# Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!



## AntiParty

Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"

My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters. 
*
Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *

The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true. 

The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.


----------



## Crystalclear

Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?


----------



## whitehall

AntiParty said:


> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.



Humm, the anti-anti drop outs want to recruit more dropouts. All you freaking pot heads disguised as libertarians or you low information types who think that dropping out is a positive statement really need is an education and/or set of balls and join the Tea Party to make the GOP more responsive or join CPUSA to influence your left wing agenda for democrats.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Actually he openly attacks the right while supporting the left. He has been asked repeatedly to link us to any thread he started or post he made against the liberals. He can't do it. His anti party is a lie. he supports the liberal agenda.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Anti-party???  You fuckin nerds!

[YOUTUBE]WccfbPQNMbg[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## DriftingSand

AntiParty said:


> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.



I agree with your basic premise (if you're being completely honest).  However, I look at your signature line and see that you're already "anti-Tea-Party" so I wonder if you aren't really a Progressive.  Nonetheless, your OP states pretty much what I believe.  

I was a Republican for years and years and almost always vote Republican (sometimes because it's the lesser of two evils) but I did remove my name from their rosters.  I am now registered with the Libertarian AND the Constitution Parties and also support many of the Tea Party candidates (the intelligent ones).  I do NOT follow any Party line.  I follow my conscience and stand for what I believe.  

I am very conservative but have already ostracized some of my fellow conservatives because I don't follow the Republican mantra, lock-step.  Sorry about that but I simply can't buy the Patriot Act; the open southern border; the Department of Homeland Security; America's police-state mentality; the Federal Reserve Bank; any compromise on on my right to keep and bear arms; and a couple of other issues.

So ... you and I likely don't agree on many issues but at least we agree on the OP.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

No reply as usual , no link to the supposed anti party attacks on the Liberal agenda and policies. The one trick pony is a liberal.


----------



## AntiParty

Crystalclear said:


> Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?



That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party. 

The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem. 

The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank. 

My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.


----------



## AntiParty

whitehall said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humm, the anti-anti drop outs want to recruit more dropouts. All you freaking pot heads disguised as libertarians or you low information types who think that dropping out is a positive statement really need is an education and/or set of balls and join the Tea Party to make the GOP more responsive or join CPUSA to influence your left wing agenda for democrats.
Click to expand...


You just keep justifying everything your party does that is wrong. Never question your party and never have individual thought


----------



## AntiParty

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually he openly attacks the right while supporting the left. He has been asked repeatedly to link us to any thread he started or post he made against the liberals. He can't do it. His anti party is a lie. he supports the liberal agenda.



If you study what the term "Conservative" actually means it means "unwilling to change". 

What we see today is lot's of people unwilling to research anything . The Left tends to research their topics so I follow more topics of the Left than from the Right. That's no secret. What you missed is that I don't follow the Left into their bad sides like no voter ID and Abortion and others. 

You did what I stated earlier. You shunned me the instant I didn't believe in everything you believe in. Basic cult style behavior. 

Learn more man/ or woman. (Did saying man or woman make me a liberal, because I almost typed "man" by default but thought it though and guessed you could be a female)


----------



## AntiParty

TheOldSchool said:


> Anti-party???  You fuckin nerds!
> 
> [YOUTUBE]WccfbPQNMbg[/YOUTUBE]



"Let's get a party goin" is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about.....I'm not sure why people can't comprehend thinking for themselves.......Anti-Party isn't a party........It's more of a thought process if anything.


----------



## TheOldSchool

AntiParty said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-party???  You fuckin nerds!
> 
> [YOUTUBE]WccfbPQNMbg[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's get a party goin" is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about.....I'm not sure why people can't comprehend thinking for themselves.......Anti-Party isn't a party........It's more of a thought process if anything.
Click to expand...


You know how you could make your "anti-party" better?  Make it into a party.  Your screen name should REALLY be "Anti 'Current' Parties."


----------



## AntiParty

DriftingSand said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your basic premise (if you're being completely honest).  However, I look at your signature line and see that you're already "anti-Tea-Party" so I wonder if you aren't really a Progressive.  Nonetheless, your OP states pretty much what I believe.
> 
> I was a Republican for years and years and almost always vote Republican (sometimes because it's the lesser of two evils) but I did remove my name from their rosters.  I am now registered with the Libertarian AND the Constitution Parties and also support many of the Tea Party candidates (the intelligent ones).  I do NOT follow any Party line.  I follow my conscience and stand for what I believe.
> 
> I am very conservative but have already ostracized some of my fellow conservatives because I don't follow the Republican mantra, lock-step.  Sorry about that but I simply can't buy the Patriot Act; the open southern border; the Department of Homeland Security; America's police-state mentality; the Federal Reserve Bank; any compromise on on my right to keep and bear arms; and a couple of other issues.
> 
> So ... you and I likely don't agree on many issues but at least we agree on the OP.
Click to expand...


I honestly couldn't read your post man. You said;
_"I agree with your basic premise (if you're being completely honest). However, I look at your signature line and see that you're already "anti-Tea-Party"_

You, like the others, missed my entire point. THINK FOR YOURSELF! IT'S NOT A PARTY! Yes, I think the Tea Party is the least educated party in politics! But guess what, they have some good points also! Sadly, every other party shares those good points and the Tea Parties stance to spit on the Constitutions Commerce Clause makes me sick. Today, the tea party is just a bunch of people who want profit over humanity. 

I'll always side with Humanity over profit as long as that humanity isn't sloth.


----------



## AntiParty

TheOldSchool said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-party???  You fuckin nerds!
> 
> [YOUTUBE]WccfbPQNMbg[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's get a party goin" is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about.....I'm not sure why people can't comprehend thinking for themselves.......Anti-Party isn't a party........It's more of a thought process if anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how you could make your "anti-party" better?  Make it into a party.  Your screen name should REALLY be "Anti 'Current' Parties."
Click to expand...


My movement has nothing to do with current or historic parties. It has to do with single topic, single opinion. Let me repeat that. *Single topic, single opinion. *

But when you are single topic/single opinion you get proven wrong sometimes. It's important to be a man or woman and admit when you are wrong. I've only had to go through that maybe 3 times in the last year. 

My stance is always correct and FOR A REASON. I'm a REAL Patriot.


----------



## flacaltenn

The 2 party system is a problem.. Only 5 people run this country because of it. NOTHING gets done in Congress if Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, and McConnell are against it. 

And they don't actually have convictions other than hating each and winning.. OTH -- you are correct -- the Libertarian is TOO dogmatic about Liberty. But I am an active advocate of 3rd party politics because the only way you DEPOSE of parties that won't reform is to create new ones. 

And you cannot reform if you are not organized. Plain and simple.. You and I don't owe our vote to ANY party.. But waiting for the right candidates to just magically appear out those parties is a lost cause.. 

Take a look at the gauntlet you have to run to get a Prez candidate on all 50 state ballots. Something only the Libertarian party has achieved in alternative politics in decades.. It's rigged and the choices are nearly none-existent..


----------



## RetiredGySgt

TheOldSchool said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-party???  You fuckin nerds!
> 
> [YOUTUBE]WccfbPQNMbg[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's get a party goin" is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about.....I'm not sure why people can't comprehend thinking for themselves.......Anti-Party isn't a party........It's more of a thought process if anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how you could make your "anti-party" better?  Make it into a party.  Your screen name should REALLY be "Anti 'Current' Parties."
Click to expand...


Except he has made ZERO posts and ZERO threads on the Democratic party or the Liberal position.


----------



## emilynghiem

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually he openly attacks the right while supporting the left. He has been asked repeatedly to link us to any thread he started or post he made against the liberals. He can't do it. His anti party is a lie. he supports the liberal agenda.



MAYBE THATS WHY IT TAKES MORE PEOPLE JOINING THIS MOVEMENT
to be against domination by any party
so each person brings in what they are against
collectively thats opposition to any political side or agenda
except pts of agreement where all paths intersect in agreement

like agreeing on the bill of rights, code of ethics for govt service,
fourteenth amendment. we keep the basics and leave the rest to ppl's free choice

so if you are the check against anti party going too far left
we definitely need someone like you to keep it centered


----------



## Mojo2

AntiParty said:


> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.



Spoken like somone who finally got tired of getting beaten up on these pages because his Party's policies and actions were too often indefensible and his Party's unholy alliance with the MSM was too often leaving him unprepared for battle against Conservative posters.

To borrow from our Founding Fathers: a decent respect for the opinions of your formerly fellow Liberals requires that you should declare the causes which compel you to this separation from their rancorous ranks.

I don't blame you.

It's the only smart thing to do.


----------



## eagle1462010

To me this OP is a joke as the original poster is pretty much lock stock and barrel with the Democrats.  Therefore, his statement of being an anti-party is Hypocritical to me.

He also is against the TEA Party who are fiscal conservatives who also want a return to the Constitutional basics and limits to Gov't that has quite frankly grown too big for it's britches.

Given that the Status Quo politicians from both parties are whores to the highest bidder.  They just whore themselves out to different organizations, so I'm for taking out as many Status Quo politicians as possible.  We are destroying our currency by refusing to face the FACT that we can't afford the current size of Gov't.  Our Debt is ever growing to a point of no return.  And the Federal Reserve and the Banks that control our currency only want more debt.  They have created a system that needs more debt to survive as they don't have the assets to even come close to paying their potential liabilities.  Which is exactly why they were bailed out to over 16 TRILLION at the back door of the Federal Reserve after the crash.

Did we fix this................NO.............We are now set up for another crash which could very well be worse than the last as they have to borrow to just make margin.   The IMF over in Europe is doing the same, as many EURO countries economies would be toast without IMF FIAT money being inserted.

It is time for the bankers to lose control of printing our currency.
It is time to make the hard cuts to stop this out of control debt.
It is time to end Free Trade and force a level playing field on foreign countries that don't play by the same rules we do. Thus giving them a market advantage that prevents production of products in this country.

Anyway, just a quick hit at this OP.  Have to go to work so those that want to live off the Gov't tit can get their money.


----------



## earlycuyler

Crystalclear said:


> Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?



Not really. The Libertarian party is normally as bad as the other two, complete with water boys on a major news network and everything.


----------



## editec

Crystalclear said:


> Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?



NOPE.

Its more like swearing to become a philosopher.

You know what that word means, right?


Think of that word in the context of this place as meaning:  ANTI-PARTISAN.

Why?

Because the philosopher loves TRUTH, even when that truth is something that, when discovered, makes them realize they were _WRONG._

No partisan on this board (in the world actually) has that much integrity.

PARTISANS are bound by their loyalty to their party  to eschew any TRUTH that refutes their belief system.


----------



## Wake

Joining a new movement isn't going to rid one of one's bias, or the biases of others. It doesn't work that way...


----------



## AntiParty

emilynghiem said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he openly attacks the right while supporting the left. He has been asked repeatedly to link us to any thread he started or post he made against the liberals. He can't do it. His anti party is a lie. he supports the liberal agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MAYBE THATS WHY IT TAKES MORE PEOPLE JOINING THIS MOVEMENT
> to be against domination by any party
> so each person brings in what they are against
> collectively thats opposition to any political side or agenda
> except pts of agreement where all paths intersect in agreement
> 
> like agreeing on the bill of rights, code of ethics for govt service,
> fourteenth amendment. we keep the basics and leave the rest to ppl's free choice
> 
> so if you are the check against anti party going too far left
> we definitely need someone like you to keep it centered
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if I opened your eyes or if your eyes were opened before. But thank you for using your brain. You are one of the few that understand my movement.


----------



## AntiParty

Mojo2 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like somone who finally got tired of getting beaten up on these pages because his Party's policies and actions were too often indefensible and his Party's unholy alliance with the MSM was too often leaving him unprepared for battle against Conservative posters.
> 
> To borrow from our Founding Fathers: a decent respect for the opinions of your formerly fellow Liberals requires that you should declare the causes which compel you to this separation from their rancorous ranks.
> 
> I don't blame you.
> 
> It's the only smart thing to do.
Click to expand...


How was I beat up in my party?

Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.


----------



## AntiParty

eagle1462010 said:


> To me this OP is a joke as the original poster is pretty much lock stock and barrel with the Democrats.  Therefore, his statement of being an anti-party is Hypocritical to me.
> 
> He also is against the TEA Party who are fiscal conservatives who also want a return to the Constitutional basics and limits to Gov't that has quite frankly grown too big for it's britches.
> 
> Given that the Status Quo politicians from both parties are whores to the highest bidder.  They just whore themselves out to different organizations, so I'm for taking out as many Status Quo politicians as possible.  We are destroying our currency by refusing to face the FACT that we can't afford the current size of Gov't.  Our Debt is ever growing to a point of no return.  And the Federal Reserve and the Banks that control our currency only want more debt.  They have created a system that needs more debt to survive as they don't have the assets to even come close to paying their potential liabilities.  Which is exactly why they were bailed out to over 16 TRILLION at the back door of the Federal Reserve after the crash.
> 
> Did we fix this................NO.............We are now set up for another crash which could very well be worse than the last as they have to borrow to just make margin.   The IMF over in Europe is doing the same, as many EURO countries economies would be toast without IMF FIAT money being inserted.
> 
> It is time for the bankers to lose control of printing our currency.
> It is time to make the hard cuts to stop this out of control debt.
> It is time to end Free Trade and force a level playing field on foreign countries that don't play by the same rules we do. Thus giving them a market advantage that prevents production of products in this country.
> 
> Anyway, just a quick hit at this OP.  Have to go to work so those that want to live off the Gov't tit can get their money.



Something you should learn is that all Right Wingers today are in a cult style party. If you don't agree with everything they say, you are a Liberal hippy lefty idiot Democrat. If you try to challenge their PLATFORM they will shun you. Like they did this guy

He was shunned when he called out the obvious. 

He isn't and I'm not stupid if I don't fall in line with your beliefs. We simply think differently. Try not to dictate your thinking like a Nazi and try to explore the thinking of others.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

AntiParty said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like somone who finally got tired of getting beaten up on these pages because his Party's policies and actions were too often indefensible and his Party's unholy alliance with the MSM was too often leaving him unprepared for battle against Conservative posters.
> 
> To borrow from our Founding Fathers: a decent respect for the opinions of your formerly fellow Liberals requires that you should declare the causes which compel you to this separation from their rancorous ranks.
> 
> I don't blame you.
> 
> It's the only smart thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How was I beat up in my party?
> 
> Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.
Click to expand...


Your opinions are liberal. You openly attack the right and have made absolutely no comment on the left. NOT A SINGLE post on the left, no comments no criticisms, nothing.


----------



## AntiParty

I'm not trying to start a movement. The thought process I use  SHOULD HAVE BEEN the movement used all along. 

People need to think for themselves. Not for other people/corporations. 

This isn't a movement. It's what America was based on.


----------



## AntiParty

RetiredGySgt said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like somone who finally got tired of getting beaten up on these pages because his Party's policies and actions were too often indefensible and his Party's unholy alliance with the MSM was too often leaving him unprepared for battle against Conservative posters.
> 
> To borrow from our Founding Fathers: a decent respect for the opinions of your formerly fellow Liberals requires that you should declare the causes which compel you to this separation from their rancorous ranks.
> 
> I don't blame you.
> 
> It's the only smart thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was I beat up in my party?
> 
> Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions are liberal. You openly attack the right and have made absolutely no comment on the left. NOT A SINGLE post on the left, no comments no criticisms, nothing.
Click to expand...


Ok kid. enough with the attacks. Show one instance where I am Liberal...(I've been waiting for quite a while. It seems he has never seen me be Liberal.)


----------



## RetiredGySgt

AntiParty said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> How was I beat up in my party?
> 
> Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions are liberal. You openly attack the right and have made absolutely no comment on the left. NOT A SINGLE post on the left, no comments no criticisms, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok kid. enough with the attacks. Show one instance where I am Liberal...
Click to expand...


Show us one instance where you have criticized the left, a thread, a post, something. All you have done is openly attack the right, usually with canned responses.


----------



## CorvusRexus

AntiParty said:


> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.



Amen. 

No country so created upon the idea of unity can long endure once divided till the point we have reached today.

Honestly, Anti-Party, your suggestion works with many things. I have often suggested it work for religion, and for regular things it is probably the best way to go about it. But yes, it probably works best for politics. America should be the "Land of the Free", not the "Land of the 'Free' where your vote only means something if you cast it in favor of one corrupt group over another."


----------



## AntiParty

RetiredGySgt said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions are liberal. You openly attack the right and have made absolutely no comment on the left. NOT A SINGLE post on the left, no comments no criticisms, nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok kid. enough with the attacks. Show one instance where I am Liberal...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us one instance where you have criticized the left, a thread, a post, something. All you have done is openly attack the right, usually with canned responses.
Click to expand...


I think abortion should be banned. But with my educated theory.


----------



## AntiParty

CorvusRexus said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.
> 
> No country so created upon the idea of unity can long endure once divided till the point we have reached today.
> 
> Honestly, Anti-Party, your suggestion works with many things. I have often suggested it work for religion, and for regular things it is probably the best way to go about it. But yes, it probably works best for politics. America should be the "Land of the Free", not the "Land of the 'Free' where your vote only means something if you cast it in favor of one corrupt group over another."
Click to expand...


I'm happy to be in a forum where some have the intelligence to understand my stance. Thank you for making me feel at home and not like a solo thinker like I've always been on other forums. 

Be yourself. Trust yourself. Love yourself. And question others.


----------



## CorvusRexus

AntiParty said:


> CorvusRexus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.
> 
> No country so created upon the idea of unity can long endure once divided till the point we have reached today.
> 
> Honestly, Anti-Party, your suggestion works with many things. I have often suggested it work for religion, and for regular things it is probably the best way to go about it. But yes, it probably works best for politics. America should be the "Land of the Free", not the "Land of the 'Free' where your vote only means something if you cast it in favor of one corrupt group over another."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm happy to be in a forum where some have the intelligence to understand my stance. Thank you for making me feel at home and not like a solo thinker like I've always been on other forums.
> 
> Be yourself. Trust yourself. Love yourself. And question others.
Click to expand...


The feeling is mutual.


----------



## AntiParty

BREAKING NEWS;!

Someone that follows my standard for politics stated they don't agree with my perspective!

This is good news. Good job thinking for yourself and let's debate it to the bone. If I lose the debate I will angrily give you props for being more educated on the topic than me. It doesn't make me a weakness, it makes me a strength because I have the ability to learn instead of the ability to Troll.


----------



## CorvusRexus

AntiParty said:


> BREAKING NEWS;!
> 
> Someone that follows my standard for politics stated they don't agree with my perspective!
> 
> This is good news. Good job thinking for yourself and let's debate it to the bone. If I lose the debate I will angrily give you props for being more educated on the topic than me. It doesn't make me a weakness, it makes me a strength because I have the ability to learn instead of the ability to Troll.



Are you talking about me?


----------



## emilynghiem

AntiParty said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like somone who finally got tired of getting beaten up on these pages because his Party's policies and actions were too often indefensible and his Party's unholy alliance with the MSM was too often leaving him unprepared for battle against Conservative posters.
> 
> To borrow from our Founding Fathers: a decent respect for the opinions of your formerly fellow Liberals requires that you should declare the causes which compel you to this separation from their rancorous ranks.
> 
> I don't blame you.
> 
> It's the only smart thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How was I beat up in my party?
> 
> Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.
Click to expand...


Doesn't everyone have flaws, biases, or limitations to their understanding?
Are you indirectly saying your flaw is that you don't admit to any?


----------



## AntiParty

CorvusRexus said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING NEWS;!
> 
> Someone that follows my standard for politics stated they don't agree with my perspective!
> 
> This is good news. Good job thinking for yourself and let's debate it to the bone. If I lose the debate I will angrily give you props for being more educated on the topic than me. It doesn't make me a weakness, it makes me a strength because I have the ability to learn instead of the ability to Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about me?
Click to expand...


I was talking about you. 

It's ok that you don't agree with me in my perspective. So what. That's America. 

I wasn't attacking you for disagreeing with me, I was praising you for it. 

People in a cult never learn because their cult leaders tell them not to accept information from outside sources. This is basically what we are seeing in politics. Everyone has seen someone dismiss a post because it was made by a bias media without even researching it.

(I don't believe my stance has anything to do with religion. If you don't submit to a religion, then you will go to hell in that religions eyes.) Lot's of people going to hell, and lot's of people think they are going to heaven.


----------



## AntiParty

emilynghiem said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like somone who finally got tired of getting beaten up on these pages because his Party's policies and actions were too often indefensible and his Party's unholy alliance with the MSM was too often leaving him unprepared for battle against Conservative posters.
> 
> To borrow from our Founding Fathers: a decent respect for the opinions of your formerly fellow Liberals requires that you should declare the causes which compel you to this separation from their rancorous ranks.
> 
> I don't blame you.
> 
> It's the only smart thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was I beat up in my party?
> 
> Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't everyone have flaws, biases, or limitations to their understanding?
> Are you indirectly saying your flaw is that you don't admit to any?
Click to expand...


I don't have party bias. I am bias to my opinions because they are correct in my mind. 

I certainly have flaws, everyone does. I can't tell you how hard it was for me to tell 2 people in the last few months that they were correct on a topic and I was wrong. That's not a weakness to admit you were wrong like it's painted today. It takes TRUE STREGTH to admit when you are wrong. 

Limitations? Not sure what you are talking about. 

I'm perfect in my perspective. Anyone can prove me wrong on ANY topic if they have the information. But this movement of the "you are stupid" style debate won't make me change my views. 

Note that my perspective isn't perfect to others. We are all different. When a topic is broken down in an educated fashion and I notice that someone has the same perspective as me, but they have different beliefs, so be it. Not all Americans belong in a Platform. 

I've been in every party except for the Green Party (Haven't explored it) and Tea Party(Profit over humanity) trying to find a home. But all parties have major flaws and they are all trying to say they are the only correct party. I think all parties have great perspectives on politics. But all parties also have a terrible perspective on certain parts of politics. 

Basically, TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING IS A BAD THING. 

I tend to be a Liberal thinker, a Fiscal Conservative, a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist. If you think that's not possible, then you are in a cult that shuns people who don't follow your rules.


----------



## AntiParty

Let me show you some bias;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-RrtHaAgtU]Patriocracy News Dissect Segment - www.patriocracymovie.com - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## earlycuyler

I have no bias. I hate you all equally. Fuck all you fuckers. Vagina.  Clowney daggers.


----------



## CorvusRexus

AntiParty said:


> CorvusRexus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> BREAKING NEWS;!
> 
> Someone that follows my standard for politics stated they don't agree with my perspective!
> 
> This is good news. Good job thinking for yourself and let's debate it to the bone. If I lose the debate I will angrily give you props for being more educated on the topic than me. It doesn't make me a weakness, it makes me a strength because I have the ability to learn instead of the ability to Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about you.
> 
> It's ok that you don't agree with me in my perspective. So what. That's America.
> 
> I wasn't attacking you for disagreeing with me, I was praising you for it.
> 
> People in a cult never learn because their cult leaders tell them not to accept information from outside sources. This is basically what we are seeing in politics. Everyone has seen someone dismiss a post because it was made by a bias media without even researching it.
> 
> (I don't believe my stance has anything to do with religion. If you don't submit to a religion, then you will go to hell in that religions eyes.) Lot's of people going to hell, and lot's of people think they are going to heaven.
Click to expand...


Okay. Thank you, Anti-Party.


----------



## AntiParty

earlycuyler said:


> I have no bias. I hate you all equally. Fuck all you fuckers. Vagina.  Clowney daggers.



I also think that no one can hold an educated debate while attacking the other person. If you own the facts, there is NO reason to be mad or hateful. If you have good information and you are mean, rude or hateful, no one is going to listen to your information. I tend to hold many conversations where I have a smart argument and the other person says , "You are stupid" or something similar, sometimes more clever. But the most clever insult has nothing to do with politics. 

Now if there is a troll that is obviously only here to troll and they never have any input and always attack, it's fun to throw some information in their face and give them the


----------



## AntiParty

Today, we won't change things because of the bias. 

"You went to war with Iraq!" vs. "You bombed Libya". Both sides justify the attacks in their own ways while the Military Industrial Complex laughs at the American people. *When Lockheed Martin puts Millions in your pocket to win an election....you had better find a use for them. *

The bad guy isn't the Left or Right. It's ALWAYS the money in politics buying Congress.


----------



## Grandma

RetiredGySgt said:


> No reply as usual , no link to the supposed anti party attacks on the Liberal agenda and policies. The one trick pony is a liberal.



The party fuckup pendulum swings back and forth over time. At this point in time it's WAAAAAAYYYY over to the right. Democrats, liberals, progressives, sure they've made mistakes, but the moderate republicans, the conservatives, the neocons, the far right, and the Teabaggers have done far worse.

They've spent the last 12 years trying to scare the bejezus out of the voters, because fear is a great tool for establishing emotional control. They've been fighting against "regular" people attaining college degrees for decades because educated voters don't buy into bullshit. They've been limiting "information" into little bitty talking points with no credible sourcing other than to say the "lamestream media" is BAD. Fear again, combined with a feeling of belonging to some special club where viewers are safe and protected by the likes of Hannity and Glen Beck. They support a highly anti-American, pro-oligarchy agenda.

So yeah, it's all on the right wing at this point in time.


----------



## AntiParty

Grandma said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No reply as usual , no link to the supposed anti party attacks on the Liberal agenda and policies. The one trick pony is a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The party fuckup pendulum swings back and forth over time. At this point in time it's WAAAAAAYYYY over to the right. Democrats, liberals, progressives, sure they've made mistakes, but the moderate republicans, the conservatives, the neocons, the far right, and the Teabaggers have done far worse.
> 
> They've spent the last 12 years trying to scare the bejezus out of the voters, because fear is a great tool for establishing emotional control. They've been fighting against "regular" people attaining college degrees for decades because educated voters don't buy into bullshit. They've been limiting "information" into little bitty talking points with no credible sourcing other than to say the "lamestream media" is BAD. Fear again, combined with a feeling of belonging to some special club where viewers are safe and protected by the likes of Hannity and Glen Beck. They support a highly anti-American, pro-oligarchy agenda.
> 
> So yeah, it's all on the right wing at this point in time.
Click to expand...


Grandma, that was a brilliant post. I'm blown away by your political education and your ability to word it. 

Cheers and thank you.


----------



## AntiParty

I was attacked yet again tonight. Someone stated to me that I was clearly bias to a party because I didn't submit to their opinion and platform. 

I feel SO sorry for the people that can't think for themselves beyond their media.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.



One question, why should I believe in any movement that you claim to  represent when everything you post shows that you are exactly the  opposite of what you claim to represent?



AntiParty said:


> * Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *



Can I suggest that you go back to school and learn how to write in English before you try to tell people how stupid they are? I am not arrogant enough to assume that, just because everyone is against my position, that I am automatically right. I actually prefer to listen to all the evidence, even if it contradicts my point of view, because I have learned that no one is always wrong. 

So far, you haven't actually shown me a time when you have been right about anything, but you have to be right eventually. 



AntiParty said:


> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true. {that was funny.
> 
> Would you like me to point out examples of you being presented with new information that you categorically rejected because you didn't like the source?
> 
> How about this one.
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The regulated market allows competition. We have what is called a  "highly regulated market" by some today and we still see competition.
> 
> The funny thing is you probably back Citizens United because you think  "corporations are people" yet hate regulations like lead paint in  childrens toys.
> 
> Sure, when you compete with a Country that has no regulation, their  prices are lower. That's not rocket science, that's just basics. What  you have to ask yourself is what should your family and Country be  exposed to or live like.
> 
> The Uniteded States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)  Commerce claus. The clause states that the United States Congress shall  have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the  several States,"
> 
> So do you back the Constitution or Free Markets? Your "party" seems to be at an impass on their platform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does?
> 
> The regulated market for taxis  limits the number of taxis, and prohibits anyone form competing with them.
> 
> The regulated cable market  makes it illegal for any other cable company to offer a competing service.
> 
> I must be missing something, perhaps it is your ability to completely ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly missing something. You are missing Citizens United.  You don't seem to know a thing about politics or the reason Big Buisness  is squashing small business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you didn't actually address the issues I raised, and instead went off into a rant about a decision that has nothing to do with either the question I asked or the topic you posted about, isn't it?
> 
> More examples.
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The regulated market allows competition. We have what is called a  "highly regulated market" by some today and we still see competition.
> 
> The funny thing is you probably back Citizens United because you think  "corporations are people" yet hate regulations like lead paint in  childrens toys.
> 
> Sure, when you compete with a Country that has no regulation, their  prices are lower. That's not rocket science, that's just basics. What  you have to ask yourself is what should your family and Country be  exposed to or live like.
> 
> The Uniteded States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)  Commerce claus. The clause states that the United States Congress shall  have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the  several States,"
> 
> So do you back the Constitution or Free Markets? Your "party" seems to be at an impass on their platform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does?
> 
> The regulated market for taxis  limits the number of taxis, and prohibits anyone form competing with them.
> 
> The regulated cable market  makes it illegal for any other cable company to offer a competing service.
> 
> I must be missing something, perhaps it is your ability to completely ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certainly missing something. You are missing the difference between Corporate Interest and Common Sense Regulation.
> 
> Welcome to Politics! I'm your Father!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly why big business is squashing small business,  regulations. I could write a 50 page essay on it, and provide multiple  sources to prove my thesis. The problem is, you wouldn't understand a  word of it because you can't think outside that box that was handed to  you by the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't know a thing about me. Im not a Democrat but I'm fully  aware you think Democrats are the contrast of "Bush's fault".
> 
> The Tea Party in writing is the Corporate profit party. It's other  platform agenda's are in other parties. The free market is a Tea Party  and Libertarian party standard.
> 
> Again. The Constitution regulates the Free Market. Why is this bad Mr. Party lines?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are fully aware that I think something that I never heard before today?
> 
> If you go back and reread my post you will see I never said you are a  Democrat, I said you cannot think outside the box that was handed you by  Democrats. If you were half as smart as you think I am you would  understand what that means.
> 
> For the record, the Constitution regulates the government.
> 
> Let me repeat that for those that have problems with complex ideas, the Constitution regulates the government.
> 
> The Constitution does not regulate the market, it regulates the  government. Why is that a bad thing, oh he who hates all parties, yet  has never said anything bad about Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you never actually examined the evidence in those posts, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good side of being you is you never let a moral obligation actually change how you deal with anything.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.
> 
> The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.
> 
> The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.
> 
> My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.
Click to expand...


I am sure you have dozens of examples to back up that claim.

Not.

This is going to be another example of someone proving you wrong, and you ignoring your moral obligation.

The Libertarian party doesn't have a position on anything other than freedom.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's get a party goin" is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about.....I'm not sure why people can't comprehend thinking for themselves.......Anti-Party isn't a party........It's more of a thought process if anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how you could make your "anti-party" better?  Make it into a party.  Your screen name should REALLY be "Anti 'Current' Parties."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My movement has nothing to do with current or historic parties. It has to do with single topic, single opinion. Let me repeat that. *Single topic, single opinion. *
> 
> But when you are single topic/single opinion you get proven wrong sometimes. It's important to be a man or woman and admit when you are wrong. I've only had to go through that maybe 3 times in the last year.
> 
> My stance is always correct and FOR A REASON. I'm a REAL Patriot.
Click to expand...


Have you admitted you are wrong since you joined this board? The reason I am asking is I know that many people have proved you wrong, some of them are actually people I disagree with.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like somone who finally got tired of getting beaten up on these pages because his Party's policies and actions were too often indefensible and his Party's unholy alliance with the MSM was too often leaving him unprepared for battle against Conservative posters.
> 
> To borrow from our Founding Fathers: a decent respect for the opinions of your formerly fellow Liberals requires that you should declare the causes which compel you to this separation from their rancorous ranks.
> 
> I don't blame you.
> 
> It's the only smart thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How was I beat up in my party?
> 
> Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.
Click to expand...


Your biggest problem is that your opinion doesn't agree with the facts, not that people do not agree with your opinion. 

Everyone has flaws, especially if they never listen to anyone else.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok kid. enough with the attacks. Show one instance where I am Liberal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us one instance where you have criticized the left, a thread, a post, something. All you have done is openly attack the right, usually with canned responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think abortion should be banned. But with my educated theory.
Click to expand...


Did your education include English grammar?

Didn't think so.

By the way, that wasn't an answer to his challenge.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no bias. I hate you all equally. Fuck all you fuckers. Vagina.  Clowney daggers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also think that no one can hold an educated debate while attacking the other person. If you own the facts, there is NO reason to be mad or hateful. If you have good information and you are mean, rude or hateful, no one is going to listen to your information. I tend to hold many conversations where I have a smart argument and the other person says , "You are stupid" or something similar, sometimes more clever. But the most clever insult has nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Now if there is a troll that is obviously only here to troll and they never have any input and always attack, it's fun to throw some information in their face and give them the
Click to expand...


Why is it impossible to be intelligent, well informed, and passionate?


----------



## earlycuyler

AntiParty said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no bias. I hate you all equally. Fuck all you fuckers. Vagina.  Clowney daggers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also think that no one can hold an educated debate while attacking the other person. If you own the facts, there is NO reason to be mad or hateful. If you have good information and you are mean, rude or hateful, no one is going to listen to your information. I tend to hold many conversations where I have a smart argument and the other person says , "You are stupid" or something similar, sometimes more clever. But the most clever insult has nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Now if there is a troll that is obviously only here to troll and they never have any input and always attack, it's fun to throw some information in their face and give them the
Click to expand...


I always thought it funny how every one here at some point crystal about trolls. As for my comments, hyperpartasan political are about as elevated a conversation as cart jokes. As such, are worthy of stupid comments like mine. The parties will never change and a third party would be and is just one more group making noise on message boards.


----------



## Pennywise

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually he openly attacks the right while supporting the left. He has been asked repeatedly to link us to any thread he started or post he made against the liberals. He can't do it. His anti party is a lie. he supports the liberal agenda.



Any time you see "anti party" or "no labels" or hear a political ad that says, "this isn't about left or right", it's about the left. Every time.

Having said that, anyone who calls themselves a Conservative and blindly votes for today's Republicans, is a mental midget.


----------



## Crystalclear

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.
> 
> The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.
> 
> The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.
> 
> My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure you have dozens of examples to back up that claim.
> 
> Not.
> 
> This is going to be another example of someone proving you wrong, and you ignoring your moral obligation.
> 
> The libertari
Click to expand...


Indeed, a party that bases all their policies on freedom is a good party.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.
> 
> The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.
> 
> The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.
> 
> My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure you have dozens of examples to back up that claim.
> 
> Not.
> 
> This is going to be another example of someone proving you wrong, and you ignoring your moral obligation.
> 
> The Libertarian party doesn't have a position on anything other than freedom.
Click to expand...


The question was answered before your response. Yet you still stated "You won't answer this" Kind of ignorance. 

For you to think the Libertarian party doesn't have a Platform means you don't know what the Libertarian party stand for. 

Every party has a focus on Liberty, let's get that out of the way. Believe it or don't. If you are a Libertarian you don't. 

The Libertarian party believes in Liberty no matter what. It borderlines Nihilism. Ask a Libertarian leader, "should I be able to own an armed tank and drive it down the street" they will answer, "YES! Liberty above common sense is our party stance!"

I think beyond ALL party platforms and guess what. I don't think I would feel free if armed tanks were driving down the streets. I don't think I would feel free if children with AK-47's were wondering around the mall. 

You need to understand the difference between FREEDOM and Liberty.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how you could make your "anti-party" better?  Make it into a party.  Your screen name should REALLY be "Anti 'Current' Parties."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My movement has nothing to do with current or historic parties. It has to do with single topic, single opinion. Let me repeat that. *Single topic, single opinion. *
> 
> But when you are single topic/single opinion you get proven wrong sometimes. It's important to be a man or woman and admit when you are wrong. I've only had to go through that maybe 3 times in the last year.
> 
> My stance is always correct and FOR A REASON. I'm a REAL Patriot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you admitted you are wrong since you joined this board? The reason I am asking is I know that many people have proved you wrong, some of them are actually people I disagree with.
Click to expand...


Have you noticed that politics is opinion based?........(newbies)


----------



## AntiParty

Pennywise said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he openly attacks the right while supporting the left. He has been asked repeatedly to link us to any thread he started or post he made against the liberals. He can't do it. His anti party is a lie. he supports the liberal agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you see "anti party" or "no labels" or hear a political ad that says, "this isn't about left or right", it's about the left. Every time.
> 
> Having said that, anyone who calls themselves a Conservative and blindly votes for today's Republicans, is a mental midget.
Click to expand...


You have just solidified the cult Fox News is today. 

"If you think for yourself, you are a LEFTIST!" *PSYCHO STYLE REEN REEN REEN*

Cults teach that if you accept information from outside sources you are a flaw to the movement and they generally shun you or you leave. Stating that "no labels" means you are leftist is a stance against a cult and has nothing to do with politics at large.* The Right openly states you are a weakness if you challenge their platform. The question is, are you strong enough to think for yourself?*

Notice how they lynched and outcast this man after he stated this;

A time for a Republican party that talks like adults! OMG! That will be a big step for some!


----------



## eagle1462010

AntiParty said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he openly attacks the right while supporting the left. He has been asked repeatedly to link us to any thread he started or post he made against the liberals. He can't do it. His anti party is a lie. he supports the liberal agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you see "anti party" or "no labels" or hear a political ad that says, "this isn't about left or right", it's about the left. Every time.
> 
> Having said that, anyone who calls themselves a Conservative and blindly votes for today's Republicans, is a mental midget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just solidified the cult Fox News is today.
> 
> "If you think for yourself, you are a LEFTIST!" *PSYCHO STYLE REEN REEN REEN*
> 
> Cults teach that if you accept information from outside sources you are a flaw to the movement and they generally shun you or you leave. Stating that "no labels" means you are leftist is a stance against a cult and has nothing to do with politics at large.* The Right openly states you are a weakness if you challenge their platform. The question is, are you strong enough to think for yourself?*
> 
> Notice how they lynched and outcast this man after he stated this;
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8kwxlHf0cE]Jindal: GOP must "stop being the stupid party" - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> A time for a Republican party that talks like adults! OMG! That will be a big step for some!
Click to expand...


