go to the maximum effort in doing all that, without caring at all about the consequences.

Is there anyone here who'd claim Margaret Thatcher wasn't a Conservative ?

Here's an extract from her 1979 election manifesto, the one which saw her elected to power, and for her to enjoy a succession of landslide victories ...

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110858



Unless I'm wildly off the mark, Libertarians would hate much if not most of this. But one must consider that toleration of Left-wing wrecking actions had reached a pitch in the UK where an antidote to it all was badly needed. 'Thatcherism' proved to be the answer.

And you see in the above quote just what was needed - and what Margaret Thatcher stood for.

I've also a quick comment to make to those I've 'accused' of being Left wing elsewhere, who nonetheless want to claim that they aren't. It could hardly be simpler .. my approach is that I will regard a Left-winger as being such, if said individual keeps advancing arguments which either advance a Left wing agenda, or produce opinions which Left wingers would readily identify with.

Being soft on terrorists, attributing to them a status which helps them but which they can't have possibly earned .. that's certainly a case in point. A Barack Obama who'd want to close GITMO would approve. As would a certain individual named Jimmy Carter, who's been known to be an advocate for .. get this !! .. terrorist 'human rights' ....
Libertarians are typified as Socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

[BillyBob]

Libertarians are typified as Socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

That sounds about right, except if you are fiscally responsible you would be against a bloated government so that would automatically make you against a lot of social policies such as welfare, Obamacare, etc. And I would venture a guess that Libertarians are not all in agreement about the abortion issue. Or the illegal drug issue.

[red states rule]

http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/LiberalTolerance2.jpg

[logroller]

That sounds about right, except if you are fiscally responsible you would be against a bloated government so that would automatically make you against a lot of social policies such as welfare, Obamacare, etc. And I would venture a guess that Libertarians are not all in agreement about the abortion issue. Or the illegal drug issue.
Being against government providing such does not mean that one is against healthcare and caring for their fellow citizen. As for abortion, I can't speak for all but inherent to my understanding of libertarianism is the sole responsibility for one's own actions; get pregnant, own up to it. I'd disagree on the drugs too; within reason, I have no qualms with another using...but like I said, they'll need to own it. Got problems you need help with, show me your willingness to help yourself and I'll be glad to offer assistance. Show that you have absolutely no interest in anything other than an early demise....glad to help with that too.

[red states rule]

Being against government providing such does not mean that one is against healthcare and caring for their fellow citizen. As for abortion, I can't speak for all but inherent to my understanding of libertarianism is the sole responsibility for one's own actions; get pregnant, own up to it. I'd disagree on the drugs too; within reason, I have no qualms with another using...but like I said, they'll need to own it. Got problems you need help with, show me your willingness to help yourself and I'll be glad to offer assistance. Show that you have absolutely no interest in anything other than an early demise....glad to help with that too.

Who the hell could possibly be for Obamacare after the IRS is nailed targeting conservatives? Do you want the IRS overseeing Obamacare? Do you want the IRS to match your bank records, financial docs, and cross check to make sure you have the "proper" coverage?

Of course after the Philly butcher was found guilty on over 200 ****s including 3 counts of Murder One - who could still support abortion? Gosnell is probably the nations wosrt mass murderer LR

[Robert A Whit]

Being against government providing such does not mean that one is against healthcare and caring for their fellow citizen. As for abortion, I can't speak for all but inherent to my understanding of libertarianism is the sole responsibility for one's own actions; get pregnant, own up to it. I'd disagree on the drugs too; within reason, I have no qualms with another using...but like I said, they'll need to own it. Got problems you need help with, show me your willingness to help yourself and I'll be glad to offer assistance. Show that you have absolutely no interest in anything other than an early demise....glad to help with that too.

In the end, doctors provide health care. But the system long followed drifted off that fact and tried to put both Government and insurance firms in total control.

It was only 70 years ago that health care was affordable. My parents were not wealthy. Yet a visit to the hospital for tonsils and adenoids to be removed was not budget busting even though my parents were merely Okies.

They did not make enough money have paid that at today's rates.

Thus the major question we all wanted to find out is why costs rose this much.

I conceived the theory or postulated that for health care to rise so much took a lot of pools of cash.