Straw man argument from a leftist troll.  Your PRAVDA is transparent.  You are lock stock and barrel for the Far Left no matter how you try and sugar coat it.

Telling others to think for themselves, but if we say we are conservatives, support the TEA Party, and or some Libertarian principles we are radical or some other horse hockey .  Your purpose is just to attempt to flame threads with the same worn out talking points of the left, attacking others beliefs and principles without any ideas posted other than attacks.

Why don't you and your party, aka the ASS party, start making solutions based on the REALITY of the situation our country faces today.  We live in a REAL world, and our country faces mounting debt which can't be solved by EMOTION or HAPPY THOUGHTS.  It has to be fixed with REAL CUTS, and LIMITS ON GOV'T that the FAR Left will never agree to, or the status quo from either party.  

Our kids and theirs will pay the price for our refusal to fix and out of control Gov't as we destroy the AMERICAN DREAM by killing the dollar and our economy.  Conservatives understand that which is exactly why we fight your kind at every turn, and will continue to do so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.
> 
> The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.
> 
> The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.
> 
> My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have dozens of examples to back up that claim.
> 
> Not.
> 
> This is going to be another example of someone proving you wrong, and you ignoring your moral obligation.
> 
> The Libertarian party doesn't have a position on anything other than freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was answered before your response. Yet you still stated "You won't answer this" Kind of ignorance.
> 
> For you to think the Libertarian party doesn't have a Platform means you don't know what the Libertarian party stand for.
> 
> Every party has a focus on Liberty, let's get that out of the way. Believe it or don't. If you are a Libertarian you don't.
> 
> The Libertarian party believes in Liberty no matter what. It borderlines Nihilism. Ask a Libertarian leader, "should I be able to own an armed tank and drive it down the street" they will answer, "YES! Liberty above common sense is our party stance!"
> 
> I think beyond ALL party platforms and guess what. I don't think I would feel free if armed tanks were driving down the streets. I don't think I would feel free if children with AK-47's were wondering around the mall.
> 
> You need to understand the difference between FREEDOM and Liberty.
Click to expand...


You need to show some examples of libertarians purging their ranks of people who do not toe the line. Until you do that you have no evidence to back up your claim that they always do that. As for the party platform, it is full of statements like this one, "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold  good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept  out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their  conscientious consideration."

You need to learn the difference between reality and delusional beliefs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> My movement has nothing to do with current or historic parties. It has to do with single topic, single opinion. Let me repeat that. *Single topic, single opinion. *
> 
> But when you are single topic/single opinion you get proven wrong sometimes. It's important to be a man or woman and admit when you are wrong. I've only had to go through that maybe 3 times in the last year.
> 
> My stance is always correct and FOR A REASON. I'm a REAL Patriot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you admitted you are wrong since you joined this board? The reason I am asking is I know that many people have proved you wrong, some of them are actually people I disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that politics is opinion based?........(newbies)
Click to expand...


I will take that as a no.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like somone who finally got tired of getting beaten up on these pages because his Party's policies and actions were too often indefensible and his Party's unholy alliance with the MSM was too often leaving him unprepared for battle against Conservative posters.
> 
> To borrow from our Founding Fathers: a decent respect for the opinions of your formerly fellow Liberals requires that you should declare the causes which compel you to this separation from their rancorous ranks.
> 
> I don't blame you.
> 
> It's the only smart thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was I beat up in my party?
> 
> Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your biggest problem is that your opinion doesn't agree with the facts, not that people do not agree with your opinion.
> 
> *Everyone has flaws*, especially if they never listen to anyone else.
Click to expand...


Are you really lecturing someone on being wrong?   You lie, throw deflections,  and create diversions in any and every conversation someone busts you on.  The point is that you should not be tied to a political party.  Basically you are shooting the messenger.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> How was I beat up in my party?
> 
> Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your biggest problem is that your opinion doesn't agree with the facts, not that people do not agree with your opinion.
> 
> *Everyone has flaws*, especially if they never listen to anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really lecturing someone on being wrong?   You lie, throw deflections,  and create diversions in any and every conversation someone busts you on.  The point is that you should not be tied to a political party.  Basically you are shooting the messenger.
Click to expand...


Your personal attacks against me aside, the  point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your biggest problem is that your opinion doesn't agree with the facts, not that people do not agree with your opinion.
> 
> *Everyone has flaws*, especially if they never listen to anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really lecturing someone on being wrong?   You lie, throw deflections,  and create diversions in any and every conversation someone busts you on.  The point is that you should not be tied to a political party.  Basically you are shooting the messenger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks against me aside, the  point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.
Click to expand...


You know this how?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really lecturing someone on being wrong?   You lie, throw deflections,  and create diversions in any and every conversation someone busts you on.  The point is that you should not be tied to a political party.  Basically you are shooting the messenger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks against me aside, the  point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know this how?
Click to expand...


I can read.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks against me aside, the  point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can read.
Click to expand...


His mind?


----------



## Wake

In my opinion the attacks in this thread are a distractions to the real issue here.

AntiParty is a person who advocates the "Anti-Party" stance, which in time will become a party of its own should it garner enough members. It may be a party already, depending on how many people it takes to make an ideological group a party. Let's assume it's already a party. In that case, his stance is ironic, because he's already part of a group of people that persuades the decisions of other people on assorted topics (i,e: he's here, doing that).

And, if you notice, part of the thread title is "End the Bias!" Now, that does sound like a good thing but... his title says "Tea is the new Kool-aid." That alone is biased on account of the strong political undertones in that statement. 

Championing a stance of "anti-party" or "non-biased" is extremely difficult if not impossible, because likely that same person is biased, and/or part or becoming part of a party.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His mind?
Click to expand...


No, his posts.  You should try it, you  might learn something.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, his posts.  You should try it, you  might learn something.
Click to expand...


I did read his post. What did you read?



AntiParty said:


> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

flacaltenn said:


> The 2 party system is a problem.. Only 5 people run this country because of it. NOTHING gets done in Congress if Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, and McConnell are against it.
> 
> And they don't actually have convictions other than hating each and winning.. OTH -- you are correct -- the Libertarian is TOO dogmatic about Liberty. But I am an active advocate of 3rd party politics because the only way you DEPOSE of parties that won't reform is to create new ones.
> 
> And you cannot reform if you are not organized. Plain and simple.. You and I don't owe our vote to ANY party.. But waiting for the right candidates to just magically appear out those parties is a lost cause..
> 
> Take a look at the gauntlet you have to run to get a Prez candidate on all 50 state ballots. Something only the Libertarian party has achieved in alternative politics in decades.. It's rigged and the choices are nearly none-existent..



As someone who's basically a libertarian, I agree with you wholeheartedly that libertarians are dogmatic about freedom.

What you don't seem to gather is that every single political philosophy out there is, at its most base level, dogmatic.  AT some level, all of your political principles (if you have any) are based on your morals and values.  Since there's no way to prove your morals or values "correct", they are dogmatic.

If you say that human lives are worth more than liberty, that is just as dogmatic as asserting the opposite.


----------



## AntiParty

eagle1462010 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you see "anti party" or "no labels" or hear a political ad that says, "this isn't about left or right", it's about the left. Every time.
> 
> Having said that, anyone who calls themselves a Conservative and blindly votes for today's Republicans, is a mental midget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just solidified the cult Fox News is today.
> 
> "If you think for yourself, you are a LEFTIST!" *PSYCHO STYLE REEN REEN REEN*
> 
> Cults teach that if you accept information from outside sources you are a flaw to the movement and they generally shun you or you leave. Stating that "no labels" means you are leftist is a stance against a cult and has nothing to do with politics at large.* The Right openly states you are a weakness if you challenge their platform. The question is, are you strong enough to think for yourself?*
> 
> Notice how they lynched and outcast this man after he stated this;
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8kwxlHf0cE]Jindal: GOP must "stop being the stupid party" - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> A time for a Republican party that talks like adults! OMG! That will be a big step for some!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw man argument from a leftist troll.  Your PRAVDA is transparent.  You are lock stock and barrel for the Far Left no matter how you try and sugar coat it.
> 
> Telling others to think for themselves, but if we say we are conservatives, support the TEA Party, and or some Libertarian principles we are radical or some other horse hockey .  Your purpose is just to attempt to flame threads with the same worn out talking points of the left, attacking others beliefs and principles without any ideas posted other than attacks.
> 
> Why don't you and your party, aka the ASS party, start making solutions based on the REALITY of the situation our country faces today.  We live in a REAL world, and our country faces mounting debt which can't be solved by EMOTION or HAPPY THOUGHTS.  It has to be fixed with REAL CUTS, and LIMITS ON GOV'T that the FAR Left will never agree to, or the status quo from either party.
> 
> Our kids and theirs will pay the price for our refusal to fix and out of control Gov't as we destroy the AMERICAN DREAM by killing the dollar and our economy.  Conservatives understand that which is exactly why we fight your kind at every turn, and will continue to do so.
Click to expand...


You are extremely uneducated and don't seem to know how to intake new advice or perspectives. I actually plan to vote Right this year. Your entire attack is flawed and bias which is why you have no reason to be on my thread.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you admitted you are wrong since you joined this board? The reason I am asking is I know that many people have proved you wrong, some of them are actually people I disagree with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that politics is opinion based?........(newbies)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will take that as a no.
Click to expand...


My opinion is always correct kid. You can't try to FORCE an opinion on me LOL. Who the hell are you!


----------



## AntiParty

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really lecturing someone on being wrong?   You lie, throw deflections,  and create diversions in any and every conversation someone busts you on.  The point is that you should not be tied to a political party.  Basically you are shooting the messenger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks against me aside, the  point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know this how?
Click to expand...


He "knows this" because I don't submit to his parties platform and only Leftists don't submit to his parties platform. 

He is expressing everything I'm against. He thinks that I have to agree with every topic he talks about in order to NOT BE a "Leftist". It's why I call them a cult. The basic principle of a cult is, "Never let outside information in" If someone questions a cult, the cult will fail


----------



## Dot Com

We all know that the two primary parties are corrupt to the core and only work to enrich themselves. Voting for them only encourages them as well. Voting AGAINST someone is not a good enough reason for me to vote anymore. What if they had another one of their *cough* "elections" between corrupt politician A & corrupt politician B & no one showed up?


----------



## AntiParty

Wake said:


> In my opinion the attacks in this thread are a distractions to the real issue here.
> 
> AntiParty is a person who advocates the "Anti-Party" stance, which in time will become a party of its own should it garner enough members. It may be a party already, depending on how many people it takes to make an ideological group a party. Let's assume it's already a party. In that case, his stance is ironic, because he's already part of a group of people that persuades the decisions of other people on assorted topics (i,e: he's here, doing that).
> 
> And, if you notice, part of the thread title is "End the Bias!" Now, that does sound like a good thing but... his title says "Tea is the new Kool-aid." That alone is biased on account of the strong political undertones in that statement.
> 
> Championing a stance of "anti-party" or "non-biased" is extremely difficult if not impossible, because likely that same person is biased, and/or part or becoming part of a party.



You are wrong, sorry. Your post was intelligent and I thank you for that. 

I love that your brain can't comprehend the anti-party part of my perspective though. I see it a lot in many but you break it down. You say that it will become a Party. It's almost an oxymoron. 

My position is single topic, single opinion and NEVER agree to a platform. It's really that simple. 

If my "party' ends up becoming popular, then it means Americans can think for themselves again instead of being lead by the Corporate leaders of America. 

You can agree with 100% of a parties stance and not submit to that party. Once you submit the party might take a wrong turn and since you are 100% on board, you will turn with them. We have seen this happen with all parties in America today, not both, all.


----------



## Dot Com

^ I thought this was the CDZ? (no ad hominems)

Anyway, President Washington wasn't fond of entrenched parties. Read his farewell address if you haven't already.


----------



## AntiParty

Dot Com said:


> We all know that the two primary parties are corrupt to the core and only work to enrich themselves. Voting for them only encourages them as well. Voting AGAINST someone is not a good enough reason for me to vote anymore. What if they had another one of their *cough* "elections" between corrupt politician A & corrupt politician B & no one showed up?



I don't agree. 

*ALL *parties work for the $. Not just two. All have good intentions, but submit to the $ in the long run in some way shape or form. 

Libertarians and the Tea Party have been more a part of the Right Wing lately than Republicans. Grover Norquist (Libertarian) basically owned all Right Wingers up until last election. And Ted Cruz shut down our government in an attempt to show that the sword is mightier than the pen. 

I love that you think and thank you. And please don't hate me for disagreeing with you . I don't hate you for disagreeing with me. Knowledge can be fun if you don't take a Fox news style hatred of everyone that doesn't agree with you. That's cultish.


----------



## AntiParty

westwall said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You however are nothing more than a progressive drone.  Let me know when actually mean what you say.
Click to expand...


I mean what I say. 

Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?

Progressive; Lead poisoning. Lead poisoning kills. Progressives make laws to prevent lead from being in childrens toys. Conservatives get mad because it's "regulation"....*What's important to you? The people or the profits? *You can learn a lot from that statement.

I absolutely take "progressive" as a compliment. But I certainly don't take it as a platform (Do progressives have a platform, good question, gonna search that)

Progressive doesn't mean Liberal. Progressive doesn't even mean leftist. "the world is round" ....."OMG YOU LEFTIST!"


----------



## westwall

Dot Com said:


> ^ I thought this was the CDZ? (no ad hominems)
> 
> Anyway, President Washington wasn't fond of entrenched parties. Read his farewell address if you haven't already.







Ahhh, you are correct!  I will remove the post.  I didn't realize we were in the CDZ, My apologies!


----------



## westwall

AntiParty said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You however are nothing more than a progressive drone.  Let me know when actually mean what you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean what I say.
> 
> Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?
Click to expand...






Progressivism has led to more death and destruction in the last 100 years than any other single source.

H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become liberal fascists and enlightened Nazis. Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic. Calling for a Phoenix Rebirth of Liberalism under the umbrella of Liberal Fascism, Wells said: I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.
The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself pro-Mussolini personally.
The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolinis efforts: Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.
Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by petty persons with petty purposes. Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been formed by God out of the rib of Italy.
McClures Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.
After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed Ambassador-at-Large of the United States by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: Im pretty high on that bird. Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government, Rogers wrote, that is, if you have the right dictator.
Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him a despot with a dimple.
NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been absolutely necessary to get the state in order. In 1937 DuBois stated: there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.
FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.
New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was trying out the economics of fascism.
Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the worlds great progressive leaders because they did things, unlike the leaders of those putrefying corpses called parliamentary democracies.


Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks


----------



## Dot Com

We have two parties that merely take turns at the trough. Sad. Both of them work for the same people as well  the ones who can afford lobbyists. They also control who & who cannot run or participate in debates.


----------



## AntiParty

westwall said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You however are nothing more than a progressive drone.  Let me know when actually mean what you say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean what I say.
> 
> Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressivism has led to more death and destruction in the last 100 years than any other single source.
> 
> H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become liberal fascists and enlightened Nazis. Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic. Calling for a Phoenix Rebirth of Liberalism under the umbrella of Liberal Fascism, Wells said: I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.
> The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself pro-Mussolini personally.
> The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolinis efforts: Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.
> Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by petty persons with petty purposes. Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been formed by God out of the rib of Italy.
> McClures Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.
> After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed Ambassador-at-Large of the United States by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: Im pretty high on that bird. Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government, Rogers wrote, that is, if you have the right dictator.
> Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him a despot with a dimple.
> NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been absolutely necessary to get the state in order. In 1937 DuBois stated: there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.
> FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.
> New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was trying out the economics of fascism.
> Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the worlds great progressive leaders because they did things, unlike the leaders of those putrefying corpses called parliamentary democracies.
> 
> 
> Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks
Click to expand...


HAHA!

You are stacking "progress" as Communisim or Socialism. You clearly don't know what any of the 3 mean. But you news knows what to tell you what it means doesn't it


----------



## AntiParty

Dot Com said:


> We have two parties that merely take turns at the trough. Sad. Both of them work for the same people as well  the ones who can afford lobbyists. They also control who & who cannot run or participate in debates.



You are 100% correct. 

When I state that we should get money out of politics people ask me, "Well how can they afford to get on TV?"

Clearly, if money wasn't involved the media would follow the person that the PEOPLE want to hear about. Instead of the best paid. Of course, the people would have to be more involved in politics and less involved in sports. What a catastrophe. 

Today, the media actually pays the politicians to pay them! How crazy is that! Obama had donations from ABC, NBC and CBS!


----------



## westwall

Dot Com said:


> We have two parties that merely take turns at the trough. Sad. Both of them work for the same people as well  the ones who can afford lobbyists. They also control who & who cannot run or participate in debates.








Yes, both parties are bad.  Horribly bad, but progressivism is a disease that must not be allowed to infect this country.  If progressives are able to baffle the masses the bloodshed will be worse than was ever visited on the Russians and German Jews.


----------



## westwall

AntiParty said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean what I say.
> 
> Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressivism has led to more death and destruction in the last 100 years than any other single source.
> 
> H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become liberal fascists and enlightened Nazis. Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic. Calling for a Phoenix Rebirth of Liberalism under the umbrella of Liberal Fascism, Wells said: I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.
> The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself pro-Mussolini personally.
> The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolinis efforts: Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.
> Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by petty persons with petty purposes. Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been formed by God out of the rib of Italy.
> McClures Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.
> After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed Ambassador-at-Large of the United States by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: Im pretty high on that bird. Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government, Rogers wrote, that is, if you have the right dictator.
> Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him a despot with a dimple.
> NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been absolutely necessary to get the state in order. In 1937 DuBois stated: there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.
> FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.
> New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was trying out the economics of fascism.
> Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the worlds great progressive leaders because they did things, unlike the leaders of those putrefying corpses called parliamentary democracies.
> 
> 
> Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAHA!
> 
> You are stacking "progress" as Communisim or Socialism. You clearly don't know what any of the 3 mean. But you news knows what to tell you what it means doesn't it
Click to expand...







Wrong again.  There are only two types of government, collectivist and individualist.  Fabian Socialists have worked very hard at convincing people that there is a difference between fascism and "communism" (Marxist Lenninist modified by Stalin) when truthfully there really is no difference for the individual citizens of the afflicted countries.

Progressives love dictatorships.  That is a simple fact.  Progressives don't believe in individual rights and responsibilities, they believe that individuals exist for the benefit of the State, and when you no longer are useful to the State then you need not be alive.


----------



## AntiParty

westwall said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressivism has led to more death and destruction in the last 100 years than any other single source.
> 
> &#8226;H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become &#8220;liberal fascists&#8221; and &#8220;enlightened Nazis.&#8221; Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: &#8220;I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.&#8221; Calling for a &#8220;&#8216;Phoenix Rebirth&#8217; of Liberalism&#8221; under the umbrella of &#8220;Liberal Fascism,&#8221; Wells said: &#8220;I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.&#8221;
> &#8226;The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself &#8220;pro-Mussolini personally.&#8221;
> &#8226;The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini&#8217;s efforts: &#8220;Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.&#8221;
> &#8226;Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by &#8220;petty persons with petty purposes.&#8221; Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been &#8220;formed&#8221; by God &#8220;out of the rib of Italy.&#8221;
> &#8226;McClure&#8217;s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as &#8220;a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.&#8221;
> &#8226;After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed &#8220;Ambassador-at-Large of the United States&#8221; by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: &#8220;I&#8217;m pretty high on that bird.&#8221; &#8220;Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,&#8221; Rogers wrote, &#8220;that is, if you have the right dictator.&#8221;
> &#8226;Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him &#8220;a despot with a dimple.&#8221;
> &#8226;NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been &#8220;absolutely necessary to get the state in order.&#8221; In 1937 DuBois stated: &#8220;there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.&#8221;
> &#8226;FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: &#8220;It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.&#8221;
> &#8226;New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was &#8220;trying out the economics of fascism.&#8221;
> &#8226;Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world&#8217;s great &#8220;progressive&#8221; leaders because they &#8220;did things,&#8221; unlike the leaders of those &#8220;putrefying corpses&#8221; called parliamentary democracies.
> 
> 
> Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA!
> 
> You are stacking "progress" as Communisim or Socialism. You clearly don't know what any of the 3 mean. But you news knows what to tell you what it means doesn't it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  There are only two types of government, collectivist and individualist.  Fabian Socialists have worked very hard at convincing people that there is a difference between fascism and "communism" (Marxist Lenninist modified by Stalin) when truthfully there really is no difference for the individual citizens of the afflicted countries.
> 
> Progressives love dictatorships.  That is a simple fact.  Progressives don't believe in individual rights and responsibilities, they believe that individuals exist for the benefit of the State, and when you no longer are useful to the State then you need not be alive.
Click to expand...


Actually, you are wrong. There are two types of government, you are correct. They are Federalists and Anti-Federalists. 

Collectivists and individualists are both me.

I had to edit because this moron stated that "progressives don't believe in individual rights" when they lead the war against the ban of same sex marriage. This guy is new like I was once. I hope he learns.


----------



## AntiParty

Today, we see the media teaching people what THE OTHER party thinks. 

The Right teaches the Right what the Left thinks. 

The Left teaches the Left what the Right thinks. 

The outcome is people that think they know what the other party thinks but have never done a days work to actually understand what the other party thinks.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal attacks against me aside, the  point is that the guy that made the thread is tied to a political ideology that is exactly the opposite of what he claims to represent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He "knows this" because I don't submit to his parties platform and only Leftists don't submit to his parties platform.
> 
> He is expressing everything I'm against. He thinks that I have to agree with every topic he talks about in order to NOT BE a "Leftist". It's why I call them a cult. The basic principle of a cult is, "Never let outside information in" If someone questions a cult, the cult will fail
Click to expand...


I don't have a party, something you would know if you were half as smart as you think you are. 

For the record, I oppose intervening in foreign countries, think we should cut defense spending, end the war on drugs. Since you were completely unaware of that, that must mean you are a cult. If you don't support all those positions I am extremely unlikely to consider you a leftist.

The fact that you are a hack does not make you a leftist, it makes you a hack.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion the attacks in this thread are a distractions to the real issue here.
> 
> AntiParty is a person who advocates the "Anti-Party" stance, which in time will become a party of its own should it garner enough members. It may be a party already, depending on how many people it takes to make an ideological group a party. Let's assume it's already a party. In that case, his stance is ironic, because he's already part of a group of people that persuades the decisions of other people on assorted topics (i,e: he's here, doing that).
> 
> And, if you notice, part of the thread title is "End the Bias!" Now, that does sound like a good thing but... his title says "Tea is the new Kool-aid." That alone is biased on account of the strong political undertones in that statement.
> 
> Championing a stance of "anti-party" or "non-biased" is extremely difficult if not impossible, because likely that same person is biased, and/or part or becoming part of a party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong, sorry. Your post was intelligent and I thank you for that.
> 
> I love that your brain can't comprehend the anti-party part of my perspective though. I see it a lot in many but you break it down. You say that it will become a Party. It's almost an oxymoron.
> 
> My position is single topic, single opinion and NEVER agree to a platform. It's really that simple.
> 
> If my "party' ends up becoming popular, then it means Americans can think for themselves again instead of being lead by the Corporate leaders of America.
> 
> You can agree with 100% of a parties stance and not submit to that party. Once you submit the party might take a wrong turn and since you are 100% on board, you will turn with them. We have seen this happen with all parties in America today, not both, all.
Click to expand...


Your position only makes sense to you because you assume that you are always right.

By the way, no one agrees 100% with a party platform. It would be impossible for any self aware human being to hold so many contradictory ideas inside their head at the same time. People vote for a party because, in general, they agree with the methods that party uses to achieve its goals, not because they agree with the party platform.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Party is a complex stance. It basically means you don't and won't submit to a political parties platform. Anyone that has been in politics for more than a year has seen people justify HORRIBLE  things because they think, "If I justify this, we might win and become the greater good"
> 
> My movement is don't justify anything. I believe in single topic, single opinion (no matter what a platform says). Believe in your opinion and follow your opinion. If the majority vote against your opinion, then that is what the Constitution wanted. People to vote and EVERYONES vote matters.
> *
> Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You however are nothing more than a progressive drone.  Let me know when actually mean what you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean what I say.
> 
> Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?
> 
> Progressive; Lead poisoning. Lead poisoning kills. Progressives make laws to prevent lead from being in childrens toys. Conservatives get mad because it's "regulation"....*What's important to you? The people or the profits? *You can learn a lot from that statement.
> 
> I absolutely take "progressive" as a compliment. But I certainly don't take it as a platform (Do progressives have a platform, good question, gonna search that)
> 
> Progressive doesn't mean Liberal. Progressive doesn't even mean leftist. "the world is round" ....."OMG YOU LEFTIST!"
Click to expand...


Which explains why Mattel, the only company that was actually importing toys that contained lead, was exempted from the law that requires all toys to be tested by an outside laboratory for lead content. 

Wait, it actually doesn't.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He "knows this" because I don't submit to his parties platform and only Leftists don't submit to his parties platform.
> 
> He is expressing everything I'm against. He thinks that I have to agree with every topic he talks about in order to NOT BE a "Leftist". It's why I call them a cult. The basic principle of a cult is, "Never let outside information in" If someone questions a cult, the cult will fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a party, something you would know if you were half as smart as you think you are.
> 
> For the record, I oppose intervening in foreign countries, think we should cut defense spending, end the war on drugs. Since you were completely unaware of that, that must mean you are a cult. If you don't support all those positions I am extremely unlikely to consider you a leftist.
> 
> The fact that you are a hack does not make you a leftist, it makes you a hack.
Click to expand...


So you attack my position and then take my position as someone who is against UNNECESSARY war and UNNECESSARY spending. 

You are new to the concept.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You however are nothing more than a progressive drone.  Let me know when actually mean what you say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean what I say.
> 
> Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?
> 
> You confuse "Progressive" with "Research and knowledge" that sometimes puts a stop to Corporate profits.
> Progressive; Lead poisoning. Lead poisoning kills. Progressives make laws to prevent lead from being in childrens toys. Conservatives get mad because it's "regulation"....*What's important to you? The people or the profits? *You can learn a lot from that statement.
> 
> I absolutely take "progressive" as a compliment. But I certainly don't take it as a platform (Do progressives have a platform, good question, gonna search that)
> 
> Progressive doesn't mean Liberal. Progressive doesn't even mean leftist. "the world is round" ....."OMG YOU LEFTIST!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which explains why Mattel, the only company that was actually importing toys that contained lead, was exempted from the law that requires all toys to be tested by an outside laboratory for lead content.
> 
> Wait, it actually doesn't.
Click to expand...


Your idiocracy is all over the place. It does, it doesn't. 

How about Fracking. It's the current "lead in toys" debate. You probably support it and you probably paint me as a "Leftist" for standing against it because you don't know that it's killing people yet.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> He "knows this" because I don't submit to his parties platform and only Leftists don't submit to his parties platform.
> 
> He is expressing everything I'm against. He thinks that I have to agree with every topic he talks about in order to NOT BE a "Leftist". It's why I call them a cult. The basic principle of a cult is, "Never let outside information in" If someone questions a cult, the cult will fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a party, something you would know if you were half as smart as you think you are.
> 
> For the record, I oppose intervening in foreign countries, think we should cut defense spending, end the war on drugs. Since you were completely unaware of that, that must mean you are a cult. If you don't support all those positions I am extremely unlikely to consider you a leftist.
> 
> The fact that you are a hack does not make you a leftist, it makes you a hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you attack my position and then take my position as someone who is against UNNECESSARY war and UNNECESSARY spending.
> 
> You are new to the concept.
Click to expand...


There you go again.

My position is that government is evil, and needs to be restrained. Your position is that it is good and that we need to give it more power. The fact that you cl;aim to be independent is completely irrelevant to me, you are pro government, and live for everything I oppose. 

I have been thinking about this for over 40 years, this is not new to me. I have dealt with people like you before, and will again, you are just rehashing the same things we discussed after we watched the hippies become the man.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a party, something you would know if you were half as smart as you think you are.
> 
> For the record, I oppose intervening in foreign countries, think we should cut defense spending, end the war on drugs. Since you were completely unaware of that, that must mean you are a cult. If you don't support all those positions I am extremely unlikely to consider you a leftist.
> 
> The fact that you are a hack does not make you a leftist, it makes you a hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you attack my position and then take my position as someone who is against UNNECESSARY war and UNNECESSARY spending.
> 
> You are new to the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> My position is that government is evil, and needs to be restrained. Your position is that it is good and that we need to give it more power. The fact that you cl;aim to be independent is completely irrelevant to me, you are pro government, and live for everything I oppose.
> 
> I have been thinking about this for over 40 years, this is not new to me. I have dealt with people like you before, and will again, you are just rehashing the same things we discussed after we watched the hippies become the man.
Click to expand...


Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have. 

To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean what I say.
> 
> Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with "progressive"? It depends on your perspective of progressive doesn't it? I'm certainly progressive with my thoughts. Once I learn something, I change, how about you? Do you learn things and decide it's better to be uneducated on the topic?
> 
> You confuse "Progressive" with "Research and knowledge" that sometimes puts a stop to Corporate profits.
> Progressive; Lead poisoning. Lead poisoning kills. Progressives make laws to prevent lead from being in childrens toys. Conservatives get mad because it's "regulation"....*What's important to you? The people or the profits? *You can learn a lot from that statement.
> 
> I absolutely take "progressive" as a compliment. But I certainly don't take it as a platform (Do progressives have a platform, good question, gonna search that)
> 
> Progressive doesn't mean Liberal. Progressive doesn't even mean leftist. "the world is round" ....."OMG YOU LEFTIST!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why Mattel, the only company that was actually importing toys that contained lead, was exempted from the law that requires all toys to be tested by an outside laboratory for lead content.
> 
> Wait, it actually doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idiocracy is all over the place. It does, it doesn't.
> 
> How about Fracking. It's the current "lead in toys" debate. You probably support it and you probably paint me as a "Leftist" for standing against it because you don't know that it's killing people yet.
Click to expand...


I have been accused of being a right wing extremist and a left wing extremist on the same day because I argue from my beliefs, not a position. Some of my beliefs are right wing, some are left wing, and I always get jumped on by both sides.

You, on the other hand, get accused only of representing one side. You seem to think the fat that only right wingers hate you proves you are doing something right. All it really proves is that you are biased. 

I don't paint you as anything, you do that all by yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you attack my position and then take my position as someone who is against UNNECESSARY war and UNNECESSARY spending.
> 
> You are new to the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> My position is that government is evil, and needs to be restrained. Your position is that it is good and that we need to give it more power. The fact that you cl;aim to be independent is completely irrelevant to me, you are pro government, and live for everything I oppose.
> 
> I have been thinking about this for over 40 years, this is not new to me. I have dealt with people like you before, and will again, you are just rehashing the same things we discussed after we watched the hippies become the man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have.
> 
> To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.
Click to expand...


I see you haven't actually read the Constitution, what a surprise.


----------



## AntiParty

Government isn't "Evil" 

Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians. 

Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> My position is that government is evil, and needs to be restrained. Your position is that it is good and that we need to give it more power. The fact that you cl;aim to be independent is completely irrelevant to me, you are pro government, and live for everything I oppose.
> 
> I have been thinking about this for over 40 years, this is not new to me. I have dealt with people like you before, and will again, you are just rehashing the same things we discussed after we watched the hippies become the man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have.
> 
> To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you haven't actually read the Constitution, what a surprise.
Click to expand...


The Constitution IS Government...

It states that the people can change it throughout time. How progressive of it! In fact, our generation is the ONLY generation that hasn't changed it. 

It also regulates business which is a direct stance against the Free Market and personal interests, Libertarians and the Tea Party will never teach you about the Commerce Clause. 

Government is GOOD. You have to stand up for what is CORRECT to ensure it stays GOOD. 

These small brains taking the easy way out stating that the Government is all bad are the smallest brains in politics.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Government isn't "Evil"
> 
> Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.
> 
> Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.



Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?


----------



## AntiParty

Congress and the President are doing bad is one thing to say. "Government is bad" is a totally different thing to say. 

Congress and the President work for We The People. 

Government is a good thing. 

We The People are failing because of monetary interests.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government isn't "Evil"
> 
> Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.
> 
> Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?
Click to expand...


Politicians, banks and Corporations get away with murder. 

The people suffer.


----------



## AntiParty

I don't hope that you like me, but I hope that you understand me. 

We The People need to take control of the politics today and stop obsessing about other things. 

We CERTAINLY need to stop listening to bias media that attack MSM. MSM is MSM because it's not bias.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> Government isn't "Evil"
> 
> Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.
> 
> Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.



So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution?  Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!

Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right?  HOLY SHIT!

LMFAO!


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have.
> 
> To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you haven't actually read the Constitution, what a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution IS Government...
> 
> It states that the people can change it throughout time. How progressive of it! In fact, our generation is the ONLY generation that hasn't changed it.
> 
> It also regulates business which is a direct stance against the Free Market and personal interests, Libertarians and the Tea Party will never teach you about the Commerce Clause.
> 
> Government is GOOD. You have to stand up for what is CORRECT to ensure it stays GOOD.
> 
> These small brains taking the easy way out stating that the Government is all bad are the smallest brains in politics.
Click to expand...


You think and speak in nothing but hardcore generalities. . .

"Conservatives" are people who "fear change", because the base definition of the word conservative is  resistant to change.  So apparently the right wing's platform is defined by the label they've been seated with?  Awesome.

"Progressives" are people who adjust properly, because progress means change, and progressives therefore want to change.  Oh, but they have no platform (LMFAO!), they only speak truth.  So the first people who said the earth is round, they shared the same philosophy as modern progressives, since their thoughts were so "progressive".  Awesome.

The constitution states that people can change it over time.  Does it?  Seems to me there's a pretty fuckin specific method the government and the people are supposed to go through to change or even add to it.

Libertarians and Tea Partiers will never teach you about the commerce clause, and Tea Partiers want to spit on the commerce clause.  Oh?  I was under the impression that most Tea Partiers and Libertarians were simply of the mind that the government has misused the commerce clause to justify things it was never meant to affect.  Shows what I know about Libertarians.  And here I thought I -was- one!  Holy shit, will you please sit me down and explain my philosophy to me?  Apparently I'm totally bullshitting myself about what I believe.

You identify all limited government philosophies as people who say all government is bad.

You then make the blanket statement that "government is good!"

Kinda depends on the government, don't it?

Anyway, all these generalities and misconceptions, and then you -dare- to accuse -anyone else- in politics of having a smaller mind than you?  Fuckin laughable.

Oh!  Forgot my favorite!  You know the MSM is unbiased because if it was biased it wouldn't be the MSM.  HOLY FUCKING SHIT!  So the fact that it's popular makes it objective?  Are you serious? as;kdlfj;adkfjadkjf;a;kdjfsdal I have no words to describe how fuckin dumb that statement is.  I have no words to describe the contempt I feel for you when you claim that mainstream opinion denotes objectivity.  No fucking words.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government isn't "Evil"
> 
> Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.
> 
> Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?
Click to expand...


Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.


----------



## Dot Com

westwall said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have two parties that merely take turns at the trough. Sad. Both of them work for the same people as well  the ones who can afford lobbyists. They also control who & who cannot run or participate in debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties are bad.  Horribly bad, but progressivism is a disease that must not be allowed to infect this country.  If progressives are able to baffle the masses the bloodshed will be worse than was ever visited on the Russians and German Jews.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole?  What is it w/ rw'ers and calling for revolutionary rhetoric if their ideology isn't implemented? Also, last I heard, ideologies aren't against the law. I can run for an office based on almost any ideology I can think of tomorrow and it isn't illegal. I'm also a gun-owning vet BUT a Progressive. Stop w/ the broad-brushing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Congress and the President are doing bad is one thing to say. "Government is bad" is a totally different thing to say.
> 
> Congress and the President work for We The People.
> 
> Government is a good thing.
> 
> We The People are failing because of monetary interests.



Let me see if I can explain this to you using small words.

The use of force to accomplish your goals is wrong. Using the government to accomplish your goals is using force. Forcing people to do things just because you can is evil. Ergo, government is evil.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government isn't "Evil"
> 
> Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.
> 
> Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politicians, banks and Corporations get away with murder.
> 
> The people suffer.
Click to expand...


Yet you support laws that enable the very thing you say you want to end. What does that make you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> I don't hope that you like me, but I hope that you understand me.
> 
> We The People need to take control of the politics today and stop obsessing about other things.
> 
> We CERTAINLY need to stop listening to bias media that attack MSM. MSM is MSM because it's not bias.



Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no reason to dislike you. I  don't know enough about you to like, or dislike, you. I just know you are wrong, love to mock people, and you are incapable of defending your opinions because your opinions are based on fantasy, that makes you an easy target for mocking. You really should consider upgrading to delusion, there is an internal consistency to delusion that makes it mock proof.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government isn't "Evil"
> 
> Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.
> 
> Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.
Click to expand...


Diversions?

The law challenged in the Citizens United made it illegal for anyone to spend money on ads that said negative things about politicians during an election. According to the government, this would have even enabled them to ban books. Funny thing, it didn't actually apply to incumbent politicians, just normal people. 

If you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that AntiParty is the one that brought up Citizens United, I was just attempting to get him to explain, again, why he thinks it is permissible to restrict free speech in order to give corrupt politicians more power while ranting about politicians who have too much power.

Come to think of it, I would love it if you could explain the same thing.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diversions?
> 
> The law challenged in the Citizens United made it illegal for anyone to spend money on ads that said negative things about politicians during an election. According to the government, this would have even enabled them to ban books. Funny thing, it didn't actually apply to incumbent politicians, just normal people.
> 
> If you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that AntiParty is the one that brought up Citizens United, I was just attempting to get him to explain, again, why he thinks it is permissible to restrict free speech in order to give corrupt politicians more power while ranting about politicians who have too much power.
> 
> Come to think of it, I would love it if you could explain the same thing.
Click to expand...


Another diversion. Keep them coming on schedule.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diversions?
> 
> The law challenged in the Citizens United made it illegal for anyone to spend money on ads that said negative things about politicians during an election. According to the government, this would have even enabled them to ban books. Funny thing, it didn't actually apply to incumbent politicians, just normal people.
> 
> If you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that AntiParty is the one that brought up Citizens United, I was just attempting to get him to explain, again, why he thinks it is permissible to restrict free speech in order to give corrupt politicians more power while ranting about politicians who have too much power.
> 
> Come to think of it, I would love it if you could explain the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another diversion. Keep them coming on schedule.
Click to expand...


That's a convenient way to dodge an argument.  Call it a diversion.

I guess that looks less suspect than jamming your fingers in your ears and going, "La la la la!  La la la la!" like the Vancomb lady.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Dot Com said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have two parties that merely take turns at the trough. Sad. Both of them work for the same people as well  the ones who can afford lobbyists. They also control who & who cannot run or participate in debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties are bad.  Horribly bad, but progressivism is a disease that must not be allowed to infect this country.  If progressives are able to baffle the masses the bloodshed will be worse than was ever visited on the Russians and German Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hyperbole?  What is it w/ rw'ers and calling for revolutionary rhetoric if their ideology isn't implemented? Also, last I heard, ideologies aren't against the law. I can run for an office based on almost any ideology I can think of tomorrow and it isn't illegal. I'm also a gun-owning vet BUT a Progressive. Stop w/ the broad-brushing.
Click to expand...


I'm not seeing any revolutionary hyperbole in the post you've quoted.  The fact that he implied that progressivism shouldn't be allowed to infect the country doesn't necessitate violent or revolutionary action.

Isn't it totally plausible that what he meant is that those of us who disagree with progressivism need to do whatever is necessary to educate our culture regarding progressivism's perceived evils?

Did you simply miss this potential explanation, or are you one of those Democrats who knows what people are -really- thinking?


----------



## whitehall

"End the bias" by dropping out? How much sense does that make? Anybody can register independent and every American can vote based on their intellect and awareness of the issues. Why organize a negative political organization?


----------



## westwall

Dot Com said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have two parties that merely take turns at the trough. Sad. Both of them work for the same people as well  the ones who can afford lobbyists. They also control who & who cannot run or participate in debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties are bad.  Horribly bad, but progressivism is a disease that must not be allowed to infect this country.  If progressives are able to baffle the masses the bloodshed will be worse than was ever visited on the Russians and German Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hyperbole?  What is it w/ rw'ers and calling for revolutionary rhetoric if their ideology isn't implemented? Also, last I heard, ideologies aren't against the law. I can run for an office based on almost any ideology I can think of tomorrow and it isn't illegal. I'm also a gun-owning vet BUT a Progressive. Stop w/ the broad-brushing.
Click to expand...








Hyperbole?  Not hardly.  Try history bub.  I am in favor of a good mix of both liberal and capitalistic ideals in my country.  When either side gets too much control the PEOPLE are harmed.  Anti-party and progressives in general are extremists.  You show me any country where extremism has been beneficial to the PEOPLE.

Go ahead, I dare you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

whitehall said:


> "End the bias" by dropping out? How much sense does that make? Anybody can register independent and every American can vote based on their intellect and awareness of the issues. Why organize a negative political organization?



Don't be fooled he supports the Liberals, thus the democratic party. he is just trying to convince conservatives to drop out. Or maybe you can find a post or thread by him where he has ever attacked cajoled or made fun of ANY liberal policies attitudes or positions? he has been asked to link to any and never has managed to do it.

In fact in most threads when confronted with his failure to actually be against all the parties he usually runs away.


----------



## BobPlumb

whitehall said:


> "End the bias" by dropping out? How much sense does that make? Anybody can register independent and every American can vote based on their intellect and awareness of the issues. Why organize a negative political organization?



He can name the organization the Anti-Party Party.


----------



## whitehall

BobPlumb said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "End the bias" by dropping out? How much sense does that make? Anybody can register independent and every American can vote based on their intellect and awareness of the issues. Why organize a negative political organization?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can name the organization the Anti-Party Party.
Click to expand...


What can you say about the premise? Yeah, right ....freaking anti-party is the way to go ....and then what do you do?


----------



## CorvusRexus

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you attack my position and then take my position as someone who is against UNNECESSARY war and UNNECESSARY spending.
> 
> You are new to the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> My position is that government is evil, and needs to be restrained. Your position is that it is good and that we need to give it more power. The fact that you cl;aim to be independent is completely irrelevant to me, you are pro government, and live for everything I oppose.
> 
> I have been thinking about this for over 40 years, this is not new to me. I have dealt with people like you before, and will again, you are just rehashing the same things we discussed after we watched the hippies become the man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have.
> 
> To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.
Click to expand...


Actually, the Constitution embraces a just government that respects it and the people while remaining within its confines. And it is the people's duty to understand their rights so they can shove them down the government's throat.


----------



## CorvusRexus

westwall said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties are bad.  Horribly bad, but progressivism is a disease that must not be allowed to infect this country.  If progressives are able to baffle the masses the bloodshed will be worse than was ever visited on the Russians and German Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole?  What is it w/ rw'ers and calling for revolutionary rhetoric if their ideology isn't implemented? Also, last I heard, ideologies aren't against the law. I can run for an office based on almost any ideology I can think of tomorrow and it isn't illegal. I'm also a gun-owning vet BUT a Progressive. Stop w/ the broad-brushing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole?  Not hardly.  Try history bub.  I am in favor of a good mix of both liberal and capitalistic ideals in my country.  When either side gets too much control the PEOPLE are harmed.  Anti-party and progressives in general are extremists.  You show me any country where extremism has been beneficial to the PEOPLE.
> 
> Go ahead, I dare you.
Click to expand...


You could make the point the Continental Army was made up of extremists, and the US benefited.


----------



## AntiParty

Not2BSubjugated said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government isn't "Evil"
> 
> Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.
> 
> Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution?  Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!
> 
> Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right?  HOLY SHIT!
> 
> LMFAO!
Click to expand...


Where did I say we need to give politicians more power? Never did man. I stand against Citizens United.


----------



## AntiParty

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government isn't "Evil"
> 
> Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.
> 
> Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.
Click to expand...


If you don't agree with him, he will attack. He's the only person that is correct in America! LOL. 

He doesn't even know how many things we agree on because he's probably seen me not agree with  him on a topic or two. It's pathetic.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress and the President are doing bad is one thing to say. "Government is bad" is a totally different thing to say.
> 
> Congress and the President work for We The People.
> 
> Government is a good thing.
> 
> We The People are failing because of monetary interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I can explain this to you using small words.
> 
> The use of force to accomplish your goals is wrong. Using the government to accomplish your goals is using force. Forcing people to do things just because you can is evil. Ergo, government is evil.
Click to expand...


You bring up a good topic. Using force to install rules. 

When debating Liberty there is a question that always has to be asked. 

"Necessity vs. Risk"

I'm sure you are mad right now because you probably think Liberty is Freedom and we need it no matter what!

There are HUNDREDS of examples but I always discuss Biker Helmets, because Bikers are generally Libertarians.  Let's discuss the helmet "Liberty". 

What does the Biker gain? Freedom of riding a motorcycle without a helmet. So tough! 

What is the risk? The biker is very likely to lay the bike over when it hits an onslaught of things that aren't predictable. 

So the *gain* may be Freedom but the *risk* is an entire family that has to visit you in the hospital when you are on the vent in critical condition driving up everyone's healthcare costs. You have now "infringed" the Liberty of your family members and the people in your healthcare network because you were too stupid to make a common sense decision. 
*
Risk vs. Necessity*.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians, banks and Corporations get away with murder.
> 
> The people suffer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you support laws that enable the very thing you say you want to end. What does that make you?
Click to expand...


What laws are those kiddo..


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diversions?
> 
> The law challenged in the Citizens United made it illegal for anyone to spend money on ads that said negative things about politicians during an election. According to the government, this would have even enabled them to ban books. Funny thing, it didn't actually apply to incumbent politicians, just normal people.
> 
> If you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that AntiParty is the one that brought up Citizens United, I was just attempting to get him to explain, again, why he thinks it is permissible to restrict free speech in order to give corrupt politicians more power while ranting about politicians who have too much power.
> 
> Come to think of it, I would love it if you could explain the same thing.
Click to expand...


Oh, I absolutely stand against Citizens United lol! It seems you don't know what Citizens United actually is.........

Citizens United is what originally stated money is speech.  What ever Fox News told you about banning books is just garbage media, or maybe you just made that up. 

YOU  seem to be the one that is standing for the very thing you hate.

I say it all the time though and here it is again. Why do Right Wingers ONLY read the title of things! Patriot act, anti-outsourcing bill, Operation Iranian Freedom, Citizens United..........Just because the name is good or bad has not relevance to the actual bill! Read the Bill for god sakes!


----------



## AntiParty

whitehall said:


> "End the bias" by dropping out? How much sense does that make? Anybody can register independent and every American can vote based on their intellect and awareness of the issues. Why organize a negative political organization?



If you have seen America lately, you would notice that EVERY party is purchased by $ and don't represent the people. You would see that people submit to platforms and argue for things they wouldn't necessarily argue for, but they do because they can relate more to that platform. Yet all platforms have one common link. Corporations. 

I am simply saying THINK FOR YOURSELF. Not for the platform that is closest to your opinion. 

It's strange how many attacks you get when you tell people to think for themselves today. It's an embarrassment to the USA.


----------



## AntiParty

westwall said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, both parties are bad.  Horribly bad, but progressivism is a disease that must not be allowed to infect this country.  If progressives are able to baffle the masses the bloodshed will be worse than was ever visited on the Russians and German Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole?  What is it w/ rw'ers and calling for revolutionary rhetoric if their ideology isn't implemented? Also, last I heard, ideologies aren't against the law. I can run for an office based on almost any ideology I can think of tomorrow and it isn't illegal. I'm also a gun-owning vet BUT a Progressive. Stop w/ the broad-brushing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole?  Not hardly.  Try history bub.  I am in favor of a good mix of both liberal and capitalistic ideals in my country.  When either side gets too much control the PEOPLE are harmed.  Anti-party and progressives in general are extremists.  You show me any country where extremism has been beneficial to the PEOPLE.
> 
> Go ahead, I dare you.
Click to expand...


I stopped reading at "Liberal and Capitalistic"..........The majority of Left Wingers are Capitalists and the majority of Liberals are Republicans. But I use the words by definitions. 

Most Left Wingers notice the flaws in Capitalism. It doesn't mean they are all against it. The Right tends to see it as an attack on Capitalism and wants to attack them for it instead of fixing the flaws. It's like someone telling you that your motor isn't functioning properly and you put sugar in the gas tank , boy you showed them. 

I've met very few Left Wingers that stand for what Fox news says they are. Most of them have guns and brains.


----------



## eagle1462010

Why don't you make a list of your beliefs for all to see, and stop your trolling..................

Mr. mouthpiece for the left.


----------



## AntiParty

RetiredGySgt said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "End the bias" by dropping out? How much sense does that make? Anybody can register independent and every American can vote based on their intellect and awareness of the issues. Why organize a negative political organization?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be fooled he supports the Liberals, thus the democratic party. he is just trying to convince conservatives to drop out. Or maybe you can find a post or thread by him where he has ever attacked cajoled or made fun of ANY liberal policies attitudes or positions? he has been asked to link to any and never has managed to do it.
> 
> In fact in most threads when confronted with his failure to actually be against all the parties he usually runs away.
Click to expand...


So the posts where I'm discussing my torn opinion on whether to vote for Rand Paul vs. Chris Christie won't do?

People like you should read instead of hate. You can't learn anything by hating. In fact my blood is boiling over with hatred making me want to vote for the Left because the Right is so intolerant of free thinking. But I am stronger than the small brains and want what is best for America.


----------



## AntiParty

CorvusRexus said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again.
> 
> My position is that government is evil, and needs to be restrained. Your position is that it is good and that we need to give it more power. The fact that you cl;aim to be independent is completely irrelevant to me, you are pro government, and live for everything I oppose.
> 
> I have been thinking about this for over 40 years, this is not new to me. I have dealt with people like you before, and will again, you are just rehashing the same things we discussed after we watched the hippies become the man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have.
> 
> To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Constitution embraces a just government that respects it and the people while remaining within its confines. And it is the people's duty to understand their rights so they can shove them down the government's throat.
Click to expand...


So you added the word "just" to my statement and think you are correcting me?


----------



## AntiParty

eagle1462010 said:


> Why don't you make a list of your beliefs for all to see, and stop your trolling..................
> 
> Mr. mouthpiece for the left.



It would have nothing to do with the OP kiddo. 

The OP is about THINK FOR YOURSELF ON EVERY TOPIC. Why can you not understand that?


----------



## eagle1462010

AntiParty said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you make a list of your beliefs for all to see, and stop your trolling..................
> 
> Mr. mouthpiece for the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have nothing to do with the OP kiddo.
> 
> The OP is about THINK FOR YOURSELF ON EVERY TOPIC. Why can you not understand that?
Click to expand...


Why can't you understand that I think your anti party agenda is BS.


----------



## AntiParty

eagle1462010 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you make a list of your beliefs for all to see, and stop your trolling..................
> 
> Mr. mouthpiece for the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have nothing to do with the OP kiddo.
> 
> The OP is about THINK FOR YOURSELF ON EVERY TOPIC. Why can you not understand that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you understand that I think your anti party agenda is BS.
Click to expand...


I understand your perspective. You don't understand mine. But thanks for all of that factual information troll.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lol


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diversions?
> 
> The law challenged in the Citizens United made it illegal for anyone to spend money on ads that said negative things about politicians during an election. According to the government, this would have even enabled them to ban books. Funny thing, it didn't actually apply to incumbent politicians, just normal people.
> 
> If you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that AntiParty is the one that brought up Citizens United, I was just attempting to get him to explain, again, why he thinks it is permissible to restrict free speech in order to give corrupt politicians more power while ranting about politicians who have too much power.
> 
> Come to think of it, I would love it if you could explain the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I absolutely stand against Citizens United lol! It seems you don't know what Citizens United actually is.........
> 
> Citizens United is what originally stated money is speech.  What ever Fox News told you about banning books is just garbage media, or maybe you just made that up.
> 
> YOU  seem to be the one that is standing for the very thing you hate.
> 
> I say it all the time though and here it is again. Why do Right Wingers ONLY read the title of things! Patriot act, anti-outsourcing bill, Operation Iranian Freedom, Citizens United..........Just because the name is good or bad has not relevance to the actual bill! Read the Bill for god sakes!
Click to expand...


I agree that the name of a bill doesn't mean -shit- about what's actually in it.

I find it funny that you recognize this, but when it comes to "conservatives", you automatically assume that the English definition of the label defines their philosophy.

Likewise, you feel that the implications of the word "progress" are what defines someone who is a "progressive".

Labels don't define bills, but they -do- define political movements?  Gotcha.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government isn't "Evil"
> 
> Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.
> 
> Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution?  Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!
> 
> Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right?  HOLY SHIT!
> 
> LMFAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say we need to give politicians more power? Never did man. I stand against Citizens United.
Click to expand...


You never say it outright, but you imply it often.  For instance, look at the very post that I quoted.

"The people need to decipher what is best for the country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians."  The obvious implication is that the people need to decide on how to regulate the control that corporations exert over politicians.

Once the people decide on how to regulate this, they empower politicians to enforce that regulation.  When you empower politicians to regulate, you increase the amount of power they are able to sell to their billionaire overlords.

You also make the argument about motorcycle helmets, and how forcing people to wear them decreases their risk and, by some leap of logic that I still can't follow, increases the "liberty" of their families (I'm still not sure how you define liberty, as you've said it's different from freedom.  You'll have to expound on what you mean by that and where you acquired your definition of liberty).

Your implication there is that, for the greater good, the government (politicians) should be empowered to regulate individual behaviors that, while victimless (I don't victimize anybody by smashing my head in a motorcycle accident), are risky to the individual acting.  You're empowering politicians to decide what safety equipment I need to purchase to protect me from myself.

Now, I'm making a bit of a leap here regarding your beliefs, but I did notice on the "should people without children be forced to pay more" thread you said that they should, because they aren't having children to support their social security and medicare down the road (which is already bullshit, because everyone pays into both of those things their whole lives.  Why do they also have to have a kid paying in before they're given back the shit that was taken out of their checks all their lives?  Different argument, I'll stay on topic).  This implies that, in the case of helmets, you'd probably argue that, because some of those motorcyclists can't afford their own medical bills, they would be victimizing society at large with their medical bills.  That, in turn, implies that you feel it perfectly just that the government forces us to pay for each other's medical expenses.

Rather than leaving people free to fuck their own heads up on motorcycles, you feel it just that the government force us to pay for the broken headed idiots and then fine them when they risk their own health.  You want to empower government to force people to buy safety equipment to protect them from their own choices, and you don't see how this is tantamount to wanting to give politicians the very power that you lament their propensity to sell to the highest bidder?

Holy shit.  Do you not even understand the nature of your own philosophy?  You do, indeed, value a powerful and intrusive government, but somehow manage to reconcile this with the acknowledgement that politicians will sell their power and ability to intrude.


----------



## KokomoJojo

yeh get the anti party movement to take hold and it will morph into the 2 issue system in a 1000 issue venue.


----------



## KokomoJojo

Not2BSubjugated said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution?  Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!
> 
> Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right?  HOLY SHIT!
> 
> LMFAO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say we need to give politicians more power? Never did man. I stand against Citizens United.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never say it outright, but you imply it often.  For instance, look at the very post that I quoted.
> 
> *"The people need to decipher what is best for the country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians."  *The obvious implication is that the people need to decide on how to regulate the control that corporations exert over politicians.
> *
> Once the people decide on how to regulate this, they empower politicians to enforce that regulation.*  When you empower politicians to regulate, you increase the amount of power they are able to sell to their billionaire overlords.
> 
> You also make the argument about motorcycle helmets, and how forcing people to wear them decreases their risk and, by some leap of logic that I still can't follow, increases the "liberty" of their families (I'm still not sure how you define liberty, as you've said it's different from freedom.  You'll have to expound on what you mean by that and where you acquired your definition of liberty).
> 
> Your implication there is that, for the greater good, the government (politicians) should be empowered to regulate individual behaviors that, while victimless (I don't victimize anybody by smashing my head in a motorcycle accident), are risky to the individual acting.  You're empowering politicians to decide what safety equipment I need to purchase to protect me from myself.
> 
> Now, I'm making a bit of a leap here regarding your beliefs, but I did notice on the "should people without children be forced to pay more" thread you said that they should, because they aren't having children to support their social security and medicare down the road (which is already bullshit, because everyone pays into both of those things their whole lives.  Why do they also have to have a kid paying in before they're given back the shit that was taken out of their checks all their lives?  Different argument, I'll stay on topic).  This implies that, in the case of helmets, you'd probably argue that, because some of those motorcyclists can't afford their own medical bills, they would be victimizing society at large with their medical bills.  That, in turn, implies that you feel it perfectly just that the government forces us to pay for each other's medical expenses.
> 
> Rather than leaving people free to fuck their own heads up on motorcycles, you feel it just that the government force us to pay for the broken headed idiots and then fine them when they risk their own health.  You want to empower government to force people to buy safety equipment to protect them from their own choices, and you don't see how this is tantamount to wanting to give politicians the very power that you lament their propensity to sell to the highest bidder?
> 
> Holy shit.  Do you not even understand the nature of your own philosophy?  You do, indeed, value a powerful and intrusive government, but somehow manage to reconcile this with the acknowledgement that politicians will sell their power and ability to intrude.
Click to expand...



show me one, just one fundamental amendment that the people at large voted on?  The states do the voting without the people.  "We the States" do hereby.....blah blah blah....

The problem is the system is not set up that way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government isn't "Evil"
> 
> Government today is trying to make it in the $ game America is today. (because so many back citizens united, ironically the same that hate government) The people need to decipher what is best for the Country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians.
> 
> Never listen to politicians. Only research what Corporations are donating to them and you will understand every lie they are telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution?  Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!
> 
> Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right?  HOLY SHIT!
> 
> LMFAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say we need to give politicians more power? Never did man. I stand against Citizens United.
Click to expand...


If you oppose Citizens United you oppose giving the little guy an opportunity to speak out against politicians, that means you are for giving them more power. You really should dig into the facts before you declare yourself the master of the debate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because laws that protect incumbent politicians are good for the people, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't agree with him, he will attack. He's the only person that is correct in America! LOL.
> 
> He doesn't even know how many things we agree on because he's probably seen me not agree with  him on a topic or two. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...


I am not the guy that said he is never wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress and the President are doing bad is one thing to say. "Government is bad" is a totally different thing to say.
> 
> Congress and the President work for We The People.
> 
> Government is a good thing.
> 
> We The People are failing because of monetary interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I can explain this to you using small words.
> 
> The use of force to accomplish your goals is wrong. Using the government to accomplish your goals is using force. Forcing people to do things just because you can is evil. Ergo, government is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bring up a good topic. Using force to install rules.
> 
> When debating Liberty there is a question that always has to be asked.
> 
> "Necessity vs. Risk"
> 
> I'm sure you are mad right now because you probably think Liberty is Freedom and we need it no matter what!
> 
> There are HUNDREDS of examples but I always discuss Biker Helmets, because Bikers are generally Libertarians.  Let's discuss the helmet "Liberty".
> 
> What does the Biker gain? Freedom of riding a motorcycle without a helmet. So tough!
> 
> What is the risk? The biker is very likely to lay the bike over when it hits an onslaught of things that aren't predictable.
> 
> So the *gain* may be Freedom but the *risk* is an entire family that has to visit you in the hospital when you are on the vent in critical condition driving up everyone's healthcare costs. You have now "infringed" the Liberty of your family members and the people in your healthcare network because you were too stupid to make a common sense decision.
> *
> Risk vs. Necessity*.
Click to expand...


Wow, that was almost an intelligent attempt to address the issues.

Almost.

Let's start this by looking at some definitions.



> Liberty
> 1*:*  the quality or state of being free:
> _a_ *:*  the power to do as one pleases
> _b_ *:*  freedom from physical restraint
> _c_ *:*  freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
> _d_ *:*  the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
> _e_ *:*  the power of choice
> 
> 2_a_ *:*  a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant *:* privilege
> _b_ *:*  permission especially to go freely within specified limits
> 
> 3*:*  an action going beyond normal limits: as
> _a_ *:*  a breach of etiquette or propriety *:* familiarity
> _b_ *:* risk, chance <took foolish _liberties_ with his health>
> _c_ *:*  a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice
> _d_ *:*  a distortion of fact
> 
> 4*:*  a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours





> Freedom
> 1: the quality or state of being free: as
> _a_ *:*  the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
> _b_ *:* liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another *:* independence
> _c_ *:*  the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <_freedom_ from care>
> _d_ *:* ease, facility <spoke the language with _freedom_>
> _e_ *:*  the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with _freedom_>
> _f_ *:*  improper familiarity
> _g_ *:*  boldness of conception or execution
> _h_ *:*  unrestricted use <gave him the _freedom_ of their home>
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a political right


Gotta admit, I didn't see that one coming, liberty is the quality or state of being free, while freedom is the quality or state of being free. That means that you are wrong, liberty and freedom actually are the same thing.

As usual, you are asking the wrong question. The question is never what does the individual gain from government, it is what does he lose.

What does the biker lose? The right to legally exercise his inherent ability to make up his own mind. What does the biker gain? Ultimately, he gets a gun pointed at his head telling him what to do.

Is there a risk in not wearing a helmet? Of course there is, everyone knows that, but it is his choice, not yours. You do not have the right to tell any adult how to live their lives, the idea that you can is fundamentally evil. It is the same mindset that gave us Castro, Duvalier, Gaddafi, Ceausescu, Hitler, Hussein, Mussolini, Stalin, Tito, and all the other tyrants throughout history. It also gave us slavery, because everyone knows that those people cannot take care of themselves.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here comes the diversions. You must have hit a nerve AntiParty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diversions?
> 
> The law challenged in the Citizens United made it illegal for anyone to spend money on ads that said negative things about politicians during an election. According to the government, this would have even enabled them to ban books. Funny thing, it didn't actually apply to incumbent politicians, just normal people.
> 
> If you go back and actually read the thread, you will see that AntiParty is the one that brought up Citizens United, I was just attempting to get him to explain, again, why he thinks it is permissible to restrict free speech in order to give corrupt politicians more power while ranting about politicians who have too much power.
> 
> Come to think of it, I would love it if you could explain the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I absolutely stand against Citizens United lol! It seems you don't know what Citizens United actually is.........
> 
> Citizens United is what originally stated money is speech.  What ever Fox News told you about banning books is just garbage media, or maybe you just made that up.
> 
> YOU  seem to be the one that is standing for the very thing you hate.
> 
> I say it all the time though and here it is again. Why do Right Wingers ONLY read the title of things! Patriot act, anti-outsourcing bill, Operation Iranian Freedom, Citizens United..........Just because the name is good or bad has not relevance to the actual bill! Read the Bill for god sakes!
Click to expand...


Wow, wrong again. 

FYI, it was Buckley v Vallejo that said that money is speech.

Buckley v. Valeo | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

As for banning books, that came straight from the mouth of Kagan's deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart during oral arguments.



> For example, Stewart was asked by Chief Justice John Roberts what would happen if a corporation were to publish a 500-page book discussing the American political system which concluded with a single sentence endorsing a particular candidate. Kagans deputy answered that such an endorsement would constitute express advocacy and therefore the corporation could only fund the publication of the book through a political action committee. And if they didnt, you could ban it? asked the chief justice. If they didnt, we could prohibit publication of the book, Stewart replied.
> Even the most liberal justices, usually the most willing to curtail political free speech, seemed a little troubled. Justice David Souter asked what would happen if a labor union paid an author to write a book advocating the election of a particular candidate and then submitted the manuscript to Random House, which then agreed to publish it. The deputy solicitor general replied that he was unsure whether there would be a basis for suppressing such a book, but clearly stated that the labor unions conduct would be prohibited.
> Later, the argument turned to other forms of media that the government would have the right to censor. The implications of the administrations position were so enormous that Justice Antonin Scalia seemed almost incredulous. He sarcastically interrupted to say Im a little disoriented here, Mr. Stewart. We are dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not; the one that I remember which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press? Thats what were interpreting here? With no apparent irony, Stewart replied, Thats correct.



Will Elena Kagan Allow Books to be Banned? - Reason.com

Come back when you can debate me using actual facts, not stuff you make up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole?  What is it w/ rw'ers and calling for revolutionary rhetoric if their ideology isn't implemented? Also, last I heard, ideologies aren't against the law. I can run for an office based on almost any ideology I can think of tomorrow and it isn't illegal. I'm also a gun-owning vet BUT a Progressive. Stop w/ the broad-brushing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole?  Not hardly.  Try history bub.  I am in favor of a good mix of both liberal and capitalistic ideals in my country.  When either side gets too much control the PEOPLE are harmed.  Anti-party and progressives in general are extremists.  You show me any country where extremism has been beneficial to the PEOPLE.
> 
> Go ahead, I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at "Liberal and Capitalistic"..........The majority of Left Wingers are Capitalists and the majority of Liberals are Republicans. But I use the words by definitions.
> 
> Most Left Wingers notice the flaws in Capitalism. It doesn't mean they are all against it. The Right tends to see it as an attack on Capitalism and wants to attack them for it instead of fixing the flaws. It's like someone telling you that your motor isn't functioning properly and you put sugar in the gas tank , boy you showed them.
> 
> I've met very few Left Wingers that stand for what Fox news says they are. Most of them have guns and brains.
Click to expand...



All the flaws in capitalism come from the same place your belief that Citizens United declared that money is equal to speech.

In case you missed the point, that means they all exist only inside your head.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you make a list of your beliefs for all to see, and stop your trolling..................
> 
> Mr. mouthpiece for the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have nothing to do with the OP kiddo.
> 
> The OP is about THINK FOR YOURSELF ON EVERY TOPIC. Why can you not understand that?
Click to expand...


When do you plan to start thinking for yourself instead of blaming all the facts that you don't like on Fox?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Not2BSubjugated said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution?  Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!
> 
> Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right?  HOLY SHIT!
> 
> LMFAO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say we need to give politicians more power? Never did man. I stand against Citizens United.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never say it outright, but you imply it often.  For instance, look at the very post that I quoted.
> 
> "The people need to decipher what is best for the country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians."  The obvious implication is that the people need to decide on how to regulate the control that corporations exert over politicians.
> 
> Once the people decide on how to regulate this, they empower politicians to enforce that regulation.  When you empower politicians to regulate, you increase the amount of power they are able to sell to their billionaire overlords.
> 
> You also make the argument about motorcycle helmets, and how forcing people to wear them decreases their risk and, by some leap of logic that I still can't follow, increases the "liberty" of their families (I'm still not sure how you define liberty, as you've said it's different from freedom.  You'll have to expound on what you mean by that and where you acquired your definition of liberty).
> 
> Your implication there is that, for the greater good, the government (politicians) should be empowered to regulate individual behaviors that, while victimless (I don't victimize anybody by smashing my head in a motorcycle accident), are risky to the individual acting.  You're empowering politicians to decide what safety equipment I need to purchase to protect me from myself.
> 
> Now, I'm making a bit of a leap here regarding your beliefs, but I did notice on the "should people without children be forced to pay more" thread you said that they should, because they aren't having children to support their social security and medicare down the road (which is already bullshit, because everyone pays into both of those things their whole lives.  Why do they also have to have a kid paying in before they're given back the shit that was taken out of their checks all their lives?  Different argument, I'll stay on topic).  This implies that, in the case of helmets, you'd probably argue that, because some of those motorcyclists can't afford their own medical bills, they would be victimizing society at large with their medical bills.  That, in turn, implies that you feel it perfectly just that the government forces us to pay for each other's medical expenses.
> 
> Rather than leaving people free to fuck their own heads up on motorcycles, you feel it just that the government force us to pay for the broken headed idiots and then fine them when they risk their own health.  You want to empower government to force people to buy safety equipment to protect them from their own choices, and you don't see how this is tantamount to wanting to give politicians the very power that you lament their propensity to sell to the highest bidder?
> 
> Holy shit.  Do you not even understand the nature of your own philosophy?  You do, indeed, value a powerful and intrusive government, but somehow manage to reconcile this with the acknowledgement that politicians will sell their power and ability to intrude.
Click to expand...


You are about to discover the wonders of a mind without bias that blames everything it doesn't like on Fox News.


----------



## gnarlylove

AntiParty said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.
> 
> The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.
> 
> The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.
> 
> My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.
Click to expand...


Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).

Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gnarlylove said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.
> 
> The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.
> 
> The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.
> 
> My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).
> 
> Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.
Click to expand...


He is a liberal supporter of the Democratic party. he is a liar and a fraud. He also proclaims himself smarter then anyone else and usually runs away when confronted with his own ignorance.


----------



## gnarlylove

RetiredGySgt said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.
> 
> The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.
> 
> The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.
> 
> My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).
> 
> Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is a liberal supporter of the Democratic party. he is a liar and a fraud. He also proclaims himself smarter then anyone else and usually runs away when confronted with his own ignorance.
Click to expand...


Who is "he?" Anti-party? Whoever it is I'm not likely to believe your hate speech as long as you provide no reasons for believing he is a fraud and liar. Besides, who cares about the other end of the computer? Are we too childish to discuss ideas and put aside personal opinions of preference and hatred? If we cannot do this, we cannot carry an intelligent conversation.

As I'm sure you're eager to label people, I am not a supporter of Democratic party, liberals in America or anything of the sort. Neither sides makes sense and continually lies.


----------



## Crystalclear

I do not consider myself to be a liberal (a libertarian, so pretty liberal on many issues that are not fiscal), but there is one sort of politics I started despising more and more since I first visited this board: conservatism. It is just the hypocrisy, ignorance, total unrational arguments and just some idiot politic views.


----------



## gnarlylove

Crystalclear said:


> I do not consider myself to be a liberal (a libertarian, so pretty liberal on many issues that are not fiscal), but there is one sort of politics I started despising more and more since I first visited this board: conservatism. It is just the hypocrisy, ignorance, total unrational arguments and just some idiot politic views.



I like what you say on despising conservatism. Sadly this term has been stripped of its meaning and people who are proto-fascists call themselves conservatives. Conservatism exists today, but we call it the Democratic party. But proto-fascists do not represent the party. The party represents the super rich. It's hard to rally support in this scenario since policies for the super-rich are often negatively correlated to how it effects the mass of people. So what they do is mobilize enough people through divisive political topics called wedge issues (look it up, it's a interesting read). Wedge issues are abortion, gun rights and the like as if those were the most important issues of our time. And don't get me wrong, they are to many people, but when you're focused on gun rights, you miss the big picture about how the government operates day in and day out (along with crony capitalism) to suck the mass of people dry. It's a hard manueaver but as long as you keep uncritical goofs focused on wedge issues, you can keep the attention away from the really important stuff that's going on in their name. The only way to believe Fox news (or even MSNBC for that matter) is to shut down the critical thinking faculty in the human brain, never listen to other sources and just absorb the narrative of lies mingled with loosely related facts.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is NOTHING like the Libertarian party.
> 
> The Libertarian party is more like the Amish. They shun you if you don't believe in everything they believe in. It's very cultish. I'm sure many, MANY Republicans have heard this before. They aren't ready to accept the extremes of the Libertarian party so they are labeled as a "neo-con" or a "liberal" and part of the problem.
> 
> The Libertarian party is one of the biggest jokes out there. Every party should focus on Liberty. But to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party. Libertarians openly state that they should be able to own RPG's and carry them in a mall. Who has the Liberty in that situation? I feel more liberated in the Country we live in today where I don't have to worry about some nut bag carrying an RPG in a mall or driving a tank.
> 
> My stance is NOTHING like the least thought out stance in political parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).
> 
> Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.
Click to expand...


So we need a unification of the masses so that the US can stop revoking their responsibility to obey international laws?

Holy shit!

Based on what is it our responsibility to obey the laws of foreign politicians who don't represent us?  Why is it lawlessness if we recognize -our- law over the law of these international bodies?  What is it that gives them factual authority over us, and why are you implying that we owe "international law" our loyalty?


----------



## gnarlylove

This is precisely the point. We don't have discussions like this. Mainstream media offers few chances for critical questions like yours. We need not just your question, but we need the larger question of what should be a law and what should not be. But that requires discussion. From what I gather, Anti-party is suggesting we do exactly this.

It's a completely different matter to go about answering your specific question properly and in context. My first contextualization is to here what you think of the UN Humans Rights Declaration? Do they make sense to you or do they sound too far fetched. If so, why? I specifically would like you to at least read Aritcle, 4, 6, 11, and 25. They are one sentence declarations or a paragraph at most.

If these declarations make sense to you, as they do to millions of people, nay, billions, then it makes sense we adopt them. It is blindingly obvious the US disregards these Human Rights in many international campaigns it conducts each year as ratified by the US in 1948 before international bodies. We can freely read, assess and discuss these declarations in the hope of coming to a more clear understanding of human relations and ethics.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I joined the anti-party movement in 1963 when my fraternity threw me out for being late on my dues....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).
> 
> Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a liberal supporter of the Democratic party. he is a liar and a fraud. He also proclaims himself smarter then anyone else and usually runs away when confronted with his own ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "he?" Anti-party? Whoever it is I'm not likely to believe your hate speech as long as you provide no reasons for believing he is a fraud and liar. Besides, who cares about the other end of the computer? Are we too childish to discuss ideas and put aside personal opinions of preference and hatred? If we cannot do this, we cannot carry an intelligent conversation.
> 
> As I'm sure you're eager to label people, I am not a supporter of Democratic party, liberals in America or anything of the sort. Neither sides makes sense and continually lies.
Click to expand...


Read the thread. I pointed out that he was wrong about Citizens United and he accused me of getting all my information from Fox. Like you, AntiParty is a total hack.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> This is precisely the point. We don't have discussions like this. Mainstream media offers few chances for critical questions like yours. We need not just your question, but we need the larger question of what should be a law and what should not be. But that requires discussion. From what I gather, Anti-party is suggesting we do exactly this.
> 
> It's a completely different matter to go about answering your specific question properly and in context. My first contextualization is to here what you think of the UN Humans Rights Declaration? Do they make sense to you or do they sound too far fetched. If so, why? I specifically would like you to at least read Aritcle, 4, 6, 11, and 25. They are one sentence declarations or a paragraph at most.
> 
> If these declarations make sense to you, as they do to millions of people, nay, billions, then it makes sense we adopt them. It is blindingly obvious the US disregards these Human Rights in many international campaigns it conducts each year as ratified by the US in 1948 before international bodies. We can freely read, assess and discuss these declarations in the hope of coming to a more clear understanding of human relations and ethics.



There is nothing to discuss, anyone that writes laws that take away liberty is wrong.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gnarlylove said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said. Liberty comes with great responsibility. We've seen international law dismissed time and time again. These international rulings are largely sensible, of course to be taken on a case by case basis, and when they are abstained or rejected by the US, it carries significant ramifications for revoking responsibility and denying law. This must be combated by a unification of the masses, who can come from either side of the political spectrum (except fascist because intolerance is not to be tolerated).
> 
> Is the OP a serious movement with at least a website or are you starting the movement on USMB? Either way, cheers! We need to recognize we all live in the same world and regardless of our predilections, we have most everything in common. The differences are secondary and should not prevent us from rallying for justice where justice is applied to all, not just the downtrodden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a liberal supporter of the Democratic party. he is a liar and a fraud. He also proclaims himself smarter then anyone else and usually runs away when confronted with his own ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "he?" Anti-party? Whoever it is I'm not likely to believe your hate speech as long as you provide no reasons for believing he is a fraud and liar. Besides, who cares about the other end of the computer? Are we too childish to discuss ideas and put aside personal opinions of preference and hatred? If we cannot do this, we cannot carry an intelligent conversation.
> 
> As I'm sure you're eager to label people, I am not a supporter of Democratic party, liberals in America or anything of the sort. Neither sides makes sense and continually lies.
Click to expand...


Do your homework. Read his threads , notice how he not EVER questions the Liberal opinions, decisions or positions. I pointedly ask him several times to explain why his positions are all the same as Liberals and why he NEVER attacks, questions or calls to question a single Liberal policy idea or statement. The best he could do in rebuttal was that he is opposed to abortion.

More to the point EVERY single time I ask him to clarify why he has absolutely nothing to say about Liberals and their policies he runs away. And he stays away for several days till the question is lost in the background. Or he never comes back at all.

He claims he is opposed to all parties, yet the only party he actually attacks is the Republican party. The Tea party. NOT a single time has he voiced a single concern over liberal policy or positions. Further he lies. He makes outrageous claims and when called on them disappears.