Who had all that cash?

Goverment did. But Goverment plunged in late in the game. The first who had the huge pools was insurance firms.

When they got a good foothold, by the 1970s as I recall, we noticed prices flying up.

I think most posters don't know much about how it was prior to the 1970s. But at one time, one could have a doctor come to your home to treat you. That little black bag? At one time, it was well known.

It is due to research and drugs for the most part as well as much better surgical skills that things are done so well today.

But when you want something to cost a lot, make sure government does the spending. It drives prices up.

I noticed this when I owned a machine shop. My shop was forced to charge a lot more for government products because of the way government spends money. I charged a fair price but i pointed out to the buyers how i could save them a lot of money but they declined due to being paid by the government. I was told they had no choice due to the specifications of the job.

[BillyBob]

Being against government providing such does not mean that one is against healthcare and caring for their fellow citizen. As for abortion, I can't speak for all but inherent to my understanding of libertarianism is the sole responsibility for one's own actions; get pregnant, own up to it. I'd disagree on the drugs too; within reason, I have no qualms with another using...but like I said, they'll need to own it. Got problems you need help with, show me your willingness to help yourself and I'll be glad to offer assistance. Show that you have absolutely no interest in anything other than an early demise....glad to help with that too.


Charity is a priority in our household, we only wish we could give more. And we're selective about how it is dispersed. However, that is very different than the government stealing money from us and doing whatever it chooses with it.

[Abbey Marie]

No, we understand it all quite well. There are legitimate libertarians, and have been for years.

Looking at the 2012 presidential election results they polled just under 1% of the vote nationally.

Yet, when one visits internet forums, or listens to talk-radio, one would think they represent 20% to 30% of the voting population. Where do these alleged hard-line libertarians go in the general election? They obviously do not return to the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul is a legitimate kooky libertarian and does gets a fairly consistent low percentage in GOP primaries. But with all of the open primary states in the process, it's difficult to know how much of his support comes from the GOP, Dems, or registered Libertarians.

His 1988 presidential campaign was a big, fat, nothing. What accounts for his subsequent "explosion" in popularity from the nothing performance in 1988? Is is just coincidence that the Ron Paul/libertarian movement gained momentum at the precise same time that the "legalize marijuana" movement gained momentum?

I doubt it's a coincidence, especially since comments related to the subject are his biggest applause lines in speeches and debates. And since the legalized marijuana position is so imperative to them, which party is it most likely they will join in the general elections? Numbers demonstrate it's not the Libertarian Party. So which of the two major parties is more sympathetic to their key cause? The answer is self-evident; the Democrats.

I'm certain that if Ron Paul ran in the 2016 Democrat primaries, he'd be able to pull in the same numbers. Maybe even more.

If Ron, or his son Rand, ever changed their position on legalized drugs their support would vanish overnight and we'd be right back to 1988. And they'd be relegated again to what the Libertarian Party actually is; a theory-based little parlor room debating society.

And that is with Paul being given total exposure during the debates as a so-called "Republican".

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by taft2012 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639729#post639729)
No, we understand it all quite well. There are legitimate libertarians, and have been for years.

Looking at the 2012 presidential election results they polled just under 1% of the vote nationally.

Yet, when one visits internet forums, or listens to talk-radio, one would think they represent 20% to 30% of the voting population. Where do these alleged hard-line libertarians go in the general election? They obviously do not return to the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul is a legitimate kooky libertarian and does gets a fairly consistent low percentage in GOP primaries. But with all of the open primary states in the process, it's difficult to know how much of his support comes from the GOP, Dems, or registered Libertarians.

His 1988 presidential campaign was a big, fat, nothing. What accounts for his subsequent "explosion" in popularity from the nothing performance in 1988? Is is just coincidence that the Ron Paul/libertarian movement gained momentum at the precise same time that the "legalize marijuana" movement gained momentum?

I doubt it's a coincidence, especially since comments related to the subject are his biggest applause lines in speeches and debates. And since the legalized marijuana position is so imperative to them, which party is it most likely they will join in the general elections? Numbers demonstrate it's not the Libertarian Party. So which of the two major parties is more sympathetic to their key cause? The answer is self-evident; the Democrats.