Again do your home work look up his threads and read them. According to him he is smarter then anyone else here as well.

Don't believe me, do your homework and read his threads.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> There is nothing to discuss, anyone that writes laws that take away liberty is wrong.



So you think there should be no laws period? How can communities exist if they behave without regard for store policies to not steal? There must be some common agreement among a community in order to exist. A community is a gathering of people who have lowered the normal barrier of trust. People lower this barrier by engaging in civilized (i.e. lawful) exchanges with one another. Thus, there already exists constraints on human behavior in order to simply have a globalized capital exchange like we do. The barriers of trust must be so, that we trust one another not to do us harm and the way to do that is through agreed upon standards called statues or laws. So to think we should not discuss what laws is strikingly ignorant. There are laws that are good and these laws help maintain conditions of freedom (like agreeing no one should be allowed to kill another person). I agree that certain laws are bad and enable destructive tendencies to breed thereby taking away liberty. Laws are being passed and overturned on a regular basis and no civil society can function without them. To not discuss them is to close your eyes. Closing your eyes is a very stupid way to help create the conditions for human freedom.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing to discuss, anyone that writes laws that take away liberty is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think there should be no laws period? How can communities exist if they behave without regard for store policies to not steal? There must be some common agreement among a community in order to exist. A community is a gathering of people who have lowered the normal barrier of trust. People lower this barrier by engaging in civilized (i.e. lawful) exchanges with one another. Thus, there already exists constraints on human behavior in order to simply have a globalized capital exchange like we do. The barriers of trust must be so, that we trust one another not to do us harm and the way to do that is through agreed upon standards called statues or laws. So to think we should not discuss what laws is strikingly ignorant. There are laws that are good and these laws help maintain conditions of freedom (like agreeing no one should be allowed to kill another person). I agree that certain laws are bad and enable destructive tendencies to breed thereby taking away liberty. Laws are being passed and overturned on a regular basis and no civil society can function without them. To not discuss them is to close your eyes. Closing your eyes is a very stupid way to help create the conditions for human freedom.
Click to expand...


I must have missed the part where I said that you don't need laws. What I said is that there is nothing to discuss because anyone that writes laws that take away liberty is wrong. In response to this you blithered about laws against theft. If you want to be a thief, feel free, just expect to run into someone who thinks that killing thieves is justifiable at some point in your career.

Government is like fire, the smaller it is, the safer we are.


----------



## gnarlylove

So you think we should have laws then because we must have a bare minimum to operate a society, right? Do you still think we should not discuss what those bare minimum laws should be or do you want to contradict yourself and say we should discuss what those laws should be. So either we can fully accept the laws as they are and no question them or we can discuss and decide what laws work and benefit us?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> So you think we should have laws then because we must have a bare minimum to operate a society, right? Do you still think we should not discuss what those bare minimum laws should be or do you want to contradict yourself and say we should discuss what those laws should be. So either we can fully accept the laws as they are and no question them or we can discuss and decide what laws work and benefit us?



Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Is that the only way you can debate? Go back and read what I actually said, then feel free to come back and defend the OP.

Speaking of defending the OP, have you noticed that you are defending a thread that the OP deserted because I totally trashed his opinion? Isn't that a little strange for a person that said:



AntiParty said:


> The good side of being me is I openly accept  and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> The bad side of being me is when someone corrects me I'm morally  obligated to tell that person they were correct and I was wrong. This  use to happen a lot more, but not so much anymore. Because when you feel  shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want  to learn.



To say:



AntiParty said:


> My stance is always correct and FOR A REASON. I'm a REAL Patriot.





AntiParty said:


> Every party has flaws. I have no flaws because  my opinion is my own. You may not agree with my opinion but that's your  opinion. SINGLE TOPIC, SINGLE OPINION.





AntiParty said:


> Have you noticed that politics is opinion based?........(newbies)



Still want to know why everyone who interacts with him thinks he is a hack?


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should have laws then because we must have a bare minimum to operate a society, right? Do you still think we should not discuss what those bare minimum laws should be or do you want to contradict yourself and say we should discuss what those laws should be. So either we can fully accept the laws as they are and no question them or we can discuss and decide what laws work and benefit us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry you think the question of whether you think we should discuss laws or not is putting words in your mouth.

Maybe I'll ask it bluntly so you feel less inclined to take a cheap comment and dodge the obvious question:

Should we discuss laws or not? (Keep in mind about 5 posts ago you affirmed that "there is nothing to discuss" responding to a question when I said we need the discussion about what laws we should have).


----------



## whitehall

Let me get this straight, we know that nobody is required to join a political party but the post recommends that we all join a non-political party. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld joke, "it's a program about nothing".


----------



## gnarlylove

whitehall said:


> Let me get this straight, we know that nobody is required to join a political party but the post recommends that we all join a non-political party. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld joke, "it's a program about nothing".



In France they have a literal "anti-capitalist party." That doesn't mean its a party about nothing, they have made it real clear that they wish for an alternative to the current system.

Similarly, anti-party seems to represent a clear alternative to the obvious gridlock. It is a party that is against normal parliamentary procedures because they have not worked.

I'd say they do work because they were set up in 1776 to keep Democracy from working. The senate was introduced to be the representatives of the "wealthy of the nation" as he called it, and he meant land owners. He=main framer=Madison.

So yeah, why not develop an alternative system that works for the people instead of the wealth of the nation? In fact, a scientific study was done demonstrating this very fact. So I don't know why any idiot who isn't rich would want to participate in meaningless politics that has been shown to not correlate with their interests.
Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider


----------



## whitehall

gnarlylove said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, we know that nobody is required to join a political party but the post recommends that we all join a non-political party. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld joke, "it's a program about nothing".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In France they have a literal "anti-capitalist party." That doesn't mean its a party about nothing, they have made it real clear that they wish for an alternative to the current system.
> 
> Similarly, anti-party seems to represent a clear alternative to the obvious gridlock. It is a party that is against normal parliamentary procedures because they have not worked.
> 
> I'd say they do work because they were set up in 1776 to keep Democracy from working. The senate was introduced to be the representatives of the "wealthy of the nation" as he called it, and he meant land owners. He=main framer=Madison.
> 
> So yeah, why not develop an alternative system that works for the people instead of the wealth of the nation? In fact, a scientific study was done demonstrating this very fact. So I don't know why any idiot who isn't rich would want to participate in meaningless politics that has been shown to not correlate with their interests.
> Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider
Click to expand...


There you go. The post ain't about political parties, it's a smarmy rant against capitalism.


----------



## gnarlylove

whitehall said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, we know that nobody is required to join a political party but the post recommends that we all join a non-political party. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld joke, "it's a program about nothing".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In France they have a literal "anti-capitalist party." That doesn't mean its a party about nothing, they have made it real clear that they wish for an alternative to the current system.
> 
> Similarly, anti-party seems to represent a clear alternative to the obvious gridlock. It is a party that is against normal parliamentary procedures because they have not worked.
> 
> I'd say they do work because they were set up in 1776 to keep Democracy from working. The senate was introduced to be the representatives of the "wealthy of the nation" as he called it, and he meant land owners. He=main framer=Madison.
> 
> So yeah, why not develop an alternative system that works for the people instead of the wealth of the nation? In fact, a scientific study was done demonstrating this very fact. So I don't know why any idiot who isn't rich would want to participate in meaningless politics that has been shown to not correlate with their interests.
> Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go. The post ain't about political parties, it's a smarmy rant against capitalism.
Click to expand...


This is definitely about political parties and you would be making a joke to assert economic policy is a separate issue from policy. 

Do you think American politics listens to you? If so, how? It is clear that voting is not correlated to your interests unless you are funding campaigns. The study I posted sets out to discover if this is true, using data from 1982-2010.

Let me be clear: American politics does not correlate with the voices of the middle class and is negatively correlated to those at the bottom. This makes up the majority of human population in American society. How can Democracy exist when voting does not correlate to the interests of the majority of Americans? This is obviously an issue involving politics and economics.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should have laws then because we must have a bare minimum to operate a society, right? Do you still think we should not discuss what those bare minimum laws should be or do you want to contradict yourself and say we should discuss what those laws should be. So either we can fully accept the laws as they are and no question them or we can discuss and decide what laws work and benefit us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you think the question of whether you think we should discuss laws or not is putting words in your mouth.
> 
> Maybe I'll ask it bluntly so you feel less inclined to take a cheap comment and dodge the obvious question:
> 
> Should we discuss laws or not? (Keep in mind about 5 posts ago you affirmed that "there is nothing to discuss" responding to a question when I said we need the discussion about what laws we should have).
Click to expand...


I told you my position on that subject, and you misread it. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with the guy who can't understand my position, not me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, we know that nobody is required to join a political party but the post recommends that we all join a non-political party. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld joke, "it's a program about nothing".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In France they have a literal "anti-capitalist party." That doesn't mean its a party about nothing, they have made it real clear that they wish for an alternative to the current system.
> 
> Similarly, anti-party seems to represent a clear alternative to the obvious gridlock. It is a party that is against normal parliamentary procedures because they have not worked.
> 
> I'd say they do work because they were set up in 1776 to keep Democracy from working. The senate was introduced to be the representatives of the "wealthy of the nation" as he called it, and he meant land owners. He=main framer=Madison.
> 
> So yeah, why not develop an alternative system that works for the people instead of the wealth of the nation? In fact, a scientific study was done demonstrating this very fact. So I don't know why any idiot who isn't rich would want to participate in meaningless politics that has been shown to not correlate with their interests.
> Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider
Click to expand...


I already pointed out to you, in detail, why AntiParty is not about an alternative so much as he is about everyone agreeing with him. I guess you had as hard a time understanding that as you did my position on a discussion of laws.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> This is precisely the point. We don't have discussions like this. Mainstream media offers few chances for critical questions like yours. We need not just your question, but we need the larger question of what should be a law and what should not be. But that requires discussion. From what I gather, Anti-party is suggesting we do exactly this.
> 
> It's a completely different matter to go about answering your specific question properly and in context. My first contextualization is to here what you think of the UN Humans Rights Declaration? Do they make sense to you or do they sound too far fetched. If so, why? I specifically would like you to at least read Aritcle, 4, 6, 11, and 25. They are one sentence declarations or a paragraph at most.
> 
> If these declarations make sense to you, as they do to millions of people, nay, billions, then it makes sense we adopt them. It is blindingly obvious the US disregards these Human Rights in many international campaigns it conducts each year as ratified by the US in 1948 before international bodies. We can freely read, assess and discuss these declarations in the hope of coming to a more clear understanding of human relations and ethics.



LMFAO!

4 and 11 are great.  I don't like the person under the law thing in 6.  Seems like, given the kinda legalistic wordplay politicians use these days coupled with the fact that UN politicians are pretty typical in that respect, I could see 6 being used as justification to force open borders for everyone who signs onto this ridiculous document.

Yes, ridiculous, primarily because of 25.  Didn't read anymore after I got to that point.

25 and 4 directly contradict each other.  Amendment 25 is the right to food, housing, medical care, etc.  These are material things.

In the event that someone is unable or unwilling to provide those things for themselves, that implication in this right is that someone else is to provide these things -for- them.  Regardless of their will.  It's a right, so these things -must- be provided!

That means it's everyone's right to subjugate the will of those capable of providing them with their material rights, assuming they aren't providing themselves with those things.  In article 4, the document outlaws slavery, and then in article 25, the article says that slavery -will- be the norm when it's necessary to provide those things that are deemed necessary.

I oppose the "right" to any material thing.  Period.  There's also a whole list of other bullshit articles in this list to which I am diametrically opposed, as well as an entire gamete of reasons why I feel that the UN's proposed philosophies are anti-freedom and thus that we shouldn't sign onto -any- of their bullshit social treaties or allow them even a minor foothold of authority in our system.

Sovereignty or bust, bitches.  Fuck this international order.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> In France they have a literal "anti-capitalist party." That doesn't mean its a party about nothing, they have made it real clear that they wish for an alternative to the current system.
> 
> Similarly, anti-party seems to represent a clear alternative to the obvious gridlock. It is a party that is against normal parliamentary procedures because they have not worked.
> 
> I'd say they do work because they were set up in 1776 to keep Democracy from working. The senate was introduced to be the representatives of the "wealthy of the nation" as he called it, and he meant land owners. He=main framer=Madison.
> 
> So yeah, why not develop an alternative system that works for the people instead of the wealth of the nation? In fact, a scientific study was done demonstrating this very fact. So I don't know why any idiot who isn't rich would want to participate in meaningless politics that has been shown to not correlate with their interests.
> Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go. The post ain't about political parties, it's a smarmy rant against capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is definitely about political parties and you would be making a joke to assert economic policy is a separate issue from policy.
> 
> Do you think American politics listens to you? If so, how? It is clear that voting is not correlated to your interests unless you are funding campaigns. The study I posted sets out to discover if this is true, using data from 1982-2010.
> 
> Let me be clear: American politics does not correlate with the voices of the middle class and is negatively correlated to those at the bottom. This makes up the majority of human population in American society. How can Democracy exist when voting does not correlate to the interests of the majority of Americans? This is obviously an issue involving politics and economics.
Click to expand...


Wrong. 

Economics is not policy, economics just is. You can pretend to yourself that communism, socialism, and capitalism are all different ways of obtaining goals, but that would just indicate your inability to comprehend the actual subject to everyone else. In reality, they are different theories about how the world works. 

Communism postulates that the entire world runs best if everyone cooperates. There is supposed to be some type of balancing mechanism that automatically distributes resources based on need, and individuals somehow find a niche inside that system that best serves the collective need. The world doesn't work that way.

Socialism postulates that everyone in the world has identical abilities and that the natural result is that equal results is the natural outcome of anything. That is so absurd that I can't even figure out how it is supposed to work, but the defenders of the theory believe that rigid control of production and distribution will magically produce a world were everyone is interchangeable.

Capitalism postulates that different people have different abilities, and that competition is natural. Giving people freedom to compete, in theory, produces better results for everyone. Funny thing about freedom to compete, it also gives you freedom to cooperate.

I can produce thousands of examples in nature, thousands of years worth of observations, and an entire Internet worth of raw data to defend the economic theory we call capitalism. What, exactly, do you have to defend any alternative theory?


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you think the question of whether you think we should discuss laws or not is putting words in your mouth.
> 
> Maybe I'll ask it bluntly so you feel less inclined to take a cheap comment and dodge the obvious question:
> 
> Should we discuss laws or not? (Keep in mind about 5 posts ago you affirmed that "there is nothing to discuss" responding to a question when I said we need the discussion about what laws we should have).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you my position on that subject, and you misread it. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with the guy who can't understand my position, not me.
Click to expand...


I know that I'm learning everyday, as I hope you are. Since you have not been sufficiently clear for me, can you elaborate on what you meant by "there's nothing to discuss"  pretty please?


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Economics is not policy, economics just is.



If economics is not policy, then what is it? Are they decisions made by human beings (i.e. policy)? Are they physical laws? What are they? I really want to learn from you so please answer the question. I don't like it when you tell me I don't understand you and then withhold the chance for me to understand your position clearly by not explaining your position. I am being sincere and I hope you will choose to explain what economics is if it is not policy decisions made by human beings.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Economics is not policy, economics just is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If economics is not policy, then what is it? Are they decisions made by human beings (i.e. policy)? Are they physical laws? What are they? I really want to learn from you so please answer the question. I don't like it when you tell me I don't understand you and then withhold the chance for me to understand your position clearly by not explaining your position. I am being sincere and I hope you will choose to explain what economics is if it is not policy decisions made by human beings.
Click to expand...


Do you understand the concept of scientific method? Can you show me any data that contradicts the theory behind capitalism, or are you simply going to cry because the world doesn't work the way you want it to? Does the fact that some people make policy decisions based on the erroneous assumption that communism or socialism actually work somehow justify the destruction those decisions cause?

Take my advice, drop it, you got nothing.


----------



## gnarlylove

Not2BSubjugated said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is precisely the point. We don't have discussions like this. Mainstream media offers few chances for critical questions like yours. We need not just your question, but we need the larger question of what should be a law and what should not be. But that requires discussion. From what I gather, Anti-party is suggesting we do exactly this.
> 
> It's a completely different matter to go about answering your specific question properly and in context. My first contextualization is to here what you think of the UN Humans Rights Declaration? Do they make sense to you or do they sound too far fetched. If so, why? I specifically would like you to at least read Aritcle, 4, 6, 11, and 25. They are one sentence declarations or a paragraph at most.
> 
> If these declarations make sense to you, as they do to millions of people, nay, billions, then it makes sense we adopt them. It is blindingly obvious the US disregards these Human Rights in many international campaigns it conducts each year as ratified by the US in 1948 before international bodies. We can freely read, assess and discuss these declarations in the hope of coming to a more clear understanding of human relations and ethics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO!
> 
> 4 and 11 are great.  I don't like the person under the law thing in 6.  Seems like, given the kinda legalistic wordplay politicians use these days coupled with the fact that UN politicians are pretty typical in that respect, I could see 6 being used as justification to force open borders for everyone who signs onto this ridiculous document.
> 
> Yes, ridiculous, primarily because of 25.  Didn't read anymore after I got to that point.
> 
> 25 and 4 directly contradict each other.  Amendment 25 is the right to food, housing, medical care, etc.  These are material things.
> 
> In the event that someone is unable or unwilling to provide those things for themselves, that implication in this right is that someone else is to provide these things -for- them.  Regardless of their will.  It's a right, so these things -must- be provided!
> 
> That means it's everyone's right to subjugate the will of those capable of providing them with their material rights, assuming they aren't providing themselves with those things.  In article 4, the document outlaws slavery, and then in article 25, the article says that slavery -will- be the norm when it's necessary to provide those things that are deemed necessary.
> 
> I oppose the "right" to any material thing.  Period.  There's also a whole list of other bullshit articles in this list to which I am diametrically opposed, as well as an entire gamete of reasons why I feel that the UN's proposed philosophies are anti-freedom and thus that we shouldn't sign onto -any- of their bullshit social treaties or allow them even a minor foothold of authority in our system.
> 
> Sovereignty or bust, bitches.  Fuck this international order.
Click to expand...


I thank you very sincerely for giving a cogent reply. What you say makes sense if you believe it and so I give you credit for that. So food and water are not rights to human beings, they are commodities only, and so you think article 25 is nonsense. Why is water a commodity--making the right to life the single greatest lie? Right to life cannot exist if one is denied access to life (e.g. water).

So why do inalienable rights exist but we do not have the right to exist? Why would I care if it says on paper I have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness when I do not have the right to water and therefore life? Seems like the only right that matters is the right to life, all others are secondary.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Economics is not policy, economics just is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If economics is not policy, then what is it? Are they decisions made by human beings (i.e. policy)? Are they physical laws? What are they? I really want to learn from you so please answer the question. I don't like it when you tell me I don't understand you and then withhold the chance for me to understand your position clearly by not explaining your position. I am being sincere and I hope you will choose to explain what economics is if it is not policy decisions made by human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand the concept of scientific method? Can you show me any data that contradicts the theory behind capitalism, or are you simply going to cry because the world doesn't work the way you want it to? Does the fact that some people make policy decisions based on the erroneous assumption that communism or socialism actually work somehow justify the destruction those decisions cause?
> 
> Take my advice, drop it, you got nothing.
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing for anything. You keep getting way ahead of our simple discussion. I am just interested in hearing what you have to say. I just want to know why you think economics is not for the affairs of man, the daily lives of human beings? That our policy decisions cannot and will not effect the economic status of human beings.

The answer I gather is you think capitalism is supported by data. Can you help me understand what you mean? I'm new to all this and I don't know what data you mean. What data are you referring to? Computer data? Observational data from society? Are you saying capitalism is the best economic policy because the data supports it? If that's what you're saying, that capitalism is our economic policy because it works the best, then we in fact do make the policy decision to adopt capitalism over other unsupported economic policy. That is presumably why you referred to the scientific method: because the policy that makes the most sense is obviously the one you choose. So let's assume capitalism is best supported by the data. That doesn't mean capitalism is a law of nature that humans must accept. It is a policy decision that happens to work for billions of people. But the real question becomes, since capitalism is a policy decision that we've adopted, does it actually work for the majority of human beings in America (or on this planet)? I will further grant this is true, that capitalism works the best for the most number of people. Can you at least see my point that capitalism is our economic policy because it works so well? That men gathered in a room and decided, "yep, capitalism is our best bet, let's decide to adopt it." *Do you agree that capitalism is a type of economic system that is adopted through policy decision?*

All I'm asking is you put aside your obvious disgust with me and just talk plainly. I'm glad you feel passionately about your beliefs--which should be all the more reason you explain them with clarity--but please help me understand them. Please just explain yourself plainly. This isn't about me and so please stop including me in your posts. I want to know what you think and in a very clear manner. In order to do that you need to address my questions slowly and precisely so we can come to a mutual understanding. My question is in bold, above.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> If economics is not policy, then what is it? Are they decisions made by human beings (i.e. policy)? Are they physical laws? What are they? I really want to learn from you so please answer the question. I don't like it when you tell me I don't understand you and then withhold the chance for me to understand your position clearly by not explaining your position. I am being sincere and I hope you will choose to explain what economics is if it is not policy decisions made by human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the concept of scientific method? Can you show me any data that contradicts the theory behind capitalism, or are you simply going to cry because the world doesn't work the way you want it to? Does the fact that some people make policy decisions based on the erroneous assumption that communism or socialism actually work somehow justify the destruction those decisions cause?
> 
> Take my advice, drop it, you got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing for anything. You keep getting way ahead of our simple discussion. I am just interested in hearing what you have to say. I just want to know why you think economics is not for the affairs of man, the daily lives of human beings? That our policy decisions cannot and will not effect the economic status of human beings.
Click to expand...


If that is what you want why do you keep making up things? Can you point out where I mentioned physical laws in the post you responded to? I said that economics is real, and that there are different theories about how it works, and explained the fundamental differences between the three major theories. Now you want me to explain why I think economics isn't real.



gnarlylove said:


> The answer I gather is you think capitalism is supported by data. Can you help me understand what you mean? I'm new to all this and I don't know what data you mean. What data are you referring to? Computer data? Observational data from society? Are you saying capitalism is the best economic policy because the data supports it? If that's what you're saying, that capitalism is our economic policy because it works the best, then we in fact do make the policy decision to adopt capitalism over other unsupported economic policy. That is presumably why you referred to the scientific method: because the policy that makes the most sense is obviously the one you choose. So let's assume capitalism is best supported by the data. That doesn't mean capitalism is a law of nature that humans must accept. It is a policy decision that happens to work for billions of people. But the real question becomes, since capitalism is a policy decision that we've adopted, does it actually work for the majority of human beings in America (or on this planet)? I will further grant this is true, that capitalism works the best for the most number of people. Can you at least see my point that capitalism is our economic policy because it works so well? That men gathered in a room and decided, "yep, capitalism is our best bet, let's decide to adopt it." *Do you agree that capitalism is a type of economic system that is adopted through policy decision?*



Again with the reading comprehension problems. Capitalism is a theory, or a model, of how economics works. That means it is not a policy, anymore than evolution is. There are people who don't understand the science of economics that want to make the discussion political, just like there are people who don't understand the science of evolution that want to make that discussion political. That does not make either of them political.



gnarlylove said:


> All I'm asking is you put aside your obvious disgust with me and just talk plainly. I'm glad you feel passionately about your beliefs--which should be all the more reason you explain them with clarity--but please help me understand them. Please just explain yourself plainly. This isn't about me and so please stop including me in your posts. I want to know what you think and in a very clear manner. In order to do that you need to address my questions slowly and precisely so we can come to a mutual understanding. My question is in bold, above.



I haven't expressed any beliefs in this discussion, all I have done is present facts. Your problem is that you think facts are open to debate.

They aren't.

The disgust you sense is actually contempt for a position that puts personal beliefs over empirical evidence. I treat Young Earth Creationists the same way. Until you can accept the fact that your religious beliefs are wrong there is no way to rationally discuss issues with you.


----------



## Flopper

gnarlylove said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, we know that nobody is required to join a political party but the post recommends that we all join a non-political party. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld joke, "it's a program about nothing".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In France they have a literal "anti-capitalist party." That doesn't mean its a party about nothing, they have made it real clear that they wish for an alternative to the current system.
> 
> Similarly, anti-party seems to represent a clear alternative to the obvious gridlock. It is a party that is against normal parliamentary procedures because they have not worked.
> 
> I'd say they do work because they were set up in 1776 to keep Democracy from working. The senate was introduced to be the representatives of the "wealthy of the nation" as he called it, and he meant land owners. He=main framer=Madison.
> 
> So yeah, why not develop an alternative system that works for the people instead of the wealth of the nation? In fact, a scientific study was done demonstrating this very fact. So I don't know why any idiot who isn't rich would want to participate in meaningless politics that has been shown to not correlate with their interests.
> Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider
Click to expand...

In the beginning there were no political parties.  You will not find them anywhere in the constitution.  However, parties appeared on the scene very quickly. At first, they were informal alliance between like minded politicians but grew rapidly into  organised groups.  

Political parties exist in every democratic government except in very small countries because people feel they can accomplish more working together than independently. 

Given that political parties are a fact of life, it's silly to entertain the illusion that we could have government made of independents or members of an "anti-party".  What we need to do is make the parties less ridge allowing members to vote their conscience, not the party line which is to discredit the opposition and their legislation.  Is it really necessary that each party have a stated or unstated position on every issue leaving little or no room for any independent thought or action?

No matter what legislation is introduced by a party, it rapidly becomes the objective of the other party, to defeat the legislation or see to it that it's bad legislation.  Is it any wonder American respect for their elected representatives is somewhere between a street peddler and a prostitute.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> Capitalism is a theory, or a model, of *how economics works.* That means it is not a policy, anymore than evolution is.



What is economics? Economics is the study of production, consumption, and transfer of wealth. In other words, it is the study of how humans survive and behave. Capitalism is one particular way of organizing production, consumption and the transfer of wealth. There are many different ways of organizing production, consumption, and transfer of wealth. In fact, countries like Norway, France etc. have less crime, less disease and sickness, less infant mortality, less hunger, less poverty. These countries have adopted a more socialist model and are surviving with less poverty, infant mortality and other things. So why have we adopted capitalism as the way of organizing production, consumption, and transfer of wealth? You do realize we have increasingly serious drug problem among mainstream America, homelessness in every major city, and high infant mortality compared to developed nations. 

Evolution is an adopted belief because it explains the data the best. So you're saying we have adopted capitalism as our belief because it best explains our available understanding of human behavior? How then are other countries who have adopted other economics surviving, and in many ways, doing better than millions of Americans? http://www.forbes.com/sites/christo...e-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/

I want to be clear I am not arguing for socialism. I am merely asking you to clarify your point on why America adopted capitalism while other societies have chosen different economics and are surviving.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is a theory, or a model, of *how economics works.* That means it is not a policy, anymore than evolution is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is economics? Economics is the study of production, consumption, and transfer of wealth. In other words, it is the study of how humans survive and behave. Capitalism is one particular way of organizing production, consumption and the transfer of wealth. There are many different ways of organizing production, consumption, and transfer of wealth. In fact, countries like Norway, France etc. have less crime, less disease and sickness, less infant mortality, less hunger, less poverty. These countries have adopted a more socialist model and are surviving with less poverty, infant mortality and other things. So why have we adopted capitalism as the way of organizing production, consumption, and transfer of wealth? You do realize we have increasingly serious drug problem among mainstream America, homelessness in every major city, and high infant mortality compared to developed nations.
> 
> Evolution is an adopted belief because it explains the data the best. So you're saying we have adopted capitalism as our belief because it best explains our available understanding of human behavior? How then are other countries who have adopted other economics surviving, and in many ways, doing better than millions of Americans? The World's Happiest (And Saddest) Countries, 2013 - Forbes
> 
> I want to be clear I am not arguing for socialism. I am merely asking you to clarify your point on why America adopted capitalism while other societies have chosen different economics and are surviving.
Click to expand...


Socialism works so well that Venezuela has a toilet paper shortage.

Not to worry though, it is Obama's fault.

I am sure you think you have a point. Unfortunately, since my brain operates on facts, not delusions, I can't figure out what it is. As a result, I cannot think of a coherent response to your post. Therefore, instead of dealing with whatever the points you are failing to make are, I will simply post a link to an essay that explains why capitalism, like evolution, actually works.



> The thesis of this blog is that all three of  these are successful due to the superiority of ruthless massively  parallel trial-and-error with a feedback cycle to central planning. We go back to Michael Polanyi. In a trip to the Soviet Union in 1936  he was told the distinction between pure and applied science was  mistaken, and that in a socialist society all scientific research takes  place in accordance with the needs of the latest Five Year Plan.  Polanyi, in reaction, showed science behaves much like a free market in  ideas with the corollary that central planning is as destructive in  science as in the economy. A typical quote from Polanyi: _Any  attempt at guiding scientific research towards a purpose other than its  own is an attempt to deflect it from the advancement of science. () You  can kill or mutilate the advance of science, you cannot shape it. For  it can advance only by essentially unpredictable steps, pursuing  problems of its own, and the practical benefits of these advances will  be incidental and hence doubly unpredictable._ The essential point  is unpredictable. In the long term, science is too unpredictable to  control in any useful manner. We do not know in advance which line of  inquiry will lead to breakthroughs or whether the breakthroughs will be  for good or evil. If we knew, there would be no need for research.  The  same reason holds for the failure of central planning in the economy:  the problem is too complex and unpredictable. Central planning only  works when the system under consideration is simple and predictable.
> So what do we replace central planning with? Back to Thorvalds  ruthless massively parallel trial-and-error with a feedback cycle. The  massively parallel process permits many different approaches to be  explored simultaneously and results are ,obtained in a timely manner. We  do this in science by having different scientists work on different  approaches to a given problem. The ruthlessness comes in rejecting or  ignoring all the approaches that fail. Most of what is published in  science is ignored and only a few papers have a big impact. I have seen  the statement that, on average, a published paper is read only twice.  This means most published papers are never read at all (perhaps not even  by all the authors). There is no way to tell in advance which research  will fall into the unread category. You try all approaches and see which  ones work.
> It is similar in a capitalist society. Companies try many different  approaches. The ones that work make their owners rich, while the ones  that fail go bankrupt. The examples are legendary: IBM moved with the  times and, for a while, was almost synonymous with computers (hence the  slogan; no one ever got fired for buying IBM). Digital Equipment  Corporation (DEC), once a computer heavy weight, faded into oblivion  (CEO Ken Olsen: There is no reason for any individual to have a computer  in his home.)
> The ruthlessness in capitalism comes in by allowing companies to  fail. Capitalism breaks down when companies become too big to fail, or  with monopolies and oligarchies. Companies that are too big to fail,  monopolies, and oligarchies might as well be run by the government since  they have lost the attribute (ruthless feedback) that makes the  capitalist model work.


Quantum Diaries


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> Socialism works so well that Venezuela has a toilet paper shortage.



Venezuela is not a country I mentioned. I mentioned France, Norway and posted a link for more sourced information on what it is that I am saying. Do you care to comment on something I actually mentioned like Norway?

Your comment on Venezuela is meaningless anyway. People do not need toilet paper to live or have a functioning economy. In fact, half of the world's population, mostly India and southeast Asia, do not use toilet paper to begin with. They use water, similar to a bidet. Toilet paper is a not a crucial commodity and has nothing to do with survival or the functioning of Venezuelan society.



Quantum Windbag said:


> capitalism, like evolution, actually works.


Capitalism is about free markets, it's not evolution. It is just one way to organize society. In fact, it is well known that free markets always break down and so capitalism will never work as it's suppose to. You always have to make adjustments, that is, if you've ever read economics or Keynes or Milton Friedman, market intervention is crucial at certain times. In fact, we are not currently in a capitalist economy as you very well know. There is massive state intervention into the market through bailouts and welfare that I am sure you wish did not exist, being a true champion for free markets like you are.

Thus, your quote is accurate: "The ruthlessness in capitalism comes in by allowing companies to fail. Capitalism breaks down when companies become too big to fail, or with monopolies and oligarchies. Companies that are too big to fail, monopolies, and oligarchies might as well be run by the government since they have lost the attribute (ruthless feedback) that makes the capitalist model work."

Free markets always lead to unfree markets. Free markets cannot exist for as soon as they exist, those who benefit the most from the free markets begin to use their influence to monopolize the market. That's why all developed countries do not have purely free market economies. It was tried and the business didn't like competition so they nestled up to the state to subsidize them for growth and bail them out in times of need. No system based in profit will ever produce a free market. As soon as you have a free market, those who have the most influence (e.g. wealth or political ties) will arrange the market so that they reap the benefits while being subsidized by the public.

Thus your pledge for free markets is nonsense because it always undoes itself. Free markets cannot exist for very long until they become monpolized. Thus, if you do not live in a delusional world you will observe that all developed nations do not have real free markets. The reason is not because the wrong political party is in charge, it's because the profiteers want it this way and would have it no other way. Thus your free market zealousy comes to naught because those who can control the market best will do exactly that, no matter who is in charge, even you or me.

We have discussed this before and let me reference them: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-61.html#post8893498 and http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-63.html#post8894209

On the second link I wrote, the "accumulation of capital inevitably views free markets as a problem: free markets neither favors nor disfavors them. They want it to favor them and so their capital is applied to political power. Make sense?"


----------



## whitehall

Voting is the bottom line of political activism. You vote because you care. Joining a political party is a step up in that you want to advance the agenda of like minded people. What happens when somebody claims that the agenda of your chosen political party is biased and you should drop down to the first level or even engage in some sort of subversive anti-political party agenda. You call him a fool and go on with your life.


----------



## gnarlylove

Voting is meaningless when both parties are funded by the same donors.


----------



## CorvusRexus

AntiParty said:


> CorvusRexus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have.
> 
> To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Constitution embraces a just government that respects it and the people while remaining within its confines. And it is the people's duty to understand their rights so they can shove them down the government's throat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you added the word "just" to my statement and think you are correcting me?
Click to expand...


Yes, I do. And I also added "that respects it and the people while remaining within its confines".


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Venezuela is not a country I mentioned. I mentioned France, Norway and posted a link for more sourced information on what it is that I am saying. Do you care to comment on something I actually mentioned like Norway?



What's the problem with mentioning a shining example of socialism you left off your list? Did I destroy your argument by using actual data, r are you pointing to countries that are not actually implementing socialist theory in order to argue that socialism works? 



gnarlylove said:


> Your comment on Venezuela is meaningless anyway. People do not need toilet paper to live or have a functioning economy. In fact, half of the world's population, mostly India and southeast Asia, do not use toilet paper to begin with. They use water, similar to a bidet. Toilet paper is a not a crucial commodity and has nothing to do with survival or the functioning of Venezuelan society.



Umm, what?

Only someone who has always had toilet paper would ever claim it isn't a necessity. Venezuela has shortages of all basic necessities, rice, flour, sugar, milk, and everything else you can think of. Socialism is a failed economic theory.



gnarlylove said:


> Capitalism is about free markets, it's not evolution. It is just one way to organize society. In fact, it is well known that free markets always break down and so capitalism will never work as it's suppose to. You always have to make adjustments, that is, if you've ever read economics or Keynes or Friedman. In fact, we are not currently in a capitalist economy as you very well know. There is massive state intervention into the market through bailouts and welfare that I am sure you wish did not exist, being a true champion for free markets like you are.



Let me guess, you think evolution is simply a way to organize nature.



gnarlylove said:


> Thus, your quote is accurate: "The ruthlessness in capitalism comes in by allowing companies to fail. Capitalism breaks down when companies become too big to fail, or with monopolies and oligarchies. Companies that are too big to fail, monopolies, and oligarchies might as well be run by the government since they have lost the attribute (ruthless feedback) that makes the capitalist model work."



It isn't my quote.



gnarlylove said:


> Free markets always lead to unfree markets. Free markets cannot exist for as soon as they exist, those who benefit the most from the free markets begin to use their influence to monopolize the market. That's why all developed countries do not have purely free market economies. It was tried and the business didn't like competition so they nestled up to the state to subsidize them for growth and bail them out in times of need. No system based in profit will ever produce a free market. As soon as you have a free market, those who have the most influence (e.g. wealth or political ties) will arrange the market so that they reap the benefits while being subsidized by the public.



That explains why black markets never last, the complete and utter lack of government regulation causes them to collapse upon themselves.

Wait, that is exactly the opposite of what actually happens. In reality, what happens is that government steps in with regulations, like Dodd-Frank, that drives small banks out of the market, and institutionalizes the very think you are whinging about.

And, yes, the word is whinging, not whining.



gnarlylove said:


> Thus your pledge for free markets is nonsense because it always undoes itself. Free markets cannot exist for very long until they become monpolized. Thus, if you do not live in a delusional world you will observe that all developed nations do not have real free markets. The reason is not because the wrong political party is in charge, it's because the profiteers want it this way and would have it no other way. Thus your free market zealousy comes to naught because those who can control the market best will do exactly that, no matter who is in charge, even you or me.



Pledge? What pledge are you talking about? When did I take it?

There has never, repeat never, been a monopoly that was not enforced by government. It is, quite literally, impossible for a monopoly to form otherwise, just like it is impossible for you to breathe water.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> What's the problem with mentioning a shining example of socialism you left off your list? Did I destroy your argument by using actual data, r are you pointing to countries that are not actually implementing socialist theory in order to argue that socialism works?



Venezuela is not Norway. They have different policies so we need to take this on a case by case basis. So we can talk about Venezuela too, but I'll go ahead and stipulate that Venezuela is a failed state (due to its lack of advanced ass wiping technology using bleached pulped trees) so my only relevant question is how do you account for the success of socialism in Norway? How can Norway have a decent society when it isn't obeying the laws of capitalism? Why is Norway measurably happier than Americans (see the forbes article I linked earlier)?



Quantum Windbag said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment on Venezuela is meaningless anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, what?
Click to expand...

I just blew your narrow white American mind because you think you think life ends when you don't have a freshly pulped, bleached tree with which to wipe your golden ass. It turns out a shortage of toilet paper is a very mild inconvenience and has no comparison to what would happen if there was a shortage of food, milk etc. So your example is very trivial and holds no weight in a serious economic discussion of production and distribution.



Quantum Windbag said:


> That explains why black markets never last, the complete and utter lack of government regulation causes them to collapse upon themselves.



So you're saying the government should regulate markets in order for them to continue? I just want to be clear that you do realize that regulation is the opposite of free markets?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem with mentioning a shining example of socialism you left off your list? Did I destroy your argument by using actual data, r are you pointing to countries that are not actually implementing socialist theory in order to argue that socialism works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela is not Norway.
Click to expand...


Never said it was, did I? 



gnarlylove said:


> They have different policies so we need to take this on a case by case basis. So we can talk about Venezuela too, but I'll go ahead and stipulate that Venezuela is a failed state (due to its lack of advanced ass wiping technology using bleached pulped trees) so my only relevant question is how do you account for the success of socialism in Norway?



By scoffing?

Norway has one of the highest costs of living of any country on the planet. One would think that, if socialism worked, that the cost of living would go down. Or would that be the oppositie of the goals of socialism.



gnarlylove said:


> How can Norway have a decent society when it isn't obeying the laws of capitalism? Why is Norway measurably happier than Americans (see the forbes article I linked earlier)?



Let me see if I can actually explain that in less that 8 billion words.

Economics is not society.

Wow, it only took 4.



gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, what?
> 
> 
> 
> I just blew your narrow white American mind because you think you think life ends when you don't have a freshly pulped, bleached tree with which to wipe your golden ass. It turns out a shortage of toilet paper is a very mild inconvenience and has no comparison to what would happen if there was a shortage of food, milk etc. So your example is very trivial and holds no weight in a serious economic discussion of production and distribution.
Click to expand...


I guess you decided to not read the part of my post where I pointed out the food shortages in Venezuela, so I will repeat it, and supply a link.

Venezuela tackles food shortage with ID card system | World news | theguardian.com

That feeling you have right now is the realization that you joined in a battle of wits and forgot that you don't have any.



gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That explains why black markets never last, the complete and utter lack of government regulation causes them to collapse upon themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the government should regulate markets in order for them to continue? I just want to be clear that you do realize that regulation is the opposite of free markets?
Click to expand...


No, I am saying, as politely as possible because we are discussing this in the CDZ because the OP is afraid of an actual discussion, that you are completely ignorant and that you should crawl back under the rock you have been living under.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> Norway has one of the highest costs of living of any country on the planet. One would think that, if socialism worked, that the cost of living would go down.



Why do you think the goal should be to reduce the cost of living? Did you know that something can be done to off set the rise in the cost of living? It's called higher wages or salaries. If you raise the price of a good while also raising wages, you can keep pace the supposed "high cost of living." So what does Norway earn? It turns out they earn much more than their counterpart. "The country has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system."

For more information, see here How Much Do People Earn in Norway? - My Little Norway









Quantum Windbag said:


> I guess you decided to not read the part of my post where I pointed out the food shortages in Venezuela, so I will repeat it, and supply a link.
> 
> Venezuela tackles food shortage with ID card system | World news | theguardian.com



Venezuela is not the only country on Earth with food shortages. America also has its type of food insecurity.

"A recent USDA report reveals that nearly 18 million families, or 49 million people, lacked &#8220;food security&#8221; which is defined as &#8220;consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living.&#8221; Food insecurity is a polite term for starvation.

Since 1995, the percent starving in the US hovered at or below 12%. That changed in 2008 when it jumped to 14.6%, and has stayed above 14% since then. In 2012, the percentage was 14.5%, or one in seven people."
?National Security? versus ?Food Insecurity?: One in Seven Hungry in America as Obama Prepares for Syrian War | Global Research

"In 2012, 49.0 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.1 million adults and 15.9 million children. 
In 2012, 14.5 percent of households (17.6 million households) were food insecure. 
In 2012, 5.7 percent of households (7.0 million households) experienced very low food security."
Hunger Statistics, Hunger Facts & Poverty Facts | Feeding America

So America, despite its glory, is also struggling with food, a most basic necessity. So if it's the earmark of a bad economy to struggle with food, does that mean the American economy, like the Venezuelan economy, is a bad economy?



Quantum Windbag said:


> That feeling you have right now is the realization that you joined in a battle of wits and forgot that you don't have any.



Look, I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot months ago. I have given up any "wits," and just like you said I do not have any to begin with. I am sorry that you feel threatened by my questions and resort to saying I'm ignorant. I am very ignorant, but why do you take me to be challenging you when I have asked you to explain your position to me? I am not trying to convince you of anything and I respect your passion for freedom and America and capitalism. I too want to understand why you are so passionate. So to help me understand your passion, I would ask you to please stick to answering my questions. Is this too much to ask? If so please let me know and I will stop.



Quantum Windbag said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That explains why black markets never last, the complete and utter lack of government regulation causes them to collapse upon themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the government should regulate markets in order for them to continue? I just want to be clear that you do realize that regulation is the opposite of free markets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am saying, as politely as possible because we are discussing this in the CDZ because the OP is afraid of an actual discussion, that you are completely ignorant and that you should crawl back under the rock you have been living under.
Click to expand...


You forgot to answer the question. Should we regulate markets?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Norway has one of the highest costs of living of any country on the planet. One would think that, if socialism worked, that the cost of living would go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think the goal should be to reduce the cost of living? Did you know that something can be done to off set the rise in the cost of living? It's called higher wages or salaries. If you raise the price of a good while also raising wages, you can keep pace the supposed "high cost of living." So what does Norway earn? It turns out they earn much more than their counterpart. "The country has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system."
> 
> For more information, see here How Much Do People Earn in Norway? - My Little Norway
Click to expand...


If nothing can be done about the rising cost of living why is it going up faster in some places than others? Why is it always countries that have welfare states that have higher costs of living?



gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you decided to not read the part of my post where I pointed out the food shortages in Venezuela, so I will repeat it, and supply a link.
> 
> Venezuela tackles food shortage with ID card system | World news | theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela is not the only country on Earth with food shortages. America also has its type of food insecurity.
> 
> "A recent USDA report reveals that nearly 18 million families, or 49 million people, lacked food security which is defined as consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living. Food insecurity is a polite term for starvation.
> 
> Since 1995, the percent starving in the US hovered at or below 12%. That changed in 2008 when it jumped to 14.6%, and has stayed above 14% since then. In 2012, the percentage was 14.5%, or one in seven people."
> ?National Security? versus ?Food Insecurity?: One in Seven Hungry in America as Obama Prepares for Syrian War | Global Research
> 
> "In 2012, 49.0 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.1 million adults and 15.9 million children.
> In 2012, 14.5 percent of households (17.6 million households) were food insecure.
> In 2012, 5.7 percent of households (7.0 million households) experienced very low food security."
> Hunger Statistics, Hunger Facts & Poverty Facts | Feeding America
> 
> So America, despite its glory, is also struggling with food, a most basic necessity. So if it's the earmark of a bad economy to struggle with food, does that mean the American economy, like the Venezuelan economy, is a bad economy?
Click to expand...


Do you understand the difference between food rationing and complaining because people don't know if they are going to eat at McDonald's or Burger King? 



gnarlylove said:


> Look, I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot months ago. I have given up any "wits," and just like you said I do not have any to begin with. I am sorry that you feel threatened by my questions and resort to saying I'm ignorant. I am very ignorant, but why do you take me to be challenging you when I have asked you to explain your position to me? I am not trying to convince you of anything and I respect your passion for freedom and America and capitalism. I too want to understand why you are so passionate. So to help me understand your passion, I would ask you to please stick to answering my questions. Is this too much to ask? If so please let me know and I will stop.



I never feel threatened by religious motivated ignorance. I usually ignore it, but you insisted on confronting me with yours. If you feel the massive amount of contempt I have for your willful ignorance, don't respect me to feel bad about it. Perhaps, just perhaps, if more people treated you with the contempt your beliefs deserve you would stop expressing them in intelligent company.



gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the government should regulate markets in order for them to continue? I just want to be clear that you do realize that regulation is the opposite of free markets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am saying, as politely as possible because we are discussing this in the CDZ because the OP is afraid of an actual discussion, that you are completely ignorant and that you should crawl back under the rock you have been living under.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to answer the question. Should we regulate markets?
Click to expand...


I did not forget anything, you just cannot read.


----------



## gnarlylove

Should we regulate markets? Telling me I should crawl under a rock is not an answer to that question. I may well be totally and completely stupid, utterly ignorant and have no brain matter. I concede that I lack your enlightenment and wisdom. But continuing to tell me I am ignorant and cannot read does not help me reach your enlightened state of awareness and humanity. So should we regulate markets?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is precisely the point. We don't have discussions like this. Mainstream media offers few chances for critical questions like yours. We need not just your question, but we need the larger question of what should be a law and what should not be. But that requires discussion. From what I gather, Anti-party is suggesting we do exactly this.
> 
> It's a completely different matter to go about answering your specific question properly and in context. My first contextualization is to here what you think of the UN Humans Rights Declaration? Do they make sense to you or do they sound too far fetched. If so, why? I specifically would like you to at least read Aritcle, 4, 6, 11, and 25. They are one sentence declarations or a paragraph at most.
> 
> If these declarations make sense to you, as they do to millions of people, nay, billions, then it makes sense we adopt them. It is blindingly obvious the US disregards these Human Rights in many international campaigns it conducts each year as ratified by the US in 1948 before international bodies. We can freely read, assess and discuss these declarations in the hope of coming to a more clear understanding of human relations and ethics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO!
> 
> 4 and 11 are great.  I don't like the person under the law thing in 6.  Seems like, given the kinda legalistic wordplay politicians use these days coupled with the fact that UN politicians are pretty typical in that respect, I could see 6 being used as justification to force open borders for everyone who signs onto this ridiculous document.
> 
> Yes, ridiculous, primarily because of 25.  Didn't read anymore after I got to that point.
> 
> 25 and 4 directly contradict each other.  Amendment 25 is the right to food, housing, medical care, etc.  These are material things.
> 
> In the event that someone is unable or unwilling to provide those things for themselves, that implication in this right is that someone else is to provide these things -for- them.  Regardless of their will.  It's a right, so these things -must- be provided!
> 
> That means it's everyone's right to subjugate the will of those capable of providing them with their material rights, assuming they aren't providing themselves with those things.  In article 4, the document outlaws slavery, and then in article 25, the article says that slavery -will- be the norm when it's necessary to provide those things that are deemed necessary.
> 
> I oppose the "right" to any material thing.  Period.  There's also a whole list of other bullshit articles in this list to which I am diametrically opposed, as well as an entire gamete of reasons why I feel that the UN's proposed philosophies are anti-freedom and thus that we shouldn't sign onto -any- of their bullshit social treaties or allow them even a minor foothold of authority in our system.
> 
> Sovereignty or bust, bitches.  Fuck this international order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thank you very sincerely for giving a cogent reply. What you say makes sense if you believe it and so I give you credit for that. So food and water are not rights to human beings, they are commodities only, and so you think article 25 is nonsense. Why is water a commodity--making the right to life the single greatest lie? Right to life cannot exist if one is denied access to life (e.g. water).
> 
> So why do inalienable rights exist but we do not have the right to exist? Why would I care if it says on paper I have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness when I do not have the right to water and therefore life? Seems like the only right that matters is the right to life, all others are secondary.
Click to expand...


You have the right to be alive, yes.  You also have the right to do everything in your power to acquire water.  You have the right to do everything in your power to acquire food.  I don't have any right to keep you from doing these things.

However, if I have water and you demand it of me, I have the right to keep it and tell you to get fucked.

If you have the right to -water-, that means that you get water whether you can acquire it for yourself or not.  That means that if you can't get it for yourself, someone else has to provide it to you.  That means you have the right to enslave someone to the degree that is necessary to get your water.

Where our document says life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nowhere is the implication that you have the right to the material things that keep you alive.  Liberty and the pursuit of happiness imply that you have the right to pursue these things.  The right to life implies that no one can ever make the legal assertion that your existence is errant, and no one can take your life without being in violation of your rights.

The right to life and what you're describing aren't necessarily the same thing, and the US's enumeration of the right to life is -definitely- not the same as your right to water.  The US's right to life doesn't allow for the subjugation of anyone else where the right to water often necessitates it.

Here's where me and the UN differ.  I demand that every individual be allowed to follow their own conscience to the degree that they aren't subjugating anyone else's will to do the same.  The UN demands that everyone follow the will of -their- (the UN's) collective conscience.

When you demand the right to water, -you- demand that everyone be enslaved to -your- conscience.  Sorry, but that makes you a wanna-be tyrant.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Notice that the op has vanished again. Anytime you point out his idiocy he runs away.


----------



## hangover

> Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!


You can be anti-party, but everyone will still have left and right bias. I lean left on some things, right on others. i.e. I have guns, but I also believe in taking care of the elderly. I believe in a balanced budget, but not a war based economy.
But the thing about anti-party, is the game is rigged for the two parties. So not voting only allows the idiots to run the government. Well, they do anyway, but one is wimpy and spineless, the other is cruel and evil. It's a sad choice, I know.


----------



## gnarlylove

Not2BSubjugated said:


> When you demand the right to water, -you- demand that everyone be enslaved to -your- conscience.  Sorry, but that makes you a wanna-be tyrant.



Since humans do not have the right to water (therefore are denied life), some people get to live and others do not. How do we determine who dies and who lives (how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't)?

By the way, determining who dies and lives is an act of a sincere tyrant.

In addition, the CEO of Nestle in 2005 said the same thing, that water is not a human right. Soon after the statement was retracted because a global boycott was sparked. Nestle still says water is a human right.  Personally I do not have a strong opinion on the matter but I am very interested in hearing how we determine who dies?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you demand the right to water, -you- demand that everyone be enslaved to -your- conscience.  Sorry, but that makes you a wanna-be tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since humans do not have the right to water (therefore are denied life), some people get to live and others do not. How do we determine who dies and who lives (how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't)?
> 
> By the way, determining who dies and lives is an act of a sincere tyrant.
> 
> In addition, the CEO of Nestle in 2005 said the same thing, that water is not a human right. Soon after the statement was retracted because a global boycott was sparked. Nestle still says water is a human right.  Personally I do not have a strong opinion on the matter but I am very interested in hearing how we determine who dies?
Click to expand...


The government is a sincere tyrant?

If water is a natural right why isn't there a source of water following you around?


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> I never feel threatened by religious motivated ignorance. I usually ignore it, but you insisted on confronting me with yours. If you feel the massive amount of contempt I have for your willful ignorance, don't respect me to feel bad about it. Perhaps, just perhaps, if more people treated you with the contempt your beliefs deserve you would stop expressing them in intelligent company.



If I am ignorant, I am very willing to hear what you have to say. That is not willful ignorance. Instead you make much of your post about defaming my intelligence. So am I ignorant because I do not defame myself? What am I willfully ignorant of?

I am being sincere and I hope you are able to explain yourself without continuing your ad hominem assault in this clean debate forum. I try to respect your positions by asking sincere questions so that I may come out of my ignorance and into the light. Perhaps your passion is so extreme and rigidly fundamental that you are incapable of adhering to the one simple rule in the clean debate forum.

I guess I have no choice but to accept your passion and incapability of abiding by the one rule of the clean debate forum, but why must I accept your constant berating and hostility? I am not trying to harm you. If anything I am trying to understand your understanding, which is the truth according to you. It doesn't make any sense that you would berate my delusional worldview without expressing what is so delusional about it. It would seem that your assertion is without substance and is hollow. I have no hope of becoming enlightened like you are without you articulating what it is that causes my delusions. My goal is that I may join you in the light of truth. If you do not wish for me to join you, then how can you claim truth? The truth is universal and if you do not think I can join you, then your truth is not universal. So then why would I even care that you claim to have a truth that is not true for everyone?



			
				William James said:
			
		

> William James on how humans are prone to consider themselves right (very revelatory):
> 
> Every one is nevertheless prone to claim that his conclusions are the only logical ones, that they are necessities of universal reason... Let me make a few comments, here, on the curious antipathies which these partialities arouse. They are sovereignly unjust, for all the parties are human beings with the same essential interests, and no one of them is the wholly perverse demon which another often imagines him to be. Both are loyal to the world that bears them; neither wishes to spoil it; neither wishes to regard it as an insane incoherence; both want to keep it as a universe of some kind; and their differences are all secondary to this deep agreement. They may be only propensities to emphasize differently. Or one man may care for finality and security more than the other. Or their tastes in language may be different. One may like a universe that lends itself to lofty and exalted characterization. To another this may seem sentimental or rhetorical. One may wish for the right to use a clerical vocabulary, another a technical or professorial one. A certain old farmer of my acquaintance in America was called a rascal by one of his neighbors. He immediately smote the man, saying,'I won't stand none of your diminutive epithets.'...
> 
> But all such differences are minor matters which ought to be subordinated in view of the fact that, whether we be empiricists or rationalists, we are, ourselves, parts of the universe and share the same one deep concern in its destinies. We crave alike to feel more truly at home with it, and to contribute our mite to its amelioration. It would be pitiful if small aesthetic discords were to keep honest men asunder.



This contains a grave truth that you have not fully grasped. Your bitterness towards me is based in secondary qualities. And I suspect, nay, I know you have very little understanding of what it is I actually believe (just as I have little understanding of your belief). The difference between us is I don't make up beliefs and systems about you to fill in my gaps of knowledge about you.

You, on the other hand, have consolidated a whole system out of the 20 some posts you've read of mine and engage in a full on ad hominem attack of my intelligence despite knowing very very little about what I actually believe. On top of that, you don't even have the fortitude to respect the one rule of this forum. You have every right to disagree with me but it seems you are only trained in attacking your opponents intelligence. That is not disagreement, that is childish behavior not suitable for serious debate and especially on this clean debate forum.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> If I am ignorant, I am very willing to hear what you have to say. That is not willful ignorance. Instead you make much of your post about defaming my intelligence. So am I ignorant because I do not defame myself? What am I willfully ignorant of?



If you were really willing to hear what I have to say you would open your mind and listen. What actually happens is you say something, I provide evidence that contradicts it, you then run around in circles and repeat your claims. An example of that is the whole thing with Venezuela. I pointed out that they have widespread shortages of everything from flour to toilet paper, and you pretend that the fact that the US has people who might miss one meal a month is proof that the US is just as bad.

In other words, you are willfully ignorant because you choose to ignore the facts. If you agree with me that that reflects negatively on your intelligence, stop doing it, then I will no longer be able to use it to comment on your lack of intelligence.



gnarlylove said:


> I am being sincere and I hope you are able to explain yourself without continuing your ad hominem assault in this clean debate forum. I try to respect your positions by asking sincere questions so that I may come out of my ignorance and into the light. Perhaps your passion is so extreme and rigidly fundamental that you are incapable of adhering to the one simple rule in the clean debate forum.



I am explaining why you are not sincere. An ad hominem is when I dismiss your argument based on an irrelevant fact about you. Since I am actually attacking your argument based on the fact that you choose to ignore facts that contradict your position, I am not engaging in ad hominem attack. That means that I am actually within both the letter and the spirit of the rules in this zone. 



gnarlylove said:


> I guess I have no choice but to accept your passion and incapability of abiding by the one rule of the clean debate forum, but why must I accept your constant berating and hostility? I am not trying to harm you. If anything I am trying to understand your understanding, which is the truth according to you. It doesn't make any sense that you would berate my delusional worldview without expressing what is so delusional about it. It would seem that your assertion is without substance and is hollow. I have no hope of becoming enlightened like you are without you articulating what it is that causes my delusions. My goal is that I may join you in the light of truth. If you do not wish for me to join you, then how can you claim truth? The truth is universal and if you do not think I can join you, then your truth is not universal. So then why would I even care that you claim to have a truth that is not true for everyone?



Funny how religious fundamentalists always try to tell me how they are their delusions are proof that I don't understand that evolution isn't true. Especially after I explain, in detail why their delusions are not based in reality.

Do you recall how I pointed out, more than once, that economics is not social policy? And how you kept insisting that various economic theories were actually different ways of organizing society? Or when I pointed out that socialism results in shortages, and you dismissed rationing as nothing more than people missing a meal? After all of that why on Earth would I, or anyone else, believe you latest attempt to pretend you are being reasonable?



gnarlylove said:


> William James said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William James on how humans are prone to consider themselves right (very revelatory):
> 
> Every one is nevertheless prone to claim that his conclusions are the only logical ones, that they are necessities of universal reason... Let me make a few comments, here, on the curious antipathies which these partialities arouse. They are sovereignly unjust, for all the parties are human beings with the same essential interests, and no one of them is the wholly perverse demon which another often imagines him to be. Both are loyal to the world that bears them; neither wishes to spoil it; neither wishes to regard it as an insane incoherence; both want to keep it as a universe of some kind; and their differences are all secondary to this deep agreement. They may be only propensities to emphasize differently. Or one man may care for finality and security more than the other. Or their tastes in language may be different. One may like a universe that lends itself to lofty and exalted characterization. To another this may seem sentimental or rhetorical. One may wish for the right to use a clerical vocabulary, another a technical or professorial one. A certain old farmer of my acquaintance in America was called a rascal by one of his neighbors. He immediately smote the man, saying,'I won't stand none of your diminutive epithets.'...
> 
> But all such differences are minor matters which ought to be subordinated in view of the fact that, whether we be empiricists or rationalists, we are, ourselves, parts of the universe and share the same one deep concern in its destinies. We crave alike to feel more truly at home with it, and to contribute our mite to its amelioration. It would be pitiful if small aesthetic discords were to keep honest men asunder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This contains a grave truth that you have not fully grasped. Your bitterness towards me is based in secondary qualities. And I suspect, nay, I know you have very little understanding of what it is I actually believe (just as I have little understanding of your belief). The difference between us is I don't make up beliefs and systems about you to fill in my gaps of knowledge about you.
Click to expand...


Excuse me while I catch my breath, that was hilarious.

I am not bitter toward you, you are projecting. What I feel toward you is contempt and a smidgen of condescension. 

The real difference between us is I am not trying to understand you, I am explaining why your positions are wrong, and pointing out that your inability to accept contradictory evidence is symptomatic of a closed mind. 



gnarlylove said:


> You, on the other hand, have consolidated a whole system out of the 20 some posts you've read of mine and engage in a full on ad hominem attack of my intelligence despite knowing very very little about what I actually believe. On top of that, you don't even have the fortitude to respect the one rule of this forum. You have every right to disagree with me but it seems you are only trained in attacking your opponents intelligence. That is not disagreement, that is childish behavior not suitable for serious debate and especially on this clean debate forum.



You have made roughly 1000 posts on this forum, I have read a lot more than 20 of them. Like I said earlier, I usually ignore people who put their religious beliefs over evidence, you forced me to confront you in this thread. You probably did that assuming that I, like most people who run into your particular brand of fanaticism, would simply fold in the face of you intransigence. You guessed wrong, I have experience with people like you, and don't lose my cool simply because you pretend that I am crazy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Crystalclear said:


> Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?



More like the Tea Party.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> If you study what the term "Conservative" actually means it means "unwilling to change".
> 
> What we see today is lot's of people unwilling to research anything . The Left tends to research their topics so I follow more topics of the Left than from the Right. That's no secret. What you missed is that I don't follow the Left into their bad sides like no voter ID and Abortion and others.
> 
> You did what I stated earlier. You shunned me the instant I didn't believe in everything you believe in. Basic cult style behavior.
> 
> Learn more man/ or woman. (Did saying man or woman make me a liberal, because I almost typed "man" by default but thought it though and guessed you could be a female)



So basically, you're an OWS shitter who WOULD vote 100% democrat, IF you ever managed to get out and vote.

You're "anti-party" because you're really pissed that Obama didn't confiscate the wealth of the top 1% and give it to you, as you were convinced he would when you were worshiping him on TV when he was in Denver, in '08...


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you demand the right to water, -you- demand that everyone be enslaved to -your- conscience.  Sorry, but that makes you a wanna-be tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since humans do not have the right to water (therefore are denied life), some people get to live and others do not. How do we determine who dies and who lives (how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't)?
> 
> By the way, determining who dies and lives is an act of a sincere tyrant.
> 
> In addition, the CEO of Nestle in 2005 said the same thing, that water is not a human right. Soon after the statement was retracted because a global boycott was sparked. Nestle still says water is a human right.  Personally I do not have a strong opinion on the matter but I am very interested in hearing how we determine who dies?
Click to expand...


I'm gonna go backwards because your CEO argument is my fucking -favorite-

The fact that there was a worldwide boycott doesn't affect my opinion in the -slightest-.  The fact that you imply that worldwide opinion denotes the probability of correctness leads me to believe that you're probably not possessed of the logical ability to have a substantive conversation regarding abstract subject matter, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to debate this.

Next up, determining who lives and dies -is- in fact the desire of a true tyrant.  I desire no such thing.

Saying someone doesn't have the -right- to water is not denying them water.  This is one of the worst straw men I've seen on the board -ever-, which makes it quite a fuckin scarecrow!  Your implication is that people either have the -right- to water or don't get to have it at all.  How fuckin silly are you?

Do I have the right to internet access or a computer?  No, I don't.  Yet somehow, here I am posting political opinions on an online message board.  Weird.  You mean I'm able to have a computer even though I don't have the right to a computer?  People are able to acquire things that aren't automatically their's by right?  WHAT A CONCEPT!

The way we determine who gets to have water and who doesn't?  Why, we don't determine that at all.  We let everyone determine whether or not they go get their water.  The ones who aren't able to acquire it will be the ones who don't have it.  That simple.  That doesn't require me to be a tyrant, it requires me to leave everyone to their own devices.  That's the whole idea of individual freedom, which is my highest standard.  By that standard, the only time we force people to behave against their desires is when their desires include the subjugation of anyone else's.

Your highest standard is collective "well-being", and the reason I put it in quotations is because it's based on your opinion of what is "good" for that collective.  The problem with that desire, in my opinion, is that it subjugates the will of any individual with a different idea of what is "good".  This is roughly the same value as that in the UN document, except that they probably (hopefully, for the sake of my opinion of your cognitive functions) have different opinions on the particulars of what is "good".  Even as fellow collectivists, the UN's rule would likely subjugate your will to many standards that aren't your own.


----------



## Crystalclear

Uncensored2008 said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like the Tea Party.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. Everyone accuses the topic poster of being a Democrat.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Crystalclear said:


> No, I don't think so. Everyone accuses the topic poster of being a Democrat.



He is a far left loon, to be sure. But seems more OWS to me.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> You have made roughly 1000 posts on this forum, I have read a lot more than 20 of them. Like I said earlier, I usually ignore people who put their religious beliefs over evidence, you forced me to confront you in this thread. You probably did that assuming that I, like most people who run into your particular brand of fanaticism, would simply fold in the face of you intransigence. You guessed wrong, I have experience with people like you, and don't lose my cool simply because you pretend that I am crazy.



For the record, I do not think you are crazy. And I want to learn from you. I made the effort to say we have extrinsic differences and I am willing to walk through them to come to an understanding, an agreement. All I see is your systematic attempt to negate everything I said. While that is a method, it does not offer much in the way of bridging my gap of understanding that leads you to fundamentally disagree with even my desire to bridge the gap. We cannot have dialogue whatsoever if this is your attitude. I repeat I sincerely hope you could help me learn from you by answering my question about markets. Should we regulate markets or not? Why or why not? I will only have follow up questions, I will not comment on your answers because I will accept them as facts, as they likely are.


----------



## gnarlylove

Not2BSubjugated said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you demand the right to water, -you- demand that everyone be enslaved to -your- conscience.  Sorry, but that makes you a wanna-be tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since humans do not have the right to water (therefore are denied life), some people get to live and others do not. How do we determine who dies and who lives (how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't)?
> 
> By the way, determining who dies and lives is an act of a sincere tyrant.
> 
> In addition, the CEO of Nestle in 2005 said the same thing, that water is not a human right. Soon after the statement was retracted because a global boycott was sparked. Nestle still says water is a human right.  Personally I do not have a strong opinion on the matter but I am very interested in hearing how we determine who dies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm gonna go backwards because your CEO argument is my fucking -favorite-
> 
> The fact that there was a worldwide boycott doesn't affect my opinion in the -slightest-.  The fact that you imply that worldwide opinion denotes the probability of correctness leads me to believe that you're probably not possessed of the logical ability to have a substantive conversation regarding abstract subject matter, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to debate this.
> 
> Next up, determining who lives and dies -is- in fact the desire of a true tyrant.  I desire no such thing.
> 
> Saying someone doesn't have the -right- to water is not denying them water.  This is one of the worst straw men I've seen on the board -ever-, which makes it quite a fuckin scarecrow!  Your implication is that people either have the -right- to water or don't get to have it at all.  How fuckin silly are you?
> 
> Do I have the right to internet access or a computer?  No, I don't.  Yet somehow, here I am posting political opinions on an online message board.  Weird.  You mean I'm able to have a computer even though I don't have the right to a computer?  People are able to acquire things that aren't automatically their's by right?  WHAT A CONCEPT!
> 
> The way we determine who gets to have water and who doesn't?  Why, we don't determine that at all.  We let everyone determine whether or not they go get their water.  The ones who aren't able to acquire it will be the ones who don't have it.  That simple.  That doesn't require me to be a tyrant, it requires me to leave everyone to their own devices.  That's the whole idea of individual freedom, which is my highest standard.  By that standard, the only time we force people to behave against their desires is when their desires include the subjugation of anyone else's.
> 
> Your highest standard is collective "well-being", and the reason I put it in quotations is because it's based on your opinion of what is "good" for that collective.  The problem with that desire, in my opinion, is that it subjugates the will of any individual with a different idea of what is "good".  This is roughly the same value as that in the UN document, except that they probably (hopefully, for the sake of my opinion of your cognitive functions) have different opinions on the particulars of what is "good".  Even as fellow collectivists, the UN's rule would likely subjugate your will to many standards that aren't your own.
Click to expand...


You are very intelligent and I respect your cogent replies. A brief comment about your claim that I "imply" the logical fallacy ad populum: that is, that it's false. I did not imply that. I merely noted how there is universal, cross cultural disagreement with your position. I thought you should know, not that it should influence your belief. Then it is you who nicely and neatly arranges the strawman for I made no such claim or overt implication. 

As your my strawman, you misunderstand the issue. I respect your position and given your current understanding of how the world works, you would be accurate. I insist however that your understanding is misguided and false. There is obviously enough water on the planet to sustain 8 billion humans otherwise there cannot exist 8 billion humans. So I want to be extra clear on my logic so let's convert this shit into syllogistic form:

If there are 8 billion humans living, then there must exist sufficient water for their living.
There are 8 billion humans living.
Therefore there must exist sufficient water for their living.

So now that we both understanding there is sufficient water on earth for humans we must ask the vital question why do people become water insecure? Maybe you were unaware that water insecurity even existed let alone is growing throughout the world. The answers are varied but a pattern emerges that people become water insecure because of the bottom line: they cannot afford it. So they loose access to this vital nutrient of life. Why can human A say to B that B can no longer access water which supported B's life? Because A owns the water and therefore is not required to make it available to anyone whatsoever.

But how did person A come to own the property of a specific source of water? He drew up a document and international courts, set up and configured by those who have interests in property, granted him legal protection upon his drawing up of this document. So now person B can be legally denied access to water that he could access hours before the document was written up.

So your whole basis for saying water is not a right is because, though there is enough water on this planet to sustain 8 billion humans, they may be denied access due to a arbitrary document that alters nothing whatsoever in the physical or natural world. This sounds to be a really specious way of denying water.

What if B instead had written the document first and had it made official? Well, it would never happen because B is not among the class of people who can do that. Thus, the distribution of water is not determined by human need but by profits. So yep, people are _de facto_ denied water and we determine that they are denied because they cannot afford it.

Let's turn to another vital question: why is B not among the class of people who can do claim property? Because B lacks the money. But why does B lack money? B was simply born in the wrong family and the wrong place. So according to geographic happenstance of where B was born B can be denied access to water, not because there is insufficient water to supply B, but because B has been dealt a bad hand.

I'd understand if you said B should make something of himself but you need to realize capitalism does not operate that way. Capitalism keeps wages low by having a reserve army of unemployed laborers so that when someone demands better conditions, they can fire them and hire someone who will not make that complaint. There must be a mass of people who are not doing well in order for those few, 5% can do exceptional. If you lived under a different system of distribution, I can understand you'd say water is not denied but in this system of capitalism, it must be denied because it's what the market will bear. But we know the market is an artificial creation of private property (a written deed is an artificial claim that has been made institutional) and therefore necessitates that some people will have abundantly and others will not to the point of lacking vital access to water. But being an artificial institution, it is preventing access and is made by human decision.

And the facts of the world about water back me up here in that there are indeed lots of people in the world that, though sufficient water exists, it is not supplied and therefore is denied.

"By 2025, 800 million people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity, and two-thirds of the world population could be under stress conditions."

"According to Nature (2010), about 80% of the world's population (5.6 billion in 2011) live in areas with threats to water security."
Water security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So my premise that water is denied because it is not a right is true. So how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't? The answer is already obvious: corporations.

So lets ask why corporations get to be the tyrants? No one can vote for corporations so  this was obviously not a political act on the part of the public. So why are corporations the tyrants?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have made roughly 1000 posts on this forum, I have read a lot more than 20 of them. Like I said earlier, I usually ignore people who put their religious beliefs over evidence, you forced me to confront you in this thread. You probably did that assuming that I, like most people who run into your particular brand of fanaticism, would simply fold in the face of you intransigence. You guessed wrong, I have experience with people like you, and don't lose my cool simply because you pretend that I am crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, I do not think you are crazy. And I want to learn from you. I made the effort to say we have extrinsic differences and I am willing to walk through them to come to an understanding, an agreement. All I see is your systematic attempt to negate everything I said. While that is a method, it does not offer much in the way of bridging my gap of understanding that leads you to fundamentally disagree with even my desire to bridge the gap. We cannot have dialogue whatsoever if this is your attitude. I repeat I sincerely hope you could help me learn from you by answering my question about markets. Should we regulate markets or not? Why or why not? I will only have follow up questions, I will not comment on your answers because I will accept them as facts, as they likely are.
Click to expand...


For the record, I did not say you think I am crazy, I said you pretend that I am, just like you did in this post.

By the way, is there a reason you didn't actually prove me wrong when I argued that you are not  the reasonable person you claim?


----------



## gnarlylove

Can you please explain what it means for me to pretend you are crazy? How does it show up in my language?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> How do I pretend you are crazy? By asking questions? Calling you names? Trying to carry a conversation?



Go read the example I cited.


----------



## gnarlylove

If I want to genuinely treat you like a sane person, how do I do that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> If I want to genuinely treat you like a sane person, how do I do that?



First you need to admit that you are deliberately ignoring reality in favor of your beliefs.

In other words, to treat me like a sane person you have to accept that you are wrong. Until you do that, you have to pretend that I am crazy.


----------



## gnarlylove

I have admitted a few times in the last few posts that I am entirely open to my many flaws that I admit to having forthrightly. But since this message has not been fully absorbed, let me repeat with exact clarity: I am ignorant of the facts so will you please tell me what they are. Here's just two examples where I have repeated this:



gnarlylove said:


> I have given up any "wits," and just like you said I do not have any to begin with...I am very ignorant...I respect your passion for freedom and America and capitalism. I too want to understand why you are so passionate.





gnarlylove said:


> If I am ignorant, I am very willing to hear what you have to say.
> 
> I try to respect your positions by asking sincere questions so that I may come out of my ignorance and into the light.




You claim it is because I do not respond to facts. I agreed several times and yet for some reason I have to repeat myself. It doesn't matter. At least we are on the same page now:

*I understand virtually nothing and you possess a repository of facts.*

Now our only trouble is closing my gap of understanding, which was the phrase I used in my last post. So I will ask again if you would be so kind as to offer a few sentences of facts.

To get things going, if I may ask for a specific comment on whether or not we should regulate markets or have free markets, according to facts? If you do not wish to answer, that is fine. I thought I'd suggest a topic that could reveal important facts for me to know. If you prefer to skip it and mention other facts, please do so at your liberty.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> I have admitted a few times in the last few posts that I am entirely open to my many flaws that I admit to having forthrightly. But since this message has not been fully absorbed, let me repeat with exact clarity: I am ignorant of the facts so will you please tell me what they are. Here's just two examples where I have repeated this:
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given up any "wits," and just like you said I do not have any to begin with...I am very ignorant...I respect your passion for freedom and America and capitalism. I too want to understand why you are so passionate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I am ignorant, I am very willing to hear what you have to say.
> 
> I try to respect your positions by asking sincere questions so that I may come out of my ignorance and into the light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You claim it is because I do not respond to facts. I agreed several times and yet for some reason I have to repeat myself. It doesn't matter. At least we are on the same page now:
> 
> *I understand virtually nothing and you possess a repository of facts.*
> 
> Now our only trouble is closing my gap of understanding, which was the phrase I used in my last post. So I will ask again if you would be so kind as to offer a few sentences of facts.
> 
> To get things going, if I may ask for a specific comment on whether or not we should regulate markets or have free markets, according to facts? If you do not wish to answer, that is fine. I thought I'd suggest a topic that could reveal important facts for me to know. If you prefer to skip it and mention other facts, please do so at your liberty.
Click to expand...


Condescension is not admitting you are wrong, saying that you were wrong about socialism not causing  a food shortage in Venezual is. After we do that we can deal with all the other things you routinely pretend don't exist because you want to pretend that the world revolves around your belief system.


----------



## KissMy

AntiParty said:


> *Never let a group of people persuade your decision on a topic! That is everything wrong with America today. *
> 
> The good side of being me is I openly accept and learn from new information and study it to ensure it's true.
> 
> Because when you feel shame for losing the argument you naturally don't want to lose and want to learn.



I always value informed voters over partisan hacks.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum, I mean what I say. I'm sorry you think I am condescending towards you. I am speaking as precisely and sincerely as I know how. Since I have repeatedly told you this fact, I am sorry that you literally are incapable of believing me. Maybe your belief system does not allow you to take my repeated gesture of sincerity and openness and so you must believe insistently that I am somehow back-handedly deceiving you. Like I said, sorry if we got off on the wrong foot months back but I am over petty immaturity. Let's discuss your beliefs and not mine. Mine are boring and wrong anyway, I already know them. What's interesting and supposedly factual are your beliefs. So let's focus on that. I just hope from here on out we engage in clean interchange.