I'm certain that if Ron Paul ran in the 2016 Democrat primaries, he'd be able to pull in the same numbers. Maybe even more.

If Ron, or his son Rand, ever changed their position on legalized drugs their support would vanish overnight and we'd be right back to 1988. And they'd be relegated again to what the Libertarian Party actually is; a theory-based little parlor room debating society.


And that is with Paul being given total exposure during the debates as a so-called "Republican".

I think the right way to see this is ask Libertarians how often they support democrats. I think the times they do is very low.

I register republican.

I am trying hard to keep out democrats is why I vote republican.

I am locked out of backing libertarian candidates for all intents and purposes.

If we get a candidate that call pull huge percentages i then switch party affiliation CA has these voting rules and all.

I listened over the weekend to a woman who is the author of a book on the tea party and she did not claim she supports democrats.

[BillyBob]

I think the right way to see this is ask Libertarians how often they support democrats. I think the times they do is very low.

I register republican.

I am trying hard to keep out democrats is why I vote republican.

I am locked out of backing libertarian candidates for all intents and purposes.

If we get a candidate that call pull huge percentages i then switch party affiliation CA has these voting rules and all.

I listened over the weekend to a woman who is the author of a book on the tea party and she did not claim she supports democrats.


Careful, these guys don't want to know the truth about you. It interferes with them being to label you any ridiculous way they choose.


Me? I'm so glad you asked.

1. I have never voted for a democrat.
2. I didn't vote for Ron Paul in 2012, I held my nose and voted for Romney.
3. The Republican party has betrayed us.
4. Sarah Palin is sexy.
5. I need another beer.
6. Did you guys see my 'Deer' thread in the Cage forum?
7. Obama is not black.
8. Hillary has tree trunks for legs.
9. The IRS can go screw itself.
10. I need another beer.

Thank you all for your support.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=640072#post640072)
I think the right way to see this is ask Libertarians how often they support democrats. I think the times they do is very low.

I register republican.

I am trying hard to keep out democrats is why I vote republican.

I am locked out of backing libertarian candidates for all intents and purposes.

If we get a candidate that call pull huge percentages i then switch party affiliation CA has these voting rules and all.

I listened over the weekend to a woman who is the author of a book on the tea party and she did not claim she supports democrats.


Careful, these guys don't want to know the truth about you. It interferes with them being to label you any ridiculous way they choose.


Me? I'm so glad you asked.

1. I have never voted for a democrat.
2. I didn't vote for Ron Paul in 2012, I held my nose and voted for Romney.
3. The Republican party has betrayed us.
4. Sarah Palin is sexy.
5. I need another beer.
6. Did you guys see my 'Deer' thread in the Cage forum?
7. Obama is not black.
8. Hillary has tree trunks for legs.
9. The IRS can go screw itself.
10. I need another beer.

Thanks you all for your support.

I have admitted that at one time, I was a huge democrat fan and backed them to the hilt.

At Gabbys age, I was just how she is now.

I hope she can change. But she is but one person so we have much more to do than to convert one democrat. They love what they presume to get from the Feds and are locked in for what looks like life on boards. I hope those who do not come to boards will find a way out of the Democrats nonsense.

I too voted for Romney and consider that he got the crap beat out of him by Obama's party and I am not speaking of the vote count. They played dirty but Romney refused to do the same back.

Here is what republicans tried and why you might say they betrayed us.

Look, I use the Bush Drug program all the time. It saves me tons of money. Rather than blow over $1,000 annually for drugs, i get away with less than $100 this year and last year it cost me nothing. Can you blame me for taking from as many democrats as I can?

I ask though, how Obama can claim my insurance is the same when the cost went up?

But had they not paid for me, clearly i would have paid the bill myself.

I loved the deer post. i felt sort of bad for the Tic having to wear that tag though.

The way the Deer was treated was to be expected and i think the pain it had was to it's legs.

Most would not want an animal run over by a car to suffer and had you called the cops, it would have suffered longer then be shot to death.

i in fact agree with your points.

I would love to have a beer but with type 2 diabetes think it's best to drink my coffee.

[red states rule]

http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/941182_455491847868349_786010992_n.jpg