So far the only elaboration of your beliefs has been about socialism. I find it an odd starting point but let's role with it. You say Venezuela has failed to feed a portion of its people.

That is a fact. I never denied this fact and if I have, please show me where. The important question is has socialism caused this?

Here I would like to see if I understand what you mean by "socialism." You say socialism was the cause of food shortage. Surely you do not mean the idea of socialism because ideas can only become manifest through human action. So if I understand you correctly, "socialism" is another word for the "actions of the people based in socialist ideals." So the root subject is human socialist action or policies.

The question then becomes, what particular (socialist) action/policies in Venezuela caused food shortage? Here I will remain silent for I am ignorant. As a point of logic, if you cannot identify specifically socialist actions that caused food shortages (in what year?), why would you think socialist action caused it? I have no trouble agreeing with you because in point of fact, Venezuela may claim to be socialist and by definition then if Venezuela fails to feed a portion of its people, so does socialism since Venezuela and socialism become synonymous. Again, I agree with this, but would prefer to see exactly what socialist action(s) caused food shortages. If you care to elaborate on what socialist policies caused the food shortage then please do so. If you want to discuss other things, we can move on as I agree with you. If you want to move on, again, I would suggest helping me understand economics: how do free markets work?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum, I mean what I say. I'm sorry you think I am condescending towards you. I am speaking as precisely and sincerely as I know how. Since I have repeatedly told you this fact, I am sorry that you literally are incapable of believing me. Maybe your belief system does not allow you to take my repeated gesture of sincerity and openness and so you must believe insistently that I am somehow back-handedly deceiving you. Like I said, sorry if we got off on the wrong foot months back but I am over petty immaturity. Let's discuss your beliefs and not mine. Mine are boring and wrong anyway, I already know them. What's interesting and supposedly factual are your beliefs. So let's focus on that. I just hope from here on out we engage in clean interchange.
> 
> So far the only elaboration of your beliefs has been about socialism. I find it an odd starting point but let's role with it. You say Venezuela has failed to feed a portion of its people.
> 
> That is a fact. I never denied this fact and if I have, please show me where. The important question is has socialism caused this?
> 
> Here I would like to see if I understand what you mean by "socialism." You say socialism was the cause of food shortage. Surely you do not mean the idea of socialism because ideas can only become manifest through human action. So if I understand you correctly, "socialism" is another word for the "actions of the people based in socialist ideals." So the root subject is human socialist action or policies.
> 
> The question then becomes, what particular (socialist) action/policies in Venezuela caused food shortage? Here I will remain silent for I am ignorant. As a point of logic, if you cannot identify specifically socialist actions that caused food shortages (in what year?), why would you think socialist action caused it? I have no trouble agreeing with you because in point of fact, Venezuela may claim to be socialist and by definition then if Venezuela fails to feed a portion of its people, so does socialism since Venezuela and socialism become synonymous. Again, I agree with this, but would prefer to see exactly what socialist action(s) caused food shortages. If you care to elaborate on what socialist policies caused the food shortage then please do so. If you want to discuss other things, we can move on as I agree with you. If you want to move on, again, I would suggest helping me understand economics: how do free markets work?



Want to tell me again how you are being reasonable?


----------



## Avatar4321

Ill pass. I'd prefer to work with likeminded people to do good in the world.


----------



## AntiParty

hangover said:


> Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!
> 
> 
> 
> You can be anti-party, but everyone will still have left and right bias. I lean left on some things, right on others. i.e. I have guns, but I also believe in taking care of the elderly. I believe in a balanced budget, but not a war based economy.
> But the thing about anti-party, is the game is rigged for the two parties. So not voting only allows the idiots to run the government. Well, they do anyway, but one is wimpy and spineless, the other is cruel and evil. It's a sad choice, I know.
Click to expand...


I've seen you in multiple forums and know that you have lot's of political knowledge. 

My stance isn't anti-vote, it's anti-party platform. 

This means YOUR OPINION can be 99.9% agreed with one platform. But that platform will not dictate your decision on the .1%. You will fight against your parties .1% topic if you disagree with it. 

This isn't happening today. People repeat what they need to repeat to get their party in office. 

Free your mind. Think for YOU. Not for an organization.


----------



## AntiParty

Uncensored2008 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you study what the term "Conservative" actually means it means "unwilling to change".
> 
> What we see today is lot's of people unwilling to research anything . The Left tends to research their topics so I follow more topics of the Left than from the Right. That's no secret. What you missed is that I don't follow the Left into their bad sides like no voter ID and Abortion and others.
> 
> You did what I stated earlier. You shunned me the instant I didn't believe in everything you believe in. Basic cult style behavior.
> 
> Learn more man/ or woman. (Did saying man or woman make me a liberal, because I almost typed "man" by default but thought it though and guessed you could be a female)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, you're an OWS shitter who WOULD vote 100% democrat, IF you ever managed to get out and vote.
> 
> You're "anti-party" because you're really pissed that Obama didn't confiscate the wealth of the top 1% and give it to you, as you were convinced he would when you were worshiping him on TV when he was in Denver, in '08...
Click to expand...


Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^


----------



## BobPlumb

I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

AntiParty said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you study what the term "Conservative" actually means it means "unwilling to change".
> 
> What we see today is lot's of people unwilling to research anything . The Left tends to research their topics so I follow more topics of the Left than from the Right. That's no secret. What you missed is that I don't follow the Left into their bad sides like no voter ID and Abortion and others.
> 
> You did what I stated earlier. You shunned me the instant I didn't believe in everything you believe in. Basic cult style behavior.
> 
> Learn more man/ or woman. (Did saying man or woman make me a liberal, because I almost typed "man" by default but thought it though and guessed you could be a female)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, you're an OWS shitter who WOULD vote 100% democrat, IF you ever managed to get out and vote.
> 
> You're "anti-party" because you're really pissed that Obama didn't confiscate the wealth of the top 1% and give it to you, as you were convinced he would when you were worshiping him on TV when he was in Denver, in '08...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^
Click to expand...


You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.

Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?


----------



## Asclepias

RetiredGySgt said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, you're an OWS shitter who WOULD vote 100% democrat, IF you ever managed to get out and vote.
> 
> You're "anti-party" because you're really pissed that Obama didn't confiscate the wealth of the top 1% and give it to you, as you were convinced he would when you were worshiping him on TV when he was in Denver, in '08...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.
> 
> Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?
Click to expand...


You sound extremely butthurt.  Could it be that on most issues he disagrees with Reps?  I know I am like that.  Reps have some good ideas about some fiscal matters but they suck butt on almost everything else.


----------



## Uncensored2008

gnarlylove said:


> Can you please explain what it means for me to pretend you are crazy? How does it show up in my language?



I think the most you can do is pretend you're sane...


----------



## Uncensored2008

KissMy said:


> I always value informed voters over partisan hacks.



So, you're saying that you hate democrats, then?


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^



CDZ


----------



## Uncensored2008

BobPlumb said:


> I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.



You own stock in Ex-Lax or something?


----------



## gnarlylove

Asclepias said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.
> 
> Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound extremely butthurt.  Could it be that on most issues he disagrees with Reps?  I know I am like that.  Reps have some good ideas about some fiscal matters but they suck butt on almost everything else.
Click to expand...


The trouble in listening to what you said is that it forces them to clarify their position and they don't like doing that..they prefer to assert that your a liberal so they can automatically classify you as the enemy, the irrational evil of the world. They stand for just freedom based in property rights and will not tolerate disagreement. If you disagree, whether you agree with liberals or not, you automatically become liberal according to their official pronouncements. These are the sorts of people that cannot tolerate dialogue: you must listen and agree with what they say or you are without a brain.


----------



## Asclepias

gnarlylove said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.
> 
> Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound extremely butthurt.  Could it be that on most issues he disagrees with Reps?  I know I am like that.  Reps have some good ideas about some fiscal matters but they suck butt on almost everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The trouble in listening to what you said is that it forces them to clarify their position and they don't like doing that..they prefer to assert that your a liberal so they can automatically classify you as the enemy, the irrational evil of the world. They stand for just freedom based in property rights and will not tolerate disagreement. If you disagree, whether you agree with liberals or not, you automatically become liberal according to their official pronouncements. These are the sorts of people that cannot tolerate dialogue: you must listen and agree with what they say or you are without a brain.
Click to expand...


People like that are morons. Unfortunately they exist in order to feed the political machine.  Shades of gray people.....shades of gray.


----------



## gnarlylove

Moron indeed. It takes just a post or two to discover who is capable of critical analysis. Most of those saying they are right, rational etc. are trained to use those words like Pavlov's doggy. Sadly the government and corporate media are wet with excitement over simply how many Americans are morons who are incapable of articulating their position. So they usually define the opponent as irrational right off the bat so there's no threat to undermining their flimsy worldview of veneers.

This makes for a very open playing field for the affluent with grand visions of a two tiered society (them v. everybody else) and I suspect fascism is a step away in this country. The beliefs are there, and the actions are right behind. We own the world only though military might and so we will continue to do so until our military weaponry (drones) are turned against us just as all weapons are eventually turned on their makers.


----------



## BobPlumb

Uncensored2008 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You own stock in Ex-Lax or something?
Click to expand...


That would be the Pro-Movement Party.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.


----------



## Uncensored2008

BobPlumb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You own stock in Ex-Lax or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be the Pro-Movement Party.
Click to expand...


Nah, if people are having regular movements, they don't need the product....


----------



## Avatar4321

Guys this is the Clean Zone, Name calling is unnecessary and prohibited.


----------



## Asclepias

RetiredGySgt said:


> So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.




Use your critical thinking skills.  How do you know what someone does or does not do unless you are a stalker?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since humans do not have the right to water (therefore are denied life), some people get to live and others do not. How do we determine who dies and who lives (how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't)?
> 
> By the way, determining who dies and lives is an act of a sincere tyrant.
> 
> In addition, the CEO of Nestle in 2005 said the same thing, that water is not a human right. Soon after the statement was retracted because a global boycott was sparked. Nestle still says water is a human right.  Personally I do not have a strong opinion on the matter but I am very interested in hearing how we determine who dies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna go backwards because your CEO argument is my fucking -favorite-
> 
> The fact that there was a worldwide boycott doesn't affect my opinion in the -slightest-.  The fact that you imply that worldwide opinion denotes the probability of correctness leads me to believe that you're probably not possessed of the logical ability to have a substantive conversation regarding abstract subject matter, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to debate this.
> 
> Next up, determining who lives and dies -is- in fact the desire of a true tyrant.  I desire no such thing.
> 
> Saying someone doesn't have the -right- to water is not denying them water.  This is one of the worst straw men I've seen on the board -ever-, which makes it quite a fuckin scarecrow!  Your implication is that people either have the -right- to water or don't get to have it at all.  How fuckin silly are you?
> 
> Do I have the right to internet access or a computer?  No, I don't.  Yet somehow, here I am posting political opinions on an online message board.  Weird.  You mean I'm able to have a computer even though I don't have the right to a computer?  People are able to acquire things that aren't automatically their's by right?  WHAT A CONCEPT!
> 
> The way we determine who gets to have water and who doesn't?  Why, we don't determine that at all.  We let everyone determine whether or not they go get their water.  The ones who aren't able to acquire it will be the ones who don't have it.  That simple.  That doesn't require me to be a tyrant, it requires me to leave everyone to their own devices.  That's the whole idea of individual freedom, which is my highest standard.  By that standard, the only time we force people to behave against their desires is when their desires include the subjugation of anyone else's.
> 
> Your highest standard is collective "well-being", and the reason I put it in quotations is because it's based on your opinion of what is "good" for that collective.  The problem with that desire, in my opinion, is that it subjugates the will of any individual with a different idea of what is "good".  This is roughly the same value as that in the UN document, except that they probably (hopefully, for the sake of my opinion of your cognitive functions) have different opinions on the particulars of what is "good".  Even as fellow collectivists, the UN's rule would likely subjugate your will to many standards that aren't your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are very intelligent and I respect your cogent replies. A brief comment about your claim that I "imply" the logical fallacy ad populum: that is, that it's false. I did not imply that. I merely noted how there is universal, cross cultural disagreement with your position. I thought you should know, not that it should influence your belief. Then it is you who nicely and neatly arranges the strawman for I made no such claim or overt implication.
> 
> As your my strawman, you misunderstand the issue. I respect your position and given your current understanding of how the world works, you would be accurate. I insist however that your understanding is misguided and false. There is obviously enough water on the planet to sustain 8 billion humans otherwise there cannot exist 8 billion humans. So I want to be extra clear on my logic so let's convert this shit into syllogistic form:
> 
> If there are 8 billion humans living, then there must exist sufficient water for their living.
> There are 8 billion humans living.
> Therefore there must exist sufficient water for their living.
> 
> So now that we both understanding there is sufficient water on earth for humans we must ask the vital question why do people become water insecure? Maybe you were unaware that water insecurity even existed let alone is growing throughout the world. The answers are varied but a pattern emerges that people become water insecure because of the bottom line: they cannot afford it. So they loose access to this vital nutrient of life. Why can human A say to B that B can no longer access water which supported B's life? Because A owns the water and therefore is not required to make it available to anyone whatsoever.
> 
> But how did person A come to own the property of a specific source of water? He drew up a document and international courts, set up and configured by those who have interests in property, granted him legal protection upon his drawing up of this document. So now person B can be legally denied access to water that he could access hours before the document was written up.
> 
> So your whole basis for saying water is not a right is because, though there is enough water on this planet to sustain 8 billion humans, they may be denied access due to a arbitrary document that alters nothing whatsoever in the physical or natural world. This sounds to be a really specious way of denying water.
> 
> What if B instead had written the document first and had it made official? Well, it would never happen because B is not among the class of people who can do that. Thus, the distribution of water is not determined by human need but by profits. So yep, people are _de facto_ denied water and we determine that they are denied because they cannot afford it.
> 
> Let's turn to another vital question: why is B not among the class of people who can do claim property? Because B lacks the money. But why does B lack money? B was simply born in the wrong family and the wrong place. So according to geographic happenstance of where B was born B can be denied access to water, not because there is insufficient water to supply B, but because B has been dealt a bad hand.
> 
> I'd understand if you said B should make something of himself but you need to realize capitalism does not operate that way. Capitalism keeps wages low by having a reserve army of unemployed laborers so that when someone demands better conditions, they can fire them and hire someone who will not make that complaint. There must be a mass of people who are not doing well in order for those few, 5% can do exceptional. If you lived under a different system of distribution, I can understand you'd say water is not denied but in this system of capitalism, it must be denied because it's what the market will bear. But we know the market is an artificial creation of private property (a written deed is an artificial claim that has been made institutional) and therefore necessitates that some people will have abundantly and others will not to the point of lacking vital access to water. But being an artificial institution, it is preventing access and is made by human decision.
> 
> And the facts of the world about water back me up here in that there are indeed lots of people in the world that, though sufficient water exists, it is not supplied and therefore is denied.
> 
> "By 2025, 800 million people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity, and two-thirds of the world population could be under stress conditions."
> 
> "According to Nature (2010), about 80% of the world's population (5.6 billion in 2011) live in areas with threats to water security."
> Water security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So my premise that water is denied because it is not a right is true. So how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't? The answer is already obvious: corporations.
> 
> So lets ask why corporations get to be the tyrants? No one can vote for corporations so  this was obviously not a political act on the part of the public. So why are corporations the tyrants?
Click to expand...


Okay, first my straw man.

I gotta say that my assumption being baseless strikes me as -highly- unlikely.  The Nestle boycott was literally half your post.  You made one argument, clarified the point of that argument, then said, "In addition," and then made the statement about Nestle.  Especially with the "in addition" it seems to be intended to further your argument, and the ultimate purpose of any intellectual debate is to sway opinion.  However, despite that all signs point toward that having been intended as a supporting piece of evidence, I'll take you at your word that the "In addition" was misplaced and you were simply posting a fun anecdote to spice up the conversation.  I apologize for my straw man.

Now then.

I'll start by saying I disagree fundamentally with your take on property rights, but I absolutely -love- that you cut right to the quick on this argument and went straight to the lowest common denominator of our split in philosophy, so to speak.  It saves time and implies that you and I are on the same page at least insofar as acknowledging that a moral opinion on a fundamental philosophical principle is the ultimate basis on which both of our philosophical constructs are built.

That said, I hesitate to let this turn into an all-out argument on the validity of any particular setup of ownership.  That's a much more complex and blurry thing to argue, so I'll keep this to a short summary of my view.

Ownership is inevitable.  Humans, like most land-based animals, are instinctively possessive and territorial.  If no society forms to organize material ownership, then literal physical power will determine who owns what.  This is one of the basic reasons we form societies.

Humans, aside from being territorial, are instinctively individualistic, which seems like it would come with the territory of having an individual consciousness as opposed to a communal one, like worker ants.  Other than the instincts related to procreation (and even including most of these) a human being's instincts are all based in individual self-interest.

Therefore, my belief is that not only property rights, but -individual- property rights, are the organization of material management that most suits Humanity as it is the system of organization that allows for the least denial of our natural urges.  IT leaves us free to pursue the individual material dominance that we naturally desire while only tempering our methods with whatever particular ethics one's society deems binding.

Contrary to this, any form of communal ownership necessitates universal adherence to dogmatic principles that are diametrically opposed to our innate desires.

That said, my aversion to the demand of universal adherence to a morality is, in and of itself, dogmatic in nature.  This, as I said, as you seem to understand, ultimately boils down to a moral opinion:  Individualism or Collectivism?

Onto the primary focus.

Regardless of how you feel about the validity of individual ownership, the ownership of water is, at least in my opinion, less than arbitrary for a number of reasons.

In most of the places where water is scarce and, indeed, in most modern cities and towns, water is delivered to the consumer by man-made constructs to eliminate the need to get that fresh water from highly inconvenient sources.  The convenience of these sources depends on various factors.  Some places get their drinking water from underground water tables and other places treat water from above-ground sources so that it's adequately safe for human consumption.

My point is, in -most- modern places and spots where water is scarce enough to be a commodity, someone had to exert material and effort to make that water both drinkable and accessible.  It's not that they own the bodies of water so much as that they own the means of delivery.

Now, let's take a place like Hawaii.  Ocean-locked by 2500 miles.  The population on Oahu is significantly greater than what any above-ground fresh water sources on the island could ever -hope- to accommodate.  The drinking water on Oahu is pumped out of massive underground water tables, as it is in many modern cities.

Underground water tables aren't something that your average human could easily dig to for the sake of filling their buckets with fresh, drinkable water.  The obvious implication is that the only reason Oahu is able to support her populace with drinking water is that someone put together a physical construct that would make that underground water accessible.  They expended capital, effort, and -intellect- in order to irrigate that hard-to-get-to drinking water.  If we say that everyone on Oahu has the right to water, this means that the people who've now expended the capital to own and maintain that irrigation system simply -owe- it to people to allow them to access that construct's benefits.  You're proposing a system that forces them to obey your people-over-profits morality, and one that therefore forces them to give up, for free, the product of -their- intellect, provided that society deems that product necessary to basic human maintenance.

You're proposing a system of ownership under which "need", as is decided by "society", is all that's needed to enslave the product of someone else's effort and intellect.

This implies the utter removal of incentive to develop our most important technologies from anyone who doesn't -honestly- share your morality or have a set of values that can be met in an environment dominated legally by your morals.  Even by declaring a right to drinking water, you aren't guaranteeing access in places of scarcity for the very practical reason that the incentive for the upkeep of the irrigation systems that make drinking water accessible in many of these places is largely removed, as is the incentive for the implementation of irrigation where it's still needed.  Maybe it's a flaw in the human psychological system, but love of money (they physical representation of literal capacity.  You can easily replace the word money with the word power) gets a lot more shit done than love of our fellow man, historically speaking.  It's is inarguably the more effective incentive, when applied to our species.

Bottom line:  Yes, there is enough water on this planet to sustain everyone that's currently here.  However, much of that sustenance requires that someone make that water drinkable and accessible.  If you don't allow that someone to make a profit doing so, how can you rely on anybody actually expending the effort to make drinking water that widely available?  How could you reasonably expect it of anyone, other than by the mandate of -your- morality?

Then comes the other question.  Even if you irrigate by act of government, the building and maintenance of the constructs and the treatment of the water has to be done by -someone- and still requires that materials are expended.  These things have a cost, and that cost is generally covered by taxes.  That means society, as a whole, pays for its access to drinking water.  If you're paying for it, it's not a right.  You can call it a right, but if it costs something, that's an illusion.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are logical rights because they're things that an average human being can achieve in a vacuum and, more importantly, without the cooperation of anyone else.  Each person, as an individual, is possessed of the basic capacity to gather and consume food and water.  We've got our own hands, teeth, and digestive systems to manipulate these things.  We also breathe without help, and our self-initiative is automatic and requires no outside cooperation.

The right to water, if you live in a place without an accessible above-ground source, is an illusion because, unless someone cooperates to help you get it, most people wouldn't be able to acquire the stuff.

When you say that the corporations (your blanket term for whoever controls the significant majority of the resource in question) get to be the tyrants via this system, you're presupposing that the owners of the irrigation systems -owe- sustenance to anyone who's thirsty and can't get water.  You're assuming that, in a vacuum, all those people would be able to access all that water, which is often not the case, and/or you're assuming that having the power to sustain someone and not doing it is tantamount to denying them sustenance, which again boils down to moral opinion.

My moral opinion says they're not tyrants, as all they're doing is asserting control over material things that, by the traditional property rules of their respective societies, -they- acquired.  How that affects anyone else, in my moral opinion, is not their responsibility.  Everyone is his or her -own- responsibility, or the responsibility of their parents.  That a portion of my blood could sate the thirst of a man in need does not factually, morally necessitate that I open my wrist and let him drink.

Now, if this hasn't gotten longwinded enough already, let's take this one step further down the road of material rights.  Water's a fun one, because in theory a lot of people -would- be able to acquire it in a vacuum.  Let's try a commonly proposed material right that draws a more contrasting picture between your view and mine:  Healthcare!

There are plenty of naturally occurring plants, funguses, and bacteria with amazing healing properties that anybody with a little common know-how could access and apply.  That said, modern medicine largely requires the processing of active chemicals in these things into concentrations and combinations targeted more efficiently and effectively at specific health related effects.  This requires monumental amounts of research and development which requires monumental amounts of capital, and that's before you factor in the cost of producing the drugs that said research turns out.

Past that, the administration of modern medicine requires massive amounts of natural dexterity, intellectual capacity, and -acquired knowledge-.  The acquisition of the knowledge required to be a legal healthcare provider (doctor) in modern society requires, almost universally, just shy of a -decade- of intense secondary and post-secondary education and the potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars required to pay for that education (knowledge passed on from people who've spent comparable amounts of time and capital to have said knowledge to teach).

When you say that people have a right to healthcare, you're saying that they have a right to subjugate the intellectual property of the people who gathered insane amounts of knowledge, time, capital, and effort for anyone who can't or won't provide the cost of their own healthcare.

When you say they have a right to healthcare, you're saying they have the right to DIRECTLY SUBJUGATE nearby, available doctors simply by having a need for their services and nothing substantial to offer in trade.

You're saying that if someone with considerable natural talents takes the even more considerable time and effort to develop those talents to the point that they can effectively treat difficult ailments, they automatically subject themselves to enslavement by anyone with the convenient combination of need and lack.

The right to anything material, -especially- healthcare, means the enslavement of the capable to the needs of the incapable.  I am morally opposed to this concept in all of its forms.

Not2BSubjugated isn't just an off-the-cuff handle


----------



## BobPlumb

Uncensored2008 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You own stock in Ex-Lax or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the Pro-Movement Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, if people are having regular movements, they don't need the product....
Click to expand...


But Ex-lax would be pro-movement.  If I am anti-movement then I would want to keep people from taking Ex-lax.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.
> 
> Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound extremely butthurt.  Could it be that on most issues he disagrees with Reps?  I know I am like that.  Reps have some good ideas about some fiscal matters but they suck butt on almost everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The trouble in listening to what you said is that it forces them to clarify their position and they don't like doing that..they prefer to assert that your a liberal so they can automatically classify you as the enemy, the irrational evil of the world. They stand for just freedom based in property rights and will not tolerate disagreement. If you disagree, whether you agree with liberals or not, you automatically become liberal according to their official pronouncements. These are the sorts of people that cannot tolerate dialogue: you must listen and agree with what they say or you are without a brain.
Click to expand...


You should take your own advice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use your critical thinking skills.  How do you know what someone does or does not do unless you are a stalker?
Click to expand...


By reading their posts.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use your critical thinking skills.  How do you know what someone does or does not do unless you are a stalker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By reading their posts.
Click to expand...


Hate to break it to you but that only tells you so much and proves you are not too bright for thinking a post is the same as someone spilling their guts to you. You keep proving your grasp on certain dynamics is questionable.


----------



## gnarlylove

Not2bSubjugated I dig the reply and appreciate the clarity with which you delineated the strawman and stress on the phrase "in addition."

A unique defense of property: not that it's actually an inherent thing but has descriptively developed through evolutionary means. The contract and legal system we have depends on property. It arranges distribution and the like in legal terms though I think those terms are favoritist and can be traced back to the interests of those setting up the legal framework which is at odd with the majority of human beings on the planet. But as you speak of property allow me to continue: we will continue to evolve and it's entirely likely that property will be subjugated by a mega corporation or conglomerate and it will be opposed to the interests of all the people. Either way, evolution will end property and continue with something else.

Also notice the descriptive fact we adopted private property is not a good argument to adopt the notion.

You also hinted that we will have lowered incentives without property. This is true if humans are taught to pursue wealth forgetting all but self. However, most humans do not live according to this radically anti-human proposition and even those who adhere continue to concern others in their decision making. The one's who don't are clinically diagnosed as pathological and these are the sorts of people who make big bucks on wall street (search on WSJ "lessons of a brain damaged investor").

But if we taught people to adhere to their internal principles of community and social activity, we would naturally develop interchange that is akin to the dialectical process of life that leads to technological advancement. We have been advancing and regressing all the while long before property and profit-maximization were thought up, let alone utilized. Albeit we have seen the most rapid development, this development has not been without cost. Computers were funded for decades before they were turned into private hands. The costs to develop them were funded by the public and once they became marketable we transfered them to Gates and the like. The public reaps the benefits by paying Gates for something they helped create? Odd way of technological advancement. Make people pay more for what they already paid for.

I would keep going as your reply deserves much attention but I must sadly announce I do not have it in me to devote the proper time. Instead I will praise you for your cogent reply and ask what is your educational background for shits and giggles?

I tend to associate your lucidity with a philosophical background but your actual position is usually found among untrained layman or CEOs. I figure you are neither, so why are you defending a position that has no practical value to you and that you must understand as having shortcomings (like water insecurity). I really enjoyed your section on water not existing in certain areas and most people not having access. It was a really eloquent and accurate portrayal that I left out of my reply though I didn't expect you to understand with such precision. Despite our disagreement on this topic, I would like to venture to other areas of interest because you are definitely not to be subjugated (neither am I)!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use your critical thinking skills.  How do you know what someone does or does not do unless you are a stalker?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By reading their posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but that only tells you so much and proves you are not too bright for thinking a post is the same as someone spilling their guts to you. You keep proving your grasp on certain dynamics is questionable.
Click to expand...


Since the discussion is about what he posts, not what he thinks, it shows enough.

But, please, feel free to pretend I said something so stupid that only you can explain how stupid it is.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> By reading their posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but that only tells you so much and proves you are not too bright for thinking a post is the same as someone spilling their guts to you. You keep proving your grasp on certain dynamics is questionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the discussion is about what he posts, not what he thinks, it shows enough.
> 
> But, please, feel free to pretend I said something so stupid that only you can explain how stupid it is.
Click to expand...


Yet no where in the post I responded to does it say what he "posts".  Feel free to explain why you wrote something so stupid an infant could pick it out.  Let me know when all actions like hating the right are confined to what you post on a messageboard.



RetiredGySgt said:


> So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.


----------



## AntiParty

BobPlumb said:


> I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.



And where does that leave you.


----------



## AntiParty

RetiredGySgt said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, you're an OWS shitter who WOULD vote 100% democrat, IF you ever managed to get out and vote.
> 
> You're "anti-party" because you're really pissed that Obama didn't confiscate the wealth of the top 1% and give it to you, as you were convinced he would when you were worshiping him on TV when he was in Denver, in '08...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.
> 
> Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?
Click to expand...


YOu keep stating this over and over in my thread. It's clear by now that you don't know how to see responses to your inquries. 

I don't believe in abortion, soda limits, gun grabbing, big spending, illegal immigration and voting without ID.

  You will later repeat what you just stated because you won't read this,* again*. You hear what you want to hear and repeat what is good for your argument.


----------



## Avatar4321

AntiParty said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does that leave you.
Click to expand...


relaxing in bed with a beautiful woman?


----------



## AntiParty

gnarlylove said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.
> 
> Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound extremely butthurt.  Could it be that on most issues he disagrees with Reps?  I know I am like that.  Reps have some good ideas about some fiscal matters but they suck butt on almost everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The trouble in listening to what you said is that it forces them to clarify their position and they don't like doing that..they prefer to assert that your a liberal so they can automatically classify you as the enemy, the irrational evil of the world. They stand for just freedom based in property rights and will not tolerate disagreement. If you disagree, whether you agree with liberals or not, you automatically become liberal according to their official pronouncements. These are the sorts of people that cannot tolerate dialogue: you must listen and agree with what they say or you are without a brain.
Click to expand...


YOU are *100% correct* and THANK YOU. 

One of the biggest measures a cult takes is ensuring the people in the cult have not ability to receive new information from outside sources. Which is why I can question the Right Wing and they call me a traitor Leftist Liberal Democrat. 

In reality, they don't question why they aren't allowed to listen to mainstream media but only a small group that has a very different ideology. 

Cults rule the small minded.


----------



## AntiParty

RetiredGySgt said:


> So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.



Retired, believe it or not I understand your position.....

Do you know what the Right Actually stands for? Less spending, less government. It's pretty basic. 

The Right Wing as far as drama goes is pretty boring unless Fox News takes the stand. 

How many posts here are about Right Wing movements? Movement is counter productive of Conservative. 

Most talking points are by the Left or by the bias media that creates drama via lies. 

Again. The Right is basic. Less spending. Less government. Imagine if Fox news said those two things 400 times a day. Not good entertainment. So they create drama through lies and some people bite.....

I believe in less government and less spending. But I won't support the lies you support because of the media and politicians YOU listen to to get there.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but that only tells you so much and proves you are not too bright for thinking a post is the same as someone spilling their guts to you. You keep proving your grasp on certain dynamics is questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the discussion is about what he posts, not what he thinks, it shows enough.
> 
> But, please, feel free to pretend I said something so stupid that only you can explain how stupid it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet no where in the post I responded to does it say what he "posts".  Feel free to explain why you wrote something so stupid an infant could pick it out.  Let me know when all actions like hating the right are confined to what you post on a messageboard.
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets get this right.... *If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party?* You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thanks for agreeing with me, I didn't think you had it in you to admit you are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.
> 
> Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu keep stating this over and over in my thread. It's clear by now that you don't know how to see responses to your inquries.
> 
> I don't believe in abortion, soda limits, gun grabbing, big spending, and voting without ID.
> 
> You will later repeat what you just stated because you won't read this, again.
Click to expand...


Is that similar to the way you keep repeating things that have nothing to do with what he asked? Or claiming I think you are the left when I say you never think outside the box handed you by the Democrats?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the discussion is about what he posts, not what he thinks, it shows enough.
> 
> But, please, feel free to pretend I said something so stupid that only you can explain how stupid it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet no where in the post I responded to does it say what he "posts".  Feel free to explain why you wrote something so stupid an infant could pick it out.  Let me know when all actions like hating the right are confined to what you post on a messageboard.
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets get this right.... *If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party?* You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for agreeing with me, I didn't think you had it in you to admit you are wrong.
Click to expand...


You must be confused. I didnt agree with you.  I pointed out that no where in the post I responded to did it specify what he posts.  Thanks for bolding it so everyone sees how off the mark you were.


----------



## AntiParty

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but that only tells you so much and proves you are not too bright for thinking a post is the same as someone spilling their guts to you. You keep proving your grasp on certain dynamics is questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the discussion is about what he posts, not what he thinks, it shows enough.
> 
> But, please, feel free to pretend I said something so stupid that only you can explain how stupid it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet no where in the post I responded to does it say what he "posts".  Feel free to explain why you wrote something so stupid an infant could pick it out.  Let me know when all actions like hating the right are confined to what you post on a messageboard.
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I don't "hate" any party. But the Tea Party is working on it. Their message is profit driven. 

Does this challenge my perspective as an Anti_party? Because I can challenge a parties platform? No. It solidifies my stance because I am smart enough to challenge a parties platform. This doesn't mean you have to agree with me, Im not a party, Im a person with an opinion and your opinion should be yours, not mine.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound extremely butthurt.  Could it be that on most issues he disagrees with Reps?  I know I am like that.  Reps have some good ideas about some fiscal matters but they suck butt on almost everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble in listening to what you said is that it forces them to clarify their position and they don't like doing that..they prefer to assert that your a liberal so they can automatically classify you as the enemy, the irrational evil of the world. They stand for just freedom based in property rights and will not tolerate disagreement. If you disagree, whether you agree with liberals or not, you automatically become liberal according to their official pronouncements. These are the sorts of people that cannot tolerate dialogue: you must listen and agree with what they say or you are without a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are *100% correct* and THANK YOU.
> 
> One of the biggest measures a cult takes is ensuring the people in the cult have not ability to receive new information from outside sources. Which is why I can question the Right Wing and they call me a traitor Leftist Liberal Democrat.
> 
> In reality, they don't question why they aren't allowed to listen to mainstream media but only a small group that has a very different ideology.
> 
> Cults rule the small minded.
Click to expand...


How many people are in your cult?


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.
> 
> Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu keep stating this over and over in my thread. It's clear by now that you don't know how to see responses to your inquries.
> 
> I don't believe in abortion, soda limits, gun grabbing, big spending, and voting without ID.
> 
> You will later repeat what you just stated because you won't read this, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that similar to the way you keep repeating things that have nothing to do with what he asked? Or claiming I think you are the left when I say you never think outside the box handed you by the Democrats?
Click to expand...


^See what the brainwash does to people? I specifically identified the Right Wing Characteristics I identify with and his response was the typical one. "You are a leftist"

I'm embarrassed for this person.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble in listening to what you said is that it forces them to clarify their position and they don't like doing that..they prefer to assert that your a liberal so they can automatically classify you as the enemy, the irrational evil of the world. They stand for just freedom based in property rights and will not tolerate disagreement. If you disagree, whether you agree with liberals or not, you automatically become liberal according to their official pronouncements. These are the sorts of people that cannot tolerate dialogue: you must listen and agree with what they say or you are without a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are *100% correct* and THANK YOU.
> 
> One of the biggest measures a cult takes is ensuring the people in the cult have not ability to receive new information from outside sources. Which is why I can question the Right Wing and they call me a traitor Leftist Liberal Democrat.
> 
> In reality, they don't question why they aren't allowed to listen to mainstream media but only a small group that has a very different ideology.
> 
> Cults rule the small minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people are in your cult?
Click to expand...


I have a cult? Explain please. Even try. You don't even know what a cult consists of so your response is EPIC. 

All hail me! I demand you think for yourself! I guess if I had a cult it would be a lot like the Constitution.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble in listening to what you said is that it forces them to clarify their position and they don't like doing that..they prefer to assert that your a liberal so they can automatically classify you as the enemy, the irrational evil of the world. They stand for just freedom based in property rights and will not tolerate disagreement. If you disagree, whether you agree with liberals or not, you automatically become liberal according to their official pronouncements. These are the sorts of people that cannot tolerate dialogue: you must listen and agree with what they say or you are without a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are *100% correct* and THANK YOU.
> 
> One of the biggest measures a cult takes is ensuring the people in the cult have not ability to receive new information from outside sources. Which is why I can question the Right Wing and they call me a traitor Leftist Liberal Democrat.
> 
> In reality, they don't question why they aren't allowed to listen to mainstream media but only a small group that has a very different ideology.
> 
> Cults rule the small minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people are in your cult?
Click to expand...



Again. Step 1 of a cult teaches it's followers to stop allowing input from other resources. Perhaps you've seen the Fox News assault on MSM lately?


----------



## westwall

AntiParty said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the discussion is about what he posts, not what he thinks, it shows enough.
> 
> But, please, feel free to pretend I said something so stupid that only you can explain how stupid it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet no where in the post I responded to does it say what he "posts".  Feel free to explain why you wrote something so stupid an infant could pick it out.  Let me know when all actions like hating the right are confined to what you post on a messageboard.
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" any party. But the Tea Party is working on it. Their message is profit driven.
> 
> Does this challenge my perspective as an Anti_party? Because I can challenge a parties platform? No. It solidifies my stance because I am smart enough to challenge a parties platform. This doesn't mean you have to agree with me, Im not a party, Im a person with an opinion and your opinion should be yours, not mine.
Click to expand...







Considering that the TEA party isn't an organized one how could you "hate" them?  But then I remember you're a progressive, and progs do hate just about everyone and everything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu keep stating this over and over in my thread. It's clear by now that you don't know how to see responses to your inquries.
> 
> I don't believe in abortion, soda limits, gun grabbing, big spending, and voting without ID.
> 
> You will later repeat what you just stated because you won't read this, again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that similar to the way you keep repeating things that have nothing to do with what he asked? Or claiming I think you are the left when I say you never think outside the box handed you by the Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^See what the brainwash does to people? I specifically identified the Right Wing Characteristics I identify with and his response was the typical one. "You are a leftist"
> 
> I'm embarrassed for this person.
Click to expand...


What are Right Wing Characteristics? Why is it capitalized?

By the way, did you notice I didn't call you a leftist?


----------



## BobPlumb

AntiParty said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does that leave you.
Click to expand...


Having fun with oxymorons.


----------



## AntiParty

Avatar4321 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does that leave you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> relaxing in bed with a beautiful woman?
Click to expand...


Anti-Everything leaves you with ignorance. If you don't stand for even your own opinion you are basically ignorant. 

A movement to promote believing in yourself is a good one. 

A movement to end movements such as believing in yourself expresses traits that guarantee you are not in bed with a beautiful woman. 

If you don't believe in yourself, no woman will believe in you. Basic.


----------



## AntiParty

westwall said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet no where in the post I responded to does it say what he "posts".  Feel free to explain why you wrote something so stupid an infant could pick it out.  Let me know when all actions like hating the right are confined to what you post on a messageboard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" any party. But the Tea Party is working on it. Their message is profit driven.
> 
> Does this challenge my perspective as an Anti_party? Because I can challenge a parties platform? No. It solidifies my stance because I am smart enough to challenge a parties platform. This doesn't mean you have to agree with me, Im not a party, Im a person with an opinion and your opinion should be yours, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that the TEA party isn't an organized one how could you "hate" them?  But then I remember you're a progressive, and progs do hate just about everyone and everything.
Click to expand...


So you don't recognize that Ted Cruz openly stated he wants to shut down the Government and then the Government followed through. 

Clearly you don't read.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that similar to the way you keep repeating things that have nothing to do with what he asked? Or claiming I think you are the left when I say you never think outside the box handed you by the Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^See what the brainwash does to people? I specifically identified the Right Wing Characteristics I identify with and his response was the typical one. "You are a leftist"
> 
> I'm embarrassed for this person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are Right Wing Characteristics? Why is it capitalized?
> 
> By the way, did you notice I didn't call you a leftist?
Click to expand...


Do you even know what party platforms are kiddo?


----------



## AntiParty

BobPlumb said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does that leave you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having fun with oxymorons.
Click to expand...


Sorry bub. YOu don't know what an Oxymoron is.  You meant sarcasm. Sorry.


----------



## BobPlumb

AntiParty said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where does that leave you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having fun with oxymorons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry bub. YOu don't know what an Oxymoron is.  You meant sarcasm. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Thanks for educating me.  I was so confused.......lol


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble in listening to what you said is that it forces them to clarify their position and they don't like doing that..they prefer to assert that your a liberal so they can automatically classify you as the enemy, the irrational evil of the world. They stand for just freedom based in property rights and will not tolerate disagreement. If you disagree, whether you agree with liberals or not, you automatically become liberal according to their official pronouncements. These are the sorts of people that cannot tolerate dialogue: you must listen and agree with what they say or you are without a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are *100% correct* and THANK YOU.
> 
> One of the biggest measures a cult takes is ensuring the people in the cult have not ability to receive new information from outside sources. Which is why I can question the Right Wing and they call me a traitor Leftist Liberal Democrat.
> 
> In reality, they don't question why they aren't allowed to listen to mainstream media but only a small group that has a very different ideology.
> 
> Cults rule the small minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people are in your cult?
Click to expand...


You have always had a hard time locating your dictionary.  What he is proposing is the exact opposite of a cult.


----------



## AntiParty

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are *100% correct* and THANK YOU.
> 
> One of the biggest measures a cult takes is ensuring the people in the cult have not ability to receive new information from outside sources. Which is why I can question the Right Wing and they call me a traitor Leftist Liberal Democrat.
> 
> In reality, they don't question why they aren't allowed to listen to mainstream media but only a small group that has a very different ideology.
> 
> Cults rule the small minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many people are in your cult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have always had a hard time locating your dictionary.  What he is proposing is the exact opposite of a cult.
Click to expand...


Ok then explain. First off, explain who is "he".......................Seems simple. 
 If you want a debate, then ask the proper question. You seem to jump in and attack my definition of a Cult when anyone can research what a cult is. 

Perhaps you should follow your own advice. 

My brain hurts for the people that don't care to learn. It's embarrassing for 'Merica.


----------



## AntiParty

BobPlumb said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having fun with oxymorons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bub. YOu don't know what an Oxymoron is.  You meant sarcasm. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for educating me.  I was so confused.......lol
Click to expand...


Hey..........I didn't educate you..............

You can research what "Oxymoron" means on your own time..................

Why are you wasting pages here?


----------



## westwall

AntiParty said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" any party. But the Tea Party is working on it. Their message is profit driven.
> 
> Does this challenge my perspective as an Anti_party? Because I can challenge a parties platform? No. It solidifies my stance because I am smart enough to challenge a parties platform. This doesn't mean you have to agree with me, Im not a party, Im a person with an opinion and your opinion should be yours, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that the TEA party isn't an organized one how could you "hate" them?  But then I remember you're a progressive, and progs do hate just about everyone and everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't recognize that Ted Cruz openly stated he wants to shut down the Government and then the Government followed through.
> 
> Clearly you don't read.
Click to expand...








  So, how many TEA party members are there in Congress?  The Senate?  Who is their national chair person?  Where is their HQ?  When was it incorporated as a political party and by whom?

Cue Jeopardy music....


----------



## BobPlumb

AntiParty said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bub. YOu don't know what an Oxymoron is.  You meant sarcasm. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for educating me.  I was so confused.......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey..........I didn't educate you..............
> 
> You can research what "Oxymoron" means on your own time..................
> 
> Why are you wasting pages here?
Click to expand...


move·ment
&#712;mo&#862;ovm&#601;nt/
noun
1.
an act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed.
"a slight movement of the upper body"
synonyms:	motion, move; More
an arrival or departure of an aircraft.
an act of defecation.
noun: bowel movement; plural noun: bowel movements
the activities and whereabouts of someone, especially during a particular period of time.
"your movements and telephone conversations are recorded"
the general activity or bustle of people or things in a particular place.
"the scene was almost devoid of movement"
the progressive development of a poem or story.
"the novel shows minimal concern for narrative movement"
a change or development in something.
"movements in the underlying financial markets"
synonyms:	development, change, fluctuation, variation More
2.
a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.
"the labor movement"
synonyms:	political group, party, faction, wing, lobby, camp More
a campaign undertaken by a group of people working together.
"a movement to declare war on poverty"
synonyms:	campaign, crusade, drive, push More
3.
MUSIC
a principal division of a longer musical work, self-sufficient in terms of key, tempo, and structure.
"the slow movement of his violin concerto"
synonyms:	part, section, division More
4.
the moving parts of a mechanism, especially a clock or watch.
Origin
late Middle English: via Old French from medieval Latin movimentum, from Latin movere to move.

See definition #2 and the associated synonyms.  Party and movement are synonyms.  Thus anti-party movement is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms.


----------



## BobPlumb

ox·y·mo·ron
&#716;äks&#601;&#712;môr&#716;än/
noun
1.
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).


----------



## AntiParty

westwall said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that the TEA party isn't an organized one how could you "hate" them?  But then I remember you're a progressive, and progs do hate just about everyone and everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't recognize that Ted Cruz openly stated he wants to shut down the Government and then the Government followed through.
> 
> Clearly you don't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many TEA party members are there in Congress?  The Senate?  Who is their national chair person?  Where is their HQ?  When was it incorporated as a political party and by whom?
> 
> Cue Jeopardy music....
Click to expand...


You are clearly confusing the Republican Party with the Libertarian and Tea Party. Grover Norquist, Libertarian, has been dictating the Republicans for a long time. He made all Republicans/Rightists sign a "No new taxes no matter what" statement. Eventually nearly every Right Winger had to sign this bill otherwise, they wouldn't be accepted into Congress. And the people who were "traitors" to the bill would be vorted out, like Bush the first who raised taxes to pay for his war. 

This movement of "I want it all and I want it for free" didn't end there. Last election we saw Romney state what he was going to do but couldn't back it up with numbers. Science/
Math is hard on some. 

Romney lost because he was one of the 1% that doesn't pay taxes due to Corporations buying Politicians and outsourcing his banking. Today, top Corporations and the Rich put money overseas to prevent American Taxation. 

Your question was very valid and humerous. What politician is Tea Party! LOL! Only the dumbest. The Tea Party stands for everything other parties do except for the free market. Seems you can find your standing with more educated parties, except for the free market which the Constitution stands against via the Commerce Clause. 

But Libertarians and Tea Party hate the Commerce Clause. They stand by the Constitution until it's brought up.


----------



## AntiParty

BobPlumb said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for educating me.  I was so confused.......lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey..........I didn't educate you..............
> 
> You can research what "Oxymoron" means on your own time..................
> 
> Why are you wasting pages here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> move·ment
> &#712;mo&#862;ovm&#601;nt/
> noun
> 1.
> an act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed.
> "a slight movement of the upper body"
> synonyms:	motion, move; More
> an arrival or departure of an aircraft.
> an act of defecation.
> noun: bowel movement; plural noun: bowel movements
> the activities and whereabouts of someone, especially during a particular period of time.
> "your movements and telephone conversations are recorded"
> the general activity or bustle of people or things in a particular place.
> "the scene was almost devoid of movement"
> the progressive development of a poem or story.
> "the novel shows minimal concern for narrative movement"
> a change or development in something.
> "movements in the underlying financial markets"
> synonyms:	development, change, fluctuation, variation More
> 2.
> a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.
> "the labor movement"
> synonyms:	political group, party, faction, wing, lobby, camp More
> a campaign undertaken by a group of people working together.
> "a movement to declare war on poverty"
> synonyms:	campaign, crusade, drive, push More
> 3.
> MUSIC
> a principal division of a longer musical work, self-sufficient in terms of key, tempo, and structure.
> "the slow movement of his violin concerto"
> synonyms:	part, section, division More
> 4.
> the moving parts of a mechanism, especially a clock or watch.
> Origin
> late Middle English: via Old French from medieval Latin movimentum, from Latin movere &#8216;to move.&#8217;
> 
> See definition #2 and the associated synonyms.  Party and movement are synonyms.  Thus anti-party movement is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms.
Click to expand...


Awesome post. You defined "movement" and not the topic we were discussing, "*Oxymoron". *Typical.


----------



## westwall

AntiParty said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't recognize that Ted Cruz openly stated he wants to shut down the Government and then the Government followed through.
> 
> Clearly you don't read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many TEA party members are there in Congress?  The Senate?  Who is their national chair person?  Where is their HQ?  When was it incorporated as a political party and by whom?
> 
> Cue Jeopardy music....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are clearly confusing the Republican Party with the Libertarian and Tea Party. Grover Norquist, Libertarian, has been dictating the Republicans for a long time. He made all Republicans/Rightists sign a "No new taxes no matter what" statement. Eventually nearly every Right Winger had to sign this bill otherwise, they wouldn't be accepted into Congress. And the people who were "traitors" to the bill would be vorted out, like Bush the first who raised taxes to pay for his war.
> 
> This movement of "I want it all and I want it for free" didn't end there. Last election we saw Romney state what he was going to do but couldn't back it up with numbers. Science/
> Math is hard on some.
> 
> Romney lost because he was one of the 1% that doesn't pay taxes due to Corporations buying Politicians and outsourcing his banking. Today, top Corporations and the Rich put money overseas to prevent American Taxation.
> 
> Your question was very valid and humerous. What politician is Tea Party! LOL! Only the dumbest. The Tea Party stands for everything other parties do except for the free market. Seems you can find your standing with more educated parties, except for the free market which the Constitution stands against via the Commerce Clause.
> 
> But Libertarians and Tea Party hate the Commerce Clause. They stand by the Constitution until it's brought up.
Click to expand...







You didn't answer my questions.  Try again.


----------



## BobPlumb

AntiParty said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey..........I didn't educate you..............
> 
> You can research what "Oxymoron" means on your own time..................
> 
> Why are you wasting pages here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> move·ment
> &#712;mo&#862;ovm&#601;nt/
> noun
> 1.
> an act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed.
> "a slight movement of the upper body"
> synonyms:	motion, move; More
> an arrival or departure of an aircraft.
> an act of defecation.
> noun: bowel movement; plural noun: bowel movements
> the activities and whereabouts of someone, especially during a particular period of time.
> "your movements and telephone conversations are recorded"
> the general activity or bustle of people or things in a particular place.
> "the scene was almost devoid of movement"
> the progressive development of a poem or story.
> "the novel shows minimal concern for narrative movement"
> a change or development in something.
> "movements in the underlying financial markets"
> synonyms:	development, change, fluctuation, variation More
> 2.
> a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.
> "the labor movement"
> synonyms:	political group, party, faction, wing, lobby, camp More
> a campaign undertaken by a group of people working together.
> "a movement to declare war on poverty"
> synonyms:	campaign, crusade, drive, push More
> 3.
> MUSIC
> a principal division of a longer musical work, self-sufficient in terms of key, tempo, and structure.
> "the slow movement of his violin concerto"
> synonyms:	part, section, division More
> 4.
> the moving parts of a mechanism, especially a clock or watch.
> Origin
> late Middle English: via Old French from medieval Latin movimentum, from Latin movere to move.
> 
> See definition #2 and the associated synonyms.  Party and movement are synonyms.  Thus anti-party movement is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome post. You defined "movement" and not the topic we were discussing, "*Oxymoron". *Typical.
Click to expand...


AntiParty, you have just been schooled.  Don't worry, no tuition is required this time.


----------



## AntiParty

BobPlumb said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> move·ment
> &#712;mo&#862;ovm&#601;nt/
> noun
> 1.
> an act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed.
> "a slight movement of the upper body"
> synonyms:	motion, move; More
> an arrival or departure of an aircraft.
> an act of defecation.
> noun: bowel movement; plural noun: bowel movements
> the activities and whereabouts of someone, especially during a particular period of time.
> "your movements and telephone conversations are recorded"
> the general activity or bustle of people or things in a particular place.
> "the scene was almost devoid of movement"
> the progressive development of a poem or story.
> "the novel shows minimal concern for narrative movement"
> a change or development in something.
> "movements in the underlying financial markets"
> synonyms:	development, change, fluctuation, variation More
> 2.
> a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.
> "the labor movement"
> synonyms:	political group, party, faction, wing, lobby, camp More
> a campaign undertaken by a group of people working together.
> "a movement to declare war on poverty"
> synonyms:	campaign, crusade, drive, push More
> 3.
> MUSIC
> a principal division of a longer musical work, self-sufficient in terms of key, tempo, and structure.
> "the slow movement of his violin concerto"
> synonyms:	part, section, division More
> 4.
> the moving parts of a mechanism, especially a clock or watch.
> Origin
> late Middle English: via Old French from medieval Latin movimentum, from Latin movere to move.
> 
> See definition #2 and the associated synonyms.  Party and movement are synonyms.  Thus anti-party movement is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome post. You defined "movement" and not the topic we were discussing, "*Oxymoron". *Typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AntiParty, you have just been schooled.  Don't worry, no tuition is required this time.
Click to expand...


I was schooled huh? LOL. Better read back kids.


----------



## AntiParty




----------



## Uncensored2008

Asclepias said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use your critical thinking skills.  How do you know what someone does or does not do unless you are a stalker?
Click to expand...


By inviting them to offer a link, which has been done a dozen times.


----------



## Uncensored2008

westwall said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" any party. But the Tea Party is working on it. Their message is profit driven.
> 
> Does this challenge my perspective as an Anti_party? Because I can challenge a parties platform? No. It solidifies my stance because I am smart enough to challenge a parties platform. This doesn't mean you have to agree with me, Im not a party, Im a person with an opinion and your opinion should be yours, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that the TEA party isn't an organized one how could you "hate" them?  But then I remember you're a progressive, and progs do hate just about everyone and everything.
Click to expand...


I wish the Tea Party were far more profit driven than it is.

Unfortunately, it often seems to be driven by social issues. A strong advocate for the nobility of trade, the fact that the most honorable method that people have to deal with each other is the trade of value for value, would be a major gain for this naiton. Early on, that is what the Tea Party was. Then the Republicans coopted it, and interjected social causes, poluting the message and limiting appeal.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> So you don't recognize that Ted Cruz openly stated he wants to shut down the Government and then the Government followed through.
> 
> Clearly you don't read.



That would be easier to recognize if it were factual - but it isn't.

Obama's Fascist Care is the worst piece of legislation to ever win passage in this nation. Cruz opposing the implementation of this holocaust is admirable.


----------



## Uncensored2008

BobPlumb said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having fun with oxymorons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bub. YOu don't know what an Oxymoron is.  You meant sarcasm. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for educating me.  I was so confused.......lol
Click to expand...


It's more fun when they get the joke, but whatchagunnado?


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> Hey..........I didn't educate you..............
> 
> You can research what "Oxymoron" means on your own time..................
> 
> Why are you wasting pages here?



Psssst....

Antiparty, that you lacked the wits to grasp the joke, makes it all the more funny.

I'm just sayin...


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use your critical thinking skills.  How do you know what someone does or does not do unless you are a stalker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By inviting them to offer a link, which has been done a dozen times.
Click to expand...


What makes you think you are worthy of being given a link? How does a link tell you what they do and who they criticize?  I didnt know you keep logs of what you do in life on the internet for everyone to see.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Asclepias said:


> What makes you think you are worthy of being given a link? How does a link tell you what they do and who they criticize?  I didnt know you keep logs of what you do in life on the internet for everyone to see.



This is a message board; you are what you post.

Want to prove you're not a partisan hack, link to something non-partisan.

This isn't that difficult to grasp.


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think you are worthy of being given a link? How does a link tell you what they do and who they criticize?  I didnt know you keep logs of what you do in life on the internet for everyone to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a message board; you are what you post.
> 
> Want to prove you're not a partisan hack, link to something non-partisan.
> 
> This isn't that difficult to grasp.
Click to expand...


This message board does not define anyone. What kind of loser mentality do you have to actually believe that?  

What do you mean by prove?  What makes you think anyone has to prove something...to you of all people? 

Yes its difficult to grasp.  You dont know very much about a person just by what is posted on a message board.  I guess thats why people like you get Catfished online.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" any party. But the Tea Party is working on it. Their message is profit driven.
> 
> Does this challenge my perspective as an Anti_party? Because I can challenge a parties platform? No. It solidifies my stance because I am smart enough to challenge a parties platform. This doesn't mean you have to agree with me, Im not a party, Im a person with an opinion and your opinion should be yours, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that the TEA party isn't an organized one how could you "hate" them?  But then I remember you're a progressive, and progs do hate just about everyone and everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't recognize that Ted Cruz openly stated he wants to shut down the Government and then the Government followed through.
> 
> Clearly you don't read.
Click to expand...


One would think that someone who uses Guy Fawkes as an avatar would  understand that shutting the government down is a good thing.

By the way, if Cruz actually said that, he failed.


----------



## gnarlylove

Uncensored2008 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think you are worthy of being given a link? How does a link tell you what they do and who they criticize?  I didnt know you keep logs of what you do in life on the internet for everyone to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a message board; you are what you post.
> 
> Want to prove you're not a partisan hack, link to something non-partisan.
> 
> This isn't that difficult to grasp.
Click to expand...


What we post on here is not definatory of our person. It is a mere aspect of a much larger whole. Isolating what people post as who they are is like touching a square inch of an elephant or barn while blindfolded and saying "I know fully what this thing is." There are many aspects of humanity that simply do not get translated onto a message board. Thus it is absurd to think we know who people are simply by a dozen posts or even a thousand.

Nothing exists in isolation and when we isolate aspects and consider them the whole we are neglecting the fundamental aspect of reality we know immediately: that nothing exists in isolation.
Besides, a link can be posted by anyone. It does not take a KKK member to post Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan: Knights Party


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^See what the brainwash does to people? I specifically identified the Right Wing Characteristics I identify with and his response was the typical one. "You are a leftist"
> 
> I'm embarrassed for this person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are Right Wing Characteristics? Why is it capitalized?
> 
> By the way, did you notice I didn't call you a leftist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even know what party platforms are kiddo?
Click to expand...


Are you telling me that party platforms are Right Wing Characteristics?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are *100% correct* and THANK YOU.
> 
> One of the biggest measures a cult takes is ensuring the people in the cult have not ability to receive new information from outside sources. Which is why I can question the Right Wing and they call me a traitor Leftist Liberal Democrat.
> 
> In reality, they don't question why they aren't allowed to listen to mainstream media but only a small group that has a very different ideology.
> 
> Cults rule the small minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many people are in your cult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have always had a hard time locating your dictionary.  What he is proposing is the exact opposite of a cult.
Click to expand...


I am not asking about what he is supposedly proposing, I am talking about the fact that he never listens to facts that contradict his beliefs. He is a lot like you in that regard, but at least he doesn't believe in aliens.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bub. YOu don't know what an Oxymoron is.  You meant sarcasm. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for educating me.  I was so confused.......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey..........I didn't educate you..............
> 
> You can research what "Oxymoron" means on your own time..................
> 
> Why are you wasting pages here?
Click to expand...


Why do you think mocking you is wasting space?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many people are in your cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have always had a hard time locating your dictionary.  What he is proposing is the exact opposite of a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not asking about what he is supposedly proposing, I am talking about the fact that he never listens to facts that contradict his beliefs. He is a lot like you in that regard, but at least he doesn't believe in aliens.
Click to expand...


I kinda figured by reading your post you werent asking that. You asked how many people are in his cult. Evidently you dont know what a cult is. You also are laboring under the illusion that your opinions are facts.  Thats why I don't listen to them. I'm pretty sure there are aliens but why would you use that to deflect from the fact you hate the dictionary?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think you are worthy of being given a link? How does a link tell you what they do and who they criticize?  I didnt know you keep logs of what you do in life on the internet for everyone to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a message board; you are what you post.
> 
> Want to prove you're not a partisan hack, link to something non-partisan.
> 
> This isn't that difficult to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we post on here is not definatory of our person. It is a mere aspect of a much larger whole. Isolating what people post as who they are is like touching a square inch of an elephant or barn while blindfolded and saying "I know fully what this thing is." There are many aspects of humanity that simply do not get translated onto a message board. Thus it is absurd to think we know who people are simply by a dozen posts or even a thousand.
> 
> Nothing exists in isolation and when we isolate aspects and consider them the whole we are neglecting the fundamental aspect of reality we know immediately: that nothing exists in isolation.
> Besides, a link can be posted by anyone. It does not take a KKK member to post Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan: Knights Party
Click to expand...


AntiParty claims to be against all party platforms, yet insults the Tea Party in his tag line. He claims to be an independent thinker who is always willing to listen to people, yet never admits that other people have presented facts that directly contradict his opinions. He justifies by dismissing all sources of information that contradict him as biased.

Come to think of it, I can see why you two get along.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have always had a hard time locating your dictionary.  What he is proposing is the exact opposite of a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not asking about what he is supposedly proposing, I am talking about the fact that he never listens to facts that contradict his beliefs. He is a lot like you in that regard, but at least he doesn't believe in aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kinda figured by reading your post you werent asking that. You asked how many people are in his cult. Evidently you dont know what a cult is. You also are laboring under the illusion that your opinions are facts.  Thats why I don't listen to them. I'm pretty sure there are aliens but why would you use that to deflect from the fact you hate the dictionary?
Click to expand...


Here is the post I responded to:



AntiParty said:


> YOU are *100% correct* and THANK YOU.
> 
> One of the biggest measures a cult takes is ensuring the people in the  cult have not ability to receive new information from outside sources.  Which is why I can question the Right Wing and they call me a traitor  Leftist Liberal Democrat.
> 
> In reality, they don't question why they aren't allowed to listen to  mainstream media but only a small group that has a very different  ideology.
> 
> Cults rule the small minded.



If you have a problem with that definition take it up with him, not me.

If, on the other hand, you feel an obsessive need to prove to yourself that you don't believe in aliens, start a thread about it.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not asking about what he is supposedly proposing, I am talking about the fact that he never listens to facts that contradict his beliefs. He is a lot like you in that regard, but at least he doesn't believe in aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda figured by reading your post you werent asking that. You asked how many people are in his cult. Evidently you dont know what a cult is. You also are laboring under the illusion that your opinions are facts.  Thats why I don't listen to them. I'm pretty sure there are aliens but why would you use that to deflect from the fact you hate the dictionary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the post I responded to:
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are *100% correct* and THANK YOU.
> 
> One of the biggest measures a cult takes is ensuring the people in the  cult have not ability to receive new information from outside sources.  Which is why I can question the Right Wing and they call me a traitor  Leftist Liberal Democrat.
> 
> In reality, they don't question why they aren't allowed to listen to  mainstream media but only a small group that has a very different  ideology.
> 
> Cults rule the small minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have a problem with that definition take it up with him, not me.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you feel an obsessive need to prove to yourself that you don't believe in aliens, start a thread about it.
Click to expand...


Who said I have a problem with his definition?  I have a problem with *your* misunderstanding of what a cult is.  The dictionary will help you if you give it a chance.

I ask again why are you using aliens to deflect from the fact you dont know what a cult is?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Asclepias said:


> This message board does not define anyone. What kind of loser mentality do you have to actually believe that?



These are simple concepts. On a message board, the only thing anyone sees are the messages you post - you are what you post.



> What do you mean by prove?  What makes you think anyone has to prove something...to you of all people?
> 
> Yes its difficult to grasp.  You dont know very much about a person just by what is posted on a message board.  I guess thats why people like you get Catfished online.



Take the chip off of your shoulder, and return it to it's proper shelf...

Antiparty is a partisan democrat - based on the messages he posts here. Since the persona only exists here...

Well, figure it out.


----------



## Uncensored2008

gnarlylove said:


> What we post on here is not definatory of our person.



If you're going to make up words, be more creative.

All you can offer here is a presentation of your views - your method of doing this is your posts.

No one knows, nor cares, about other aspects of your life. On a message board, you are what you post.



> It is a mere aspect of a much larger whole. Isolating what people post as who they are is like touching a square inch of an elephant or barn while blindfolded and saying "I know fully what this thing is." There are many aspects of humanity that simply do not get translated onto a message board. Thus it is absurd to think we know who people are simply by a dozen posts or even a thousand.



Look up "microcosm" and see if any lights go off.



> Nothing exists in isolation and when we isolate aspects and consider them the whole we are neglecting the fundamental aspect of reality we know immediately: that nothing exists in isolation.



This is a message board - an abstract setting for the exchange of ideas.

That is all this is.



> Besides, a link can be posted by anyone. It does not take a KKK member to post Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan: Knights Party



No shit sherlock.

But, when you post that, you WILL be viewed as a Klansman - and rightly so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda figured by reading your post you werent asking that. You asked how many people are in his cult. Evidently you dont know what a cult is. You also are laboring under the illusion that your opinions are facts.  Thats why I don't listen to them. I'm pretty sure there are aliens but why would you use that to deflect from the fact you hate the dictionary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the post I responded to:
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are *100% correct* and THANK YOU.
> 
> One of the biggest measures a cult takes is ensuring the people in the  cult have not ability to receive new information from outside sources.  Which is why I can question the Right Wing and they call me a traitor  Leftist Liberal Democrat.
> 
> In reality, they don't question why they aren't allowed to listen to  mainstream media but only a small group that has a very different  ideology.
> 
> Cults rule the small minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have a problem with that definition take it up with him, not me.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you feel an obsessive need to prove to yourself that you don't believe in aliens, start a thread about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I have a problem with his definition?  I have a problem with *your* misunderstanding of what a cult is.  The dictionary will help you if you give it a chance.
> 
> I ask again why are you using aliens to deflect from the fact you dont know what a cult is?
Click to expand...


What is it I think a cult is?

The problem you seem to be having is that I didn't define cult, he did.


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This message board does not define anyone. What kind of loser mentality do you have to actually believe that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are simple concepts. On a message board, the only thing anyone sees are the messages you post - you are what you post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by prove?  What makes you think anyone has to prove something...to you of all people?
> 
> Yes its difficult to grasp.  You dont know very much about a person just by what is posted on a message board.  I guess thats why people like you get Catfished online.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take the chip off of your shoulder, and return it to it's proper shelf...
> 
> Antiparty is a partisan democrat - based on the messages he posts here. Since the persona only exists here...
> 
> Well, figure it out.
Click to expand...


You need to broaden your thinking space. Only small minded people with a very limited grasp on reality believe that you are what you post.  You may be a dick on this board but in real life I may think you were cool.

There are points of view I have yet to post on this board so your whole theory is patently false. You simply have not engaged the person enough to determine that from written word. I can call you a dick on this board and you wouldn't know if i was kidding or not so what makes you think you can define someone when you have no way of knowing the meaning behind their words?


----------



## AntiParty

Uncensored2008 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" any party. But the Tea Party is working on it. Their message is profit driven.
> 
> Does this challenge my perspective as an Anti_party? Because I can challenge a parties platform? No. It solidifies my stance because I am smart enough to challenge a parties platform. This doesn't mean you have to agree with me, Im not a party, Im a person with an opinion and your opinion should be yours, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that the TEA party isn't an organized one how could you "hate" them?  But then I remember you're a progressive, and progs do hate just about everyone and everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish the Tea Party were far more profit driven than it is.
> 
> Unfortunately, it often seems to be driven by social issues. A strong advocate for the nobility of trade, the fact that the most honorable method that people have to deal with each other is the trade of value for value, would be a major gain for this naiton. Early on, that is what the Tea Party was. Then the Republicans coopted it, and interjected social causes, poluting the message and limiting appeal.
Click to expand...


Read the Tea Party platform, I'm not wrong. You may be correct about the corruption though. You blame the Republicans and never question the Corporations. Pretty typical for all parties. 

Trading value for value is a complex statement today if you research the Petrol Dollar and the wars created to prevent it's change. 

I tend to think that America should hold the same standards for imports as we do for exports. If we can't hire 12 year olds in America, then our imports shouldn't be able to. Pretty basic.


----------



## AntiParty

Uncensored2008 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't recognize that Ted Cruz openly stated he wants to shut down the Government and then the Government followed through.
> 
> Clearly you don't read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be easier to recognize if it were factual - but it isn't.
> 
> Obama's Fascist Care is the worst piece of legislation to ever win passage in this nation. Cruz opposing the implementation of this holocaust is admirable.
Click to expand...


So you think Obamacare will cause the holocaust..........not responding to you anymore


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that the TEA party isn't an organized one how could you "hate" them?  But then I remember you're a progressive, and progs do hate just about everyone and everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't recognize that Ted Cruz openly stated he wants to shut down the Government and then the Government followed through.
> 
> Clearly you don't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One would think that someone who uses Guy Fawkes as an avatar would  understand that shutting the government down is a good thing.
> 
> By the way, if Cruz actually said that, he failed.
Click to expand...


So you think shutting down the Government is a good thing because you are unable to think of a solution. 

I just had a flat tire. I'm going to send my car to the pound because I'm unable to think with reason. Does that make sense to you?


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are Right Wing Characteristics? Why is it capitalized?
> 
> By the way, did you notice I didn't call you a leftist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what party platforms are kiddo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that party platforms are Right Wing Characteristics?
Click to expand...


I'm telling you that PLATFORMS are a characteristic of EVERY party. 

The part where you kept clawing for substance and named only 1 party is on you.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many people are in your cult?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have always had a hard time locating your dictionary.  What he is proposing is the exact opposite of a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not asking about what he is supposedly proposing, I am talking about the fact that he never listens to facts that contradict his beliefs. He is a lot like you in that regard, but at least he doesn't believe in aliens.
Click to expand...


At this point I think it's clear that you stating insults is "facts".


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a message board; you are what you post.
> 
> Want to prove you're not a partisan hack, link to something non-partisan.
> 
> This isn't that difficult to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we post on here is not definatory of our person. It is a mere aspect of a much larger whole. Isolating what people post as who they are is like touching a square inch of an elephant or barn while blindfolded and saying "I know fully what this thing is." There are many aspects of humanity that simply do not get translated onto a message board. Thus it is absurd to think we know who people are simply by a dozen posts or even a thousand.
> 
> Nothing exists in isolation and when we isolate aspects and consider them the whole we are neglecting the fundamental aspect of reality we know immediately: that nothing exists in isolation.
> Besides, a link can be posted by anyone. It does not take a KKK member to post Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan: Knights Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AntiParty claims to be against all party platforms, yet insults the Tea Party in his tag line. He claims to be an independent thinker who is always willing to listen to people, yet never admits that other people have presented facts that directly contradict his opinions. He justifies by dismissing all sources of information that contradict him as biased.
> 
> Come to think of it, I can see why you two get along.
Click to expand...


So you agree that I am against platforms yet can't comprehend that I am against the Tea parties platform..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I think we are done here.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the post I responded to:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a problem with that definition take it up with him, not me.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you feel an obsessive need to prove to yourself that you don't believe in aliens, start a thread about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I have a problem with his definition?  I have a problem with *your* misunderstanding of what a cult is.  The dictionary will help you if you give it a chance.
> 
> I ask again why are you using aliens to deflect from the fact you dont know what a cult is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it I think a cult is?
> 
> The problem you seem to be having is that I didn't define cult, he did.
Click to expand...


Yep. That dictionary is just as damaging as science to some. Science books and Dictionaries are Liberal Books.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't recognize that Ted Cruz openly stated he wants to shut down the Government and then the Government followed through.
> 
> Clearly you don't read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One would think that someone who uses Guy Fawkes as an avatar would  understand that shutting the government down is a good thing.
> 
> By the way, if Cruz actually said that, he failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think shutting down the Government is a good thing because you are unable to think of a solution.
> 
> I just had a flat tire. I'm going to send my car to the pound because I'm unable to think with reason. Does that make sense to you?
Click to expand...


I m not unable to think of a solution, shutting the government down seems to be the least volatile option. It is a bloated monstrosity, and the only way to prove to people that they can live without it is to force them to do so for a period of time. The world did not end when the Democrats shut down the government in 1976, 3 times in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1987, or 1990, yet you want me to  believe that it was a major catastrophe when the Republicans did it last year. Sorry, I was alive for all of those shutdowns, and the ones that were the responsibility of the Republicans, and not a single one of them ever caused any problems for the country or the world. 

As for you taking your car to the pound, why on Earth would you do that? Do vets fix cars in your world? Can you trade it in for a homeless cat?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what party platforms are kiddo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that party platforms are Right Wing Characteristics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm telling you that PLATFORMS are a characteristic of EVERY party.
> 
> The part where you kept clawing for substance and named only 1 party is on you.
Click to expand...


I didn't name any party, I asked you what a Right Wing Characteristic is, and why it is capitalized. You responded with a rant about party platforms that you just admitted had nothing to do with the question I asked. Is that what passes for debate where you live?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have always had a hard time locating your dictionary.  What he is proposing is the exact opposite of a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not asking about what he is supposedly proposing, I am talking about the fact that he never listens to facts that contradict his beliefs. He is a lot like you in that regard, but at least he doesn't believe in aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point I think it's clear that you stating insults is "facts".
Click to expand...


At this point I think it is clear you do not speak English.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> One would think that someone who uses Guy Fawkes as an avatar would  understand that shutting the government down is a good thing.
> 
> By the way, if Cruz actually said that, he failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think shutting down the Government is a good thing because you are unable to think of a solution.
> 
> I just had a flat tire. I'm going to send my car to the pound because I'm unable to think with reason. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I m not unable to think of a solution, shutting the government down seems to be the least volatile option. It is a bloated monstrosity, and the only way to prove to people that they can live without it is to force them to do so for a period of time. The world did not end when the Democrats shut down the government in 1976, 3 times in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1987, or 1990, yet you want me to  believe that it was a major catastrophe when the Republicans did it last year. Sorry, I was alive for all of those shutdowns, and the ones that were the responsibility of the Republicans, and not a single one of them ever caused any problems for the country or the world.
> 
> As for you taking your car to the pound, why on Earth would you do that? Do vets fix cars in your world? Can you trade it in for a homeless cat?
Click to expand...


So you blame the Left for what Cruz did but state that it was the "least volatile" solution...Why think! Just cut funding to the Military and Veterans and everything Government. 

Perhaps you can generate a smarter base. IMAGINE THAT. 

Can we live without Government, yes. Are we a Government Nation........YES. 

Stop trying to be a Nihilist. Understand what good the Government does and try to balance it with the bad. 

Thinking is critical in our time.............and I know your flaw.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that party platforms are Right Wing Characteristics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you that PLATFORMS are a characteristic of EVERY party.
> 
> The part where you kept clawing for substance and named only 1 party is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't name any party, I asked you what a Right Wing Characteristic is, and why it is capitalized. You responded with a rant about party platforms that you just admitted had nothing to do with the question I asked. Is that what passes for debate where you live?
Click to expand...


Right Wing Characteristics are described in the platforms. Don't make me do homework for you. You can use search engines, I hope........


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not asking about what he is supposedly proposing, I am talking about the fact that he never listens to facts that contradict his beliefs. He is a lot like you in that regard, but at least he doesn't believe in aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I think it's clear that you stating insults is "facts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point I think it is clear you do not speak English.
Click to expand...


At this point, I'm clear you have no clue what you are debating.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we post on here is not definatory of our person. It is a mere aspect of a much larger whole. Isolating what people post as who they are is like touching a square inch of an elephant or barn while blindfolded and saying "I know fully what this thing is." There are many aspects of humanity that simply do not get translated onto a message board. Thus it is absurd to think we know who people are simply by a dozen posts or even a thousand.
> 
> Nothing exists in isolation and when we isolate aspects and consider them the whole we are neglecting the fundamental aspect of reality we know immediately: that nothing exists in isolation.
> Besides, a link can be posted by anyone. It does not take a KKK member to post Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan: Knights Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty claims to be against all party platforms, yet insults the Tea Party in his tag line. He claims to be an independent thinker who is always willing to listen to people, yet never admits that other people have presented facts that directly contradict his opinions. He justifies by dismissing all sources of information that contradict him as biased.
> 
> Come to think of it, I can see why you two get along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree that I am against platforms yet can't comprehend that I am against the Tea parties platform..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I think we are done here.
Click to expand...


Where did I agree that you are against platforms? I clearly stated that you claim that is your position, not that it is your position, I then explained why no one actually believes that is your position.

Do you remember the time you started a thread intending to teach people on this forum the proper way to start a thread? Do you recall the universal contempt that was heaped on your attempt to educate people when you made so many spelling errors and grammatical mistakes that your thread was unreadable? Do you have any evidence that your English has significantly improved in the few weeks since that fiasco?


----------



## AntiParty

The movement today is people stating, "You are stupid" and if someone doesn't respond they are wrong? 

What does that have to do with politics at all? It is basically avoiding the subject...... pre-teen behavior!

I'm curious why people that only use insults and NEVER have a fact about politics think that their insults trump unlimited information about a topic!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I have a problem with his definition?  I have a problem with *your* misunderstanding of what a cult is.  The dictionary will help you if you give it a chance.
> 
> I ask again why are you using aliens to deflect from the fact you dont know what a cult is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it I think a cult is?
> 
> The problem you seem to be having is that I didn't define cult, he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. That dictionary is just as damaging as science to some. Science books and Dictionaries are Liberal Books.
Click to expand...


I still haven't given a definition of the word cult, yet everyone thinks I got it wrong, even though the definition you think I used is yours. What does that say about you?

What does it say about them?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think shutting down the Government is a good thing because you are unable to think of a solution.
> 
> I just had a flat tire. I'm going to send my car to the pound because I'm unable to think with reason. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I m not unable to think of a solution, shutting the government down seems to be the least volatile option. It is a bloated monstrosity, and the only way to prove to people that they can live without it is to force them to do so for a period of time. The world did not end when the Democrats shut down the government in 1976, 3 times in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1987, or 1990, yet you want me to  believe that it was a major catastrophe when the Republicans did it last year. Sorry, I was alive for all of those shutdowns, and the ones that were the responsibility of the Republicans, and not a single one of them ever caused any problems for the country or the world.
> 
> As for you taking your car to the pound, why on Earth would you do that? Do vets fix cars in your world? Can you trade it in for a homeless cat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you blame the Left for what Cruz did but state that it was the "least volatile" solution...Why think! Just cut funding to the Military and Veterans and everything Government.
> 
> Perhaps you can generate a smarter base. IMAGINE THAT.
> 
> Can we live without Government, yes. Are we a Government Nation........YES.
> 
> Stop trying to be a Nihilist. Understand what good the Government does and try to balance it with the bad.
> 
> Thinking is critical in our time.............and I know your flaw.
Click to expand...


What did Cruz do, and when did I blame the left for it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you that PLATFORMS are a characteristic of EVERY party.
> 
> The part where you kept clawing for substance and named only 1 party is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't name any party, I asked you what a Right Wing Characteristic is, and why it is capitalized. You responded with a rant about party platforms that you just admitted had nothing to do with the question I asked. Is that what passes for debate where you live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right Wing Characteristics are described in the platforms. Don't make me do homework for you. You can use search engines, I hope........
Click to expand...


There is no party that calls itself Right Wing Characteristics, how can their party platform exist?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> The movement today is people stating, "You are stupid" and if someone doesn't respond they are wrong?
> 
> What does that have to do with politics at all? It is basically avoiding the subject...... pre-teen behavior!
> 
> I'm curious why people that only use insults and NEVER have a fact about politics think that their insults trump unlimited information about a topic!



Why be so hard on yourself? If you don't like the way you argue, change.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it I think a cult is?
> 
> The problem you seem to be having is that I didn't define cult, he did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. That dictionary is just as damaging as science to some. Science books and Dictionaries are Liberal Books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still haven't given a definition of the word cult, yet everyone thinks I got it wrong, even though the definition you think I used is yours. What does that say about you?
> 
> What does it say about them?
Click to expand...


Let me google that for you

Cults 101: Checklist of Cult Characteristics


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The movement today is people stating, "You are stupid" and if someone doesn't respond they are wrong?
> 
> What does that have to do with politics at all? It is basically avoiding the subject...... pre-teen behavior!
> 
> I'm curious why people that only use insults and NEVER have a fact about politics think that their insults trump unlimited information about a topic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why be so hard on yourself? If you don't like the way you argue, change.
Click to expand...


UMAD. 

Clearly you have been scrambling for a way out of the turd the Right wing has held. I'm enjoying the show 

You have been more "progressive" in your last 2 pages than ever in history I would think. Because you can't hold your debate without change. WEIRD how that works.


----------



## AntiParty

He's typing a response to me stating that the Right has been stupid lately. Let's see if he follows through. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8kwxlHf0cE]Jindal: GOP must "stop being the stupid party" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. That dictionary is just as damaging as science to some. Science books and Dictionaries are Liberal Books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still haven't given a definition of the word cult, yet everyone thinks I got it wrong, even though the definition you think I used is yours. What does that say about you?
> 
> What does it say about them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> Cults 101: Checklist of Cult Characteristics
Click to expand...


And, again, I never gave a definition of cult, nor did I say yours was incorrect. I simply responded to your post, and since that point everyone, including you, has taken exception with the fact that the definition you used is wrong.

But, please, keep arguing with yourself, it is fun to watch.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still haven't given a definition of the word cult, yet everyone thinks I got it wrong, even though the definition you think I used is yours. What does that say about you?
> 
> What does it say about them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> Cults 101: Checklist of Cult Characteristics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, again, I never gave a definition of cult, nor did I say yours was incorrect. I simply responded to your post, and since that point everyone, including you, has taken exception with the fact that the definition you used is wrong.
> 
> But, please, keep arguing with yourself, it is fun to watch.
Click to expand...



_But, please, keep arguing with yourself, it is fun to watch.[/_QUOTE]<--------------LOL
So in your statement, you say; "I never said your definition of a cult was incorrect" then try to turn it on me and then follow it up with, "with the fact that the definition was wrong"

VERY BRAINY!


----------



## AntiParty

Let's end this debate right now. 

Use ANY internet search engine. .........ANY!

My perspective of a Cult is due to it's definition. Your attack on me because a words definition is bias. 

Think more, talk less. 

Good night.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The movement today is people stating, "You are stupid" and if someone doesn't respond they are wrong?
> 
> What does that have to do with politics at all? It is basically avoiding the subject...... pre-teen behavior!
> 
> I'm curious why people that only use insults and NEVER have a fact about politics think that their insults trump unlimited information about a topic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why be so hard on yourself? If you don't like the way you argue, change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UMAD.
> 
> Clearly you have been scrambling for a way out of the turd the Right wing has held. I'm enjoying the show
> 
> You have been more "progressive" in your last 2 pages than ever in history I would think. Because you can't hold your debate without change. WEIRD how that works.
Click to expand...


Unlike you, I am neither right, nor left, wing. One thing both wings of politics has in common is that they want more government, I want just enough to be able to tell it to F*** Off when it gets in my way. I have actually said that I want to cut all government spending, including defense. I am willing to defend my position with facts and figures because it is a position based on facts and figures, not an opinion based on fantasy.

I have spelled out, in detail, why you are wrong about things right here in this thread. Your response was to not participate in the debate for over a week, and then come back and pretend that no one has any facts or links to back up their position. The strange thing is that you are the one that doesn't have any facts, and that is why you resort to obfuscation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> Cults 101: Checklist of Cult Characteristics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, again, I never gave a definition of cult, nor did I say yours was incorrect. I simply responded to your post, and since that point everyone, including you, has taken exception with the fact that the definition you used is wrong.
> 
> But, please, keep arguing with yourself, it is fun to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _But, please, keep arguing with yourself, it is fun to watch.[/_QUOTE]<--------------LOL
> So in your statement, you say; "I never said your definition of a cult was incorrect" then try to turn it on me and then follow it up with, "with the fact that the definition was wrong"
> 
> VERY BRAINY!
Click to expand...


Is that what I did? I could have sworn I said you took exception to the fact that your definition was wrong.

Wait, I did.

Want to try again?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Let's end this debate right now.
> 
> Use ANY internet search engine. .........ANY!
> 
> My perspective of a Cult is due to it's definition. Your attack on me because a words definition is bias.
> 
> Think more, talk less.
> 
> Good night.



Tell you what, use any search engine, including actually reading this thread, and show me where I had a problem with your definition. After you do that you can complain about me not understanding what a cult is. Until you do, the only person you can complain about is you because you are the only person in this thread who has offered an actual opinion on what one is. All I did was use your definition, right or wrong, to point out that you meet the parameters of a cult. The reason I can say that is that you never pay attention to any facts that don't fit your agenda, refuse categorically to read anything from some sources, and have exhibited all the characteristics of a small mind.

By the way, you really should read my signature some day, you might see a pretty good description of a cult.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> He's typing a response to me stating that the Right has been stupid lately. Let's see if he follows through.



I see no need to repeat things I have said already on this board. Unlike some people, for example, you, I have criticized the Republicans and the Democrats, and am quite proud to say that I have never voted for anyone from either party. I have been labelled as both left and right wing while posting on this board. When that happens to you feel free to come back and discuss being anti party with me.


----------



## BobPlumb

Wouldn't members of the "Anti-Party Movement" be to busy fighting among themselves to accomplish anything because by definition they would be against themselves?


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why be so hard on yourself? If you don't like the way you argue, change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UMAD.
> 
> Clearly you have been scrambling for a way out of the turd the Right wing has held. I'm enjoying the show
> 
> You have been more "progressive" in your last 2 pages than ever in history I would think. Because you can't hold your debate without change. WEIRD how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am neither right, nor left, wing. One thing both wings of politics has in common is that they want more government, I want just enough to be able to tell it to F*** Off when it gets in my way. I have actually said that I want to cut all government spending, including defense. I am willing to defend my position with facts and figures because it is a position based on facts and figures, not an opinion based on fantasy.
> 
> I have spelled out, in detail, why you are wrong about things right here in this thread. Your response was to not participate in the debate for over a week, and then come back and pretend that no one has any facts or links to back up their position. The strange thing is that you are the one that doesn't have any facts, and that is why you resort to obfuscation.
Click to expand...


Yea, you spelled it out perfectly. You don't understand my position because we hold different positions. 

I am Anti-Party and you are Anti-Government. It's as simple as that. "I want to cut all government spending" is Anti-American. YOU are no Patriot and have no concept of We The People. 

You stated, "I want to cut all tax funding including Defense"

You are a weakness to America and care more about your pocket book than the reason your pocket book has so much money in it. THINK ABOUT THAT. 

You state that I don't have any facts. I don't post anything but facts and encourage people to prove my facts wrong, so I have facts and not bias nonsense. There is a reason 99.9% of people who respond to me state short insulting statements, because I hold facts, math, statistics, history, EDUCATION.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's typing a response to me stating that the Right has been stupid lately. Let's see if he follows through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no need to repeat things I have said already on this board. Unlike some people, for example, you, I have criticized the Republicans and the Democrats, and am quite proud to say that I have never voted for anyone from either party. I have been labelled as both left and right wing while posting on this board. When that happens to you feel free to come back and discuss being anti party with me.
Click to expand...


I don't want to insult you because I understand your perspective and I was there once. Except you learned a lot and hated all parties instead of learning the politics of all parties and trying to play the system. WE BOTH HOPE THINGS WILL CHANGE. 

You take the stance that all politicians want tyranny and control. I take the stance that all politicans want a pay check and will do what is necessary to get it. 

The more you know.


----------



## AntiParty

BobPlumb said:


> Wouldn't members of the "Anti-Party Movement" be to busy fighting among themselves to accomplish anything because by definition they would be against themselves?



Again, Anti-Party by my perspective is not against parties. It's against submitting to a party platform. 

I believe in single topic, single decision and NO party will persuade my opinion on the topic.

So everyone in an Anti-Party platform debates individual topics instead of embracing a standardized topic base. 

Note today's topic movement. Fox News is going to make as many woman based topics as possible because they know Hillary is going to run. Who cares if Hillary is a woman, let's talk Politics, (R)ight?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> UMAD.
> 
> Clearly you have been scrambling for a way out of the turd the Right wing has held. I'm enjoying the show
> 
> You have been more "progressive" in your last 2 pages than ever in history I would think. Because you can't hold your debate without change. WEIRD how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am neither right, nor left, wing. One thing both wings of politics has in common is that they want more government, I want just enough to be able to tell it to F*** Off when it gets in my way. I have actually said that I want to cut all government spending, including defense. I am willing to defend my position with facts and figures because it is a position based on facts and figures, not an opinion based on fantasy.
> 
> I have spelled out, in detail, why you are wrong about things right here in this thread. Your response was to not participate in the debate for over a week, and then come back and pretend that no one has any facts or links to back up their position. The strange thing is that you are the one that doesn't have any facts, and that is why you resort to obfuscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, you spelled it out perfectly. You don't understand my position because we hold different positions.
Click to expand...


Your position is that you are always right, and that you have no need to  actually defend your position because anyone that disagrees with you is  a member of a cult that has a teeny excuse for a brain. 



AntiParty said:


> I am Anti-Party and you are Anti-Government. It's as simple as that. "I want to cut all government spending" is Anti-American. YOU are no Patriot and have no concept of We The People.



You are AntiParty just like  Obama is a conservative Republican. 



AntiParty said:


> You stated, "I want to cut all tax funding including Defense"



I stated no such thing.

I do appreciate the fact that you actually conclusively proved that your position has no basis in reality though.



AntiParty said:


> You are a weakness to America and care more about your pocket book than the reason your pocket book has so much money in it. THINK ABOUT THAT.



I do not own a pocket book.

Think about that.



AntiParty said:


> You state that I don't have any facts. I don't post anything but facts and encourage people to prove my facts wrong, so I have facts and not bias nonsense. There is a reason 99.9% of people who respond to me state short insulting statements, because I hold facts, math, statistics, history, EDUCATION.



You,  being the great thinker you are, should have had no problem with the  first post I made in this thread, yet you completely ignored it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...arty-movement-end-the-bias-2.html#post8942073

Feel free to deal with the indisputable evidence that you have no facts, math, science, statistics, education, history, or basic understanding of English grammar.

Or not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's typing a response to me stating that the Right has been stupid lately. Let's see if he follows through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no need to repeat things I have said already on this board. Unlike some people, for example, you, I have criticized the Republicans and the Democrats, and am quite proud to say that I have never voted for anyone from either party. I have been labelled as both left and right wing while posting on this board. When that happens to you feel free to come back and discuss being anti party with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to insult you because I understand your perspective and I was there once. Except you learned a lot and hated all parties instead of learning the politics of all parties and trying to play the system. WE BOTH HOPE THINGS WILL CHANGE.
> 
> You take the stance that all politicians want tyranny and control. I take the stance that all politicans want a pay check and will do what is necessary to get it.
> 
> The more you know.
Click to expand...


I don't hate, I gave it up because I prefer self determination. Hating people, or parties, gives them control over me. I am a free man. 

If you ever get to the point you think I am at you will be approximately 5000 years in advance of the position you currently hold.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am neither right, nor left, wing. One thing both wings of politics has in common is that they want more government, I want just enough to be able to tell it to F*** Off when it gets in my way. I have actually said that I want to cut all government spending, including defense. I am willing to defend my position with facts and figures because it is a position based on facts and figures, not an opinion based on fantasy.
> 
> I have spelled out, in detail, why you are wrong about things right here in this thread. Your response was to not participate in the debate for over a week, and then come back and pretend that no one has any facts or links to back up their position. The strange thing is that you are the one that doesn't have any facts, and that is why you resort to obfuscation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, you spelled it out perfectly. You don't understand my position because we hold different positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your position is that you are always right, and that you have no need to  actually defend your position because anyone that disagrees with you is  a member of a cult that has a teeny excuse for a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> You are AntiParty just like  Obama is a conservative Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> I stated no such thing.
> 
> I do appreciate the fact that you actually conclusively proved that your position has no basis in reality though.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a weakness to America and care more about your pocket book than the reason your pocket book has so much money in it. THINK ABOUT THAT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not own a pocket book.
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> You state that I don't have any facts. I don't post anything but facts and encourage people to prove my facts wrong, so I have facts and not bias nonsense. There is a reason 99.9% of people who respond to me state short insulting statements, because I hold facts, math, statistics, history, EDUCATION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You,  being the great thinker you are, should have had no problem with the  first post I made in this thread, yet you completely ignored it.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...arty-movement-end-the-bias-2.html#post8942073
> 
> Feel free to deal with the indisputable evidence that you have no facts, math, science, statistics, education, history, or basic understanding of English grammar.
> 
> Or not.
Click to expand...


I will defend my position on EVERY topic and do. Some think I'm taking sides when I correct flawed statements, like you. 

If you think I'm unable to be changed then it's an opinion based topic, like many topics are in politics. 

I hold the right to my own opinion. *YOU* can not dictate my opinion. *Your *attempt to call me a Leftist if I don't agree with you just makes *YOU* look bad.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why be so hard on yourself? If you don't like the way you argue, change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UMAD.
> 
> Clearly you have been scrambling for a way out of the turd the Right wing has held. I'm enjoying the show
> 
> You have been more "progressive" in your last 2 pages than ever in history I would think. Because you can't hold your debate without change. WEIRD how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am neither right, nor left, wing. One thing both wings of politics has in common is that they want more government, I want just enough to be able to tell it to F*** Off when it gets in my way. I have actually said that I want to cut all government spending, including defense. I am willing to defend my position with facts and figures because it is a position based on facts and figures, not an opinion based on fantasy.
> 
> I have spelled out, in detail, why you are wrong about things right here in this thread. Your response was to not participate in the debate for over a week, and then come back and pretend that no one has any facts or links to back up their position. The strange thing is that you are the one that doesn't have any facts, and that is why you resort to obfuscation.
Click to expand...


^Anti-Government and Anti-American. THE END.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> I will defend my position on EVERY topic and do.



For future reference, saying you will defend your opinion is not actually defending your opinion.



AntiParty said:


> Some think I'm taking sides when I correct flawed statements, like you.



I do not think you take sides when you correct my statements because you have never corrected my statements. All you have done is repeat the same things that I have already proven were wrong and declare yourself the winner of the debate, just like you are now.



AntiParty said:


> If you think I'm unable to be changed then it's an opinion based topic, like many topics are in politics.



It is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact. If you were actually able to change your mind about something you would admit that you were wrong when you make a statement that is provably false.



AntiParty said:


> I hold the right to my own opinion. *YOU* can not dictate my opinion. *Your *attempt to call me a Leftist if I don't agree with you just makes *YOU* look bad.



There you go accusing me of calling you a leftist again. I don't see how me not calling you a leftist simply because I disagree with you reflects badly on me, but I am not a religious zealot so I lack the ability to rationalize that you use to reach that conclusion.

For the record, I am saying you are wrong. That has nothing to do with what side of the aisle you are on, it is simply a matter of being wrong. Your deflection into claiming that I am calling you a leftist has absolutely no bearing on that, and is not something I have actually done. You just reflexively defend yourself by claiming you are not a leftist whenever anyone proves you are wrong about anything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> UMAD.
> 
> Clearly you have been scrambling for a way out of the turd the Right wing has held. I'm enjoying the show
> 
> You have been more "progressive" in your last 2 pages than ever in history I would think. Because you can't hold your debate without change. WEIRD how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am neither right, nor left, wing. One thing both wings of politics has in common is that they want more government, I want just enough to be able to tell it to F*** Off when it gets in my way. I have actually said that I want to cut all government spending, including defense. I am willing to defend my position with facts and figures because it is a position based on facts and figures, not an opinion based on fantasy.
> 
> I have spelled out, in detail, why you are wrong about things right here in this thread. Your response was to not participate in the debate for over a week, and then come back and pretend that no one has any facts or links to back up their position. The strange thing is that you are the one that doesn't have any facts, and that is why you resort to obfuscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^Anti-Government and Anti-American. THE END.
Click to expand...


Because we all know that America was founded on the idea that the government is never wrong.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> Not2bSubjugated I dig the reply and appreciate the clarity with which you delineated the strawman and stress on the phrase "in addition."
> 
> A unique defense of property: not that it's actually an inherent thing but has descriptively developed through evolutionary means. The contract and legal system we have depends on property. It arranges distribution and the like in legal terms though I think those terms are favoritist and can be traced back to the interests of those setting up the legal framework which is at odd with the majority of human beings on the planet. But as you speak of property allow me to continue: we will continue to evolve and it's entirely likely that property will be subjugated by a mega corporation or conglomerate and it will be opposed to the interests of all the people. Either way, evolution will end property and continue with something else.
> 
> Also notice the descriptive fact we adopted private property is not a good argument to adopt the notion.
> 
> You also hinted that we will have lowered incentives without property. This is true if humans are taught to pursue wealth forgetting all but self. However, most humans do not live according to this radically anti-human proposition and even those who adhere continue to concern others in their decision making. The one's who don't are clinically diagnosed as pathological and these are the sorts of people who make big bucks on wall street (search on WSJ "lessons of a brain damaged investor").
> 
> But if we taught people to adhere to their internal principles of community and social activity, we would naturally develop interchange that is akin to the dialectical process of life that leads to technological advancement. We have been advancing and regressing all the while long before property and profit-maximization were thought up, let alone utilized. Albeit we have seen the most rapid development, this development has not been without cost. Computers were funded for decades before they were turned into private hands. The costs to develop them were funded by the public and once they became marketable we transfered them to Gates and the like. The public reaps the benefits by paying Gates for something they helped create? Odd way of technological advancement. Make people pay more for what they already paid for.
> 
> I would keep going as your reply deserves much attention but I must sadly announce I do not have it in me to devote the proper time. Instead I will praise you for your cogent reply and ask what is your educational background for shits and giggles?
> 
> I tend to associate your lucidity with a philosophical background but your actual position is usually found among untrained layman or CEOs. I figure you are neither, so why are you defending a position that has no practical value to you and that you must understand as having shortcomings (like water insecurity). I really enjoyed your section on water not existing in certain areas and most people not having access. It was a really eloquent and accurate portrayal that I left out of my reply though I didn't expect you to understand with such precision. Despite our disagreement on this topic, I would like to venture to other areas of interest because you are definitely not to be subjugated (neither am I)!



On your first paragraph, I agree that the initial layout of property distribution anywhere tends to be favorable to the people laying out the terms.  That isn't unique to an individual property setup by any means.  The problem is with human instinct:  where there is enough power to be misused, power will inevitably be misused.  The only thing you can count on in terms of a human's driving force is that every single human being seeks to bend as much of his environment as he can to his own values.  Integrity and consideration for others are learned values and certainly can't be relied upon, no matter to whom you delegate economic control.

The terms are also favoritist in the sense that they favor those with the greatest overall capacity.  The dirty little secret is that any system favors essentially the same people:  Those with the most advantageous combination of a high level of natural competence and a low level of moral restriction.  Whether the game is judged by money or political sway, the same general crowd will emerge at the apex, and there will -always- be an apex.

As far as mankind "evolving" out of the tendency for desiring individual property, I find that proposition highly laughable.  The dual factors of instinctive territoriality and consciousness separated by individual haven't, either of them, changed one iota throughout the recorded history of mankind or any theoretical buildup to that recorded history.  Cultural attitudes can't change these factors unless they cause them to be bred out of existence.  This is also highly unlikely as atypical psychology isn't a universal point of attractiveness in -any- culture.  You know what is?  Height.  Tall men tend to be viewed as universally attractive.  The only natural evolution that's currently effecting mankind, now that we've essentially tamed natural selection as it applies to us, is that we're gradually getting taller, cuz tall guys get laid more than short guys.

Then again, the new technologies and theories regarding augmenting the human brain do point to the probability of eventual communal consciousness by way of electronic telepathy, for lack of a better term.  Maybe you're right.  Until then, I stand by siding with the basic instinctive premise.

Next up, the lowered incentives without property don't have anything to do with people being taught to value property.  Nobody has to be taught to be possessive.  On the contrary, eventually every toddler has to be introduced to the concept of sharing.

Regardless of that point, the desire to gather material wealth isn't limited to those with materialistic desires.  Anyone who recognizes that money is simply a physical representation of capacity recognizes that money, as opposed to being an end of itself, is a means by which to shape the world around them to their values.  Personally, I don't have the need for a lot of physical stuff.  I'm kind of a minimalist.  I still, however, seek to make literally as much money as I possibly can for any given transaction:  The more money I have, the more secure the people I care about are.  The more money I have, the more of my values and morals I can afford to promote.  Desire for wealth is the same as desire for power, and desire for power is absolutely instinctive.

These inner feelings of community that you talk about, not so much.  If community was instinctive, we wouldn't need laws.  Unfortunately the "community" that humans adhere to on an instinctive level always equates to the most capable and influential subjugating those less so.  We voluntarily form societies because the average individual doesn't want to be subject to the whims of the strong, which is what happens in a legal vacuum.  Essentially, what you're proposing is that the most advantageous layout of material distribution is one where we simply teach everyone to eschew one of their most base instincts (individual territoriality) in favor of your morals.  Personally, I view this as highly impractical.

Your computer illustration tells me that you and I have vast differences in opinion on who is responsible for what and who therefore owes who for what.

First off, computers were "funded" for years because our government had need for them.  They weren't developing them because they thought home PC's would be super fun one day.

Then, "we" didn't transfer shit to Gates and the like, and computers didn't "become" marketable.  The guys behind Apple and Microsoft took their knowledge of computer technology and designed products that made the concept of computers marketable to individuals for home, recreational use.  If these things just "happened", maybe your argument would make sense.  They did not.

Also, the fact that the public paid taxes for the development of computer technology does -not- mean that Bill Gates owes them computers.  To the degree that those early computers advanced our governmental and military means, everyone in our society benefitted from that development.  Also, everybody paying taxes actually -paid- for the benefit of that advancement, and for their access to said benefit.  Presumably, Bill Gates paid for his own access to that benefit and therefore had every bit as much right to it as anybody else.  Just because the rest of our society -didn't- turn their knowledge of computers/economics into a highly marketable home product and Bill gates -did- turn his knowledge into that, doesn't mean that Bill Gates owes anybody else the product of -his- contribution to the advancement of said technology.  Like it or not, he's the guy that got the wheels moving on Microsoft, and whether or not anybody else theoretically -could- have made the same advancements is irrelevant:  they did not.  He did.  Thus it is he who is selling the product and making the profit, and he God damn well should be.  Microsoft has made the world a -far- more efficient place.

In terms of education, I was one of those poster children for wasted potential.  High IQ highschool druggy, college dropout.  Most of my abstract reasoning exists by virtue of nerdy habits.  I read philosophy as a recreational hobby and, ever since I can remember, my version of day-dreaming during menial tasks is arguing abstract concepts in my head.  Basically, I live and breathe this shit lol.

Lastly, I disagree with the premise that my philosophy doesn't benefit me.  My philosophy demands that each man be allowed to pursue the values of his own conscience.  My highest value, from a societal standpoint, is that society not interfere with my self-initiative.  I also have zero desire to force anyone else to abide by my morals.

This idea that any ideology that doesn't force everyone to feed each other is contrary to the interests of the majority of mankind is silly, to me.  Coddling isn't good for anyone, and all forms of wealth redistribution represent some degree of societally forced coddling of the disadvantaged.

Lastly, a system with less communal control of material favors those with the greatest individual capacity.  I have individual capacity in spades.  Any system in which I rely primarily on my own abilities to determine the benefit of my actions is a system in which I excel.  Period.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Asclepias said:


> You need to broaden your thinking space. Only small minded people with a very limited grasp on reality believe that you are what you post.



It appears that I seriously overestimated your intellect.



> You may be a dick on this board but in real life I may think you were cool.



But, you'll never know, because you only see me through the board... 




> There are points of view I have yet to post on this board so your whole theory is patently false. You simply have not engaged the person enough to determine that from written word. I can call you a dick on this board and you wouldn't know if i was kidding or not so what makes you think you can define someone when you have no way of knowing the meaning behind their words?



LOL...


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> Read the Tea Party platform, I'm not wrong. You may be correct about the corruption though. You blame the Republicans and never question the Corporations. Pretty typical for all parties.
> 
> Trading value for value is a complex statement today if you research the Petrol Dollar and the wars created to prevent it's change.
> 
> I tend to think that America should hold the same standards for imports as we do for exports. If we can't hire 12 year olds in America, then our imports shouldn't be able to. Pretty basic.



The issue it that there is no single Tea Party. 

The Platform of the "The Tea Party Movement," which is one of several dozen Tea Party groups, looks very good.

{1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes 
2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. Protect Free Markets 
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. Promote Civic Responsibility 
7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government 
8. Believe in the People 
9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics - American }

All of these are great, and I fully support them - but when they start becoming involved in gay marriage or abortion, then I think they violate this charter. 

While you want to be ruler of the world, you aren't. You have no authority over China or any other nation. You are free to not buy products, but that is the extent of your authority over others.


----------



## derk

My opinion is... The two partiers are corrupt and they do it absolutely. No matter who gets in. They are in their system. They control the money and the message also the power once inside government. The only true way to be free of them is forced term limits. Once they are elected vote them out and let none of them make a career out of sucking at the public trough. Remain freer longer GO incumbent head hunting. Or the IRS could target you next year...muhwahhhhhh


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will defend my position on EVERY topic and do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For future reference, saying you will defend your opinion is not actually defending your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some think I'm taking sides when I correct flawed statements, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think you take sides when you correct my statements because you have never corrected my statements. All you have done is repeat the same things that I have already proven were wrong and declare yourself the winner of the debate, just like you are now.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think I'm unable to be changed then it's an opinion based topic, like many topics are in politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact. If you were actually able to change your mind about something you would admit that you were wrong when you make a statement that is provably false.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hold the right to my own opinion. *YOU* can not dictate my opinion. *Your *attempt to call me a Leftist if I don't agree with you just makes *YOU* look bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go accusing me of calling you a leftist again. I don't see how me not calling you a leftist simply because I disagree with you reflects badly on me, but I am not a religious zealot so I lack the ability to rationalize that you use to reach that conclusion.
> 
> For the record, I am saying you are wrong. That has nothing to do with what side of the aisle you are on, it is simply a matter of being wrong. Your deflection into claiming that I am calling you a leftist has absolutely no bearing on that, and is not something I have actually done. You just reflexively defend yourself by claiming you are not a leftist whenever anyone proves you are wrong about anything.
Click to expand...


"defend your opinion does not mean defend your opinion"?............Not reading anything past that. I want to educate myself and clearly this will get me no where.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am neither right, nor left, wing. One thing both wings of politics has in common is that they want more government, I want just enough to be able to tell it to F*** Off when it gets in my way. I have actually said that I want to cut all government spending, including defense. I am willing to defend my position with facts and figures because it is a position based on facts and figures, not an opinion based on fantasy.
> 
> I have spelled out, in detail, why you are wrong about things right here in this thread. Your response was to not participate in the debate for over a week, and then come back and pretend that no one has any facts or links to back up their position. The strange thing is that you are the one that doesn't have any facts, and that is why you resort to obfuscation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^Anti-Government and Anti-American. THE END.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we all know that America was founded on the idea that the government is never wrong.
Click to expand...


America was founded with a Government and the citizens with the ability to make decisions to control the Government.....

If you really believe that all government is good, why are you in my thread?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> UMAD.
> 
> Clearly you have been scrambling for a way out of the turd the Right wing has held. I'm enjoying the show
> 
> You have been more "progressive" in your last 2 pages than ever in history I would think. Because you can't hold your debate without change. WEIRD how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am neither right, nor left, wing. One thing both wings of politics has in common is that they want more government, I want just enough to be able to tell it to F*** Off when it gets in my way. I have actually said that I want to cut all government spending, including defense. I am willing to defend my position with facts and figures because it is a position based on facts and figures, not an opinion based on fantasy.
> 
> I have spelled out, in detail, why you are wrong about things right here in this thread. Your response was to not participate in the debate for over a week, and then come back and pretend that no one has any facts or links to back up their position. The strange thing is that you are the one that doesn't have any facts, and that is why you resort to obfuscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, you spelled it out perfectly. You don't understand my position because we hold different positions.
> 
> I am Anti-Party and you are Anti-Government. It's as simple as that. "I want to cut all government spending" is Anti-American. YOU are no Patriot and have no concept of We The People.
> 
> You stated, "I want to cut all tax funding including Defense"
> 
> You are a weakness to America and care more about your pocket book than the reason your pocket book has so much money in it. THINK ABOUT THAT.
> 
> You state that I don't have any facts. I don't post anything but facts and encourage people to prove my facts wrong, so I have facts and not bias nonsense. There is a reason 99.9% of people who respond to me state short insulting statements, because I hold facts, math, statistics, history, EDUCATION.
Click to expand...


Anyone who believes that government spending is too high across the board is anti-American?  Show me that this is a fact and post some supporting arguments, since I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you can't provide evidence other than your own opinion and anecdote.


----------



## AntiParty

Uncensored2008 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the Tea Party platform, I'm not wrong. You may be correct about the corruption though. You blame the Republicans and never question the Corporations. Pretty typical for all parties.
> 
> Trading value for value is a complex statement today if you research the Petrol Dollar and the wars created to prevent it's change.
> 
> I tend to think that America should hold the same standards for imports as we do for exports. If we can't hire 12 year olds in America, then our imports shouldn't be able to. Pretty basic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue it that there is no single Tea Party.
> 
> The Platform of the "The Tea Party Movement," which is one of several dozen Tea Party groups, looks very good.
> 
> {1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
> 2. Eliminate the National Debt
> 3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
> 4. Protect Free Markets
> 5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
> 6. Promote Civic Responsibility
> 7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
> 8. Believe in the People
> 9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics - American }
> 
> All of these are great, and I fully support them - but when they start becoming involved in gay marriage or abortion, then I think they violate this charter.
> 
> While you want to be ruler of the world, you aren't. You have no authority over China or any other nation. You are free to not buy products, but that is the extent of your authority over others.
Click to expand...


"It that there"?.....anyway. 

I'm fully aware of the Tea Party platform, but ty for posting it for others. 

You are correct about the platform. Most parties want to meet all of those goals, not just the Tea Party. The big difference is how they act. We don't lower taxation by shutting down the government. That is what a child would do when he can't figure out his test, he would throw down his pencil and walk out. You have to have the ability to think if you want to be a part of politics and government even at the lowest levels. 

Also, the Tea party fights to free markets for profits. If you haven't seen this im embarrassed for you. I'm all about less government until my child has a toy made in China with lead paint on it. The tea party never compromises on the free market, they just want it free for profit. Perhaps a "no lead paint in toys but stop the excessive method used for scraping paint off of homes". You see, you can recognize that it costs thousands of dollars to use drop clothes and dispose of lead paint properly  while also understanding that lead paint regulations are good for our children. Understand?

*NOT ALL REGULATIONS ARE BAD REGULATIONS............................*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will defend my position on EVERY topic and do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For future reference, saying you will defend your opinion is not actually defending your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think you take sides when you correct my statements because you have never corrected my statements. All you have done is repeat the same things that I have already proven were wrong and declare yourself the winner of the debate, just like you are now.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact. If you were actually able to change your mind about something you would admit that you were wrong when you make a statement that is provably false.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hold the right to my own opinion. *YOU* can not dictate my opinion. *Your *attempt to call me a Leftist if I don't agree with you just makes *YOU* look bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go accusing me of calling you a leftist again. I don't see how me not calling you a leftist simply because I disagree with you reflects badly on me, but I am not a religious zealot so I lack the ability to rationalize that you use to reach that conclusion.
> 
> For the record, I am saying you are wrong. That has nothing to do with what side of the aisle you are on, it is simply a matter of being wrong. Your deflection into claiming that I am calling you a leftist has absolutely no bearing on that, and is not something I have actually done. You just reflexively defend yourself by claiming you are not a leftist whenever anyone proves you are wrong about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "defend your opinion does not mean defend your opinion"?............Not reading anything past that. I want to educate myself and clearly this will get me no where.
Click to expand...


You didn't read past the part where you saw something I didn't write? 

Not sure how I am supposed to feel about that. I should point out that seeing things that are not there, AKA hallucinations, is symptomatic of some rather severe mental illnesses, and that maybe, just maybe, you should look into getting help for that. Then again, I am not really a nice person, so I might not point that out after all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^Anti-Government and Anti-American. THE END.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we all know that America was founded on the idea that the government is never wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America was founded with a Government and the citizens with the ability to make decisions to control the Government.....
> 
> If you really believe that all government is good, why are you in my thread?
Click to expand...


What?


----------



## AntiParty

Not2BSubjugated said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am neither right, nor left, wing. One thing both wings of politics has in common is that they want more government, I want just enough to be able to tell it to F*** Off when it gets in my way. I have actually said that I want to cut all government spending, including defense. I am willing to defend my position with facts and figures because it is a position based on facts and figures, not an opinion based on fantasy.
> 
> I have spelled out, in detail, why you are wrong about things right here in this thread. Your response was to not participate in the debate for over a week, and then come back and pretend that no one has any facts or links to back up their position. The strange thing is that you are the one that doesn't have any facts, and that is why you resort to obfuscation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, you spelled it out perfectly. You don't understand my position because we hold different positions.
> 
> I am Anti-Party and you are Anti-Government. It's as simple as that. "I want to cut all government spending" is Anti-American. YOU are no Patriot and have no concept of We The People.
> 
> You stated, "I want to cut all tax funding including Defense"
> 
> You are a weakness to America and care more about your pocket book than the reason your pocket book has so much money in it. THINK ABOUT THAT.
> 
> You state that I don't have any facts. I don't post anything but facts and encourage people to prove my facts wrong, so I have facts and not bias nonsense. There is a reason 99.9% of people who respond to me state short insulting statements, because I hold facts, math, statistics, history, EDUCATION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes that government spending is too high across the board is anti-American?  Show me that this is a fact and post some supporting arguments, since I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you can't provide evidence other than your own opinion and anecdote.
Click to expand...


YOU didn't say you wanted to cut spending across the board. YOU stated you wanted to all taxes to defense. 

Perhaps your wording was the flaw. 

I want to cut -->SOME<-- tax funding towards defense too. Anyone with a brain would. But when you state, "I want to cut tax funding to the robotic squirrel" it sounds like you want to cut all funding, not minimize funding. 

Either way, we are selling our enemies our old weapons so the Military Industrial Complex can profit (corporations that donate to politicians).


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> For future reference, saying you will defend your opinion is not actually defending your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think you take sides when you correct my statements because you have never corrected my statements. All you have done is repeat the same things that I have already proven were wrong and declare yourself the winner of the debate, just like you are now.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact. If you were actually able to change your mind about something you would admit that you were wrong when you make a statement that is provably false.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go accusing me of calling you a leftist again. I don't see how me not calling you a leftist simply because I disagree with you reflects badly on me, but I am not a religious zealot so I lack the ability to rationalize that you use to reach that conclusion.
> 
> For the record, I am saying you are wrong. That has nothing to do with what side of the aisle you are on, it is simply a matter of being wrong. Your deflection into claiming that I am calling you a leftist has absolutely no bearing on that, and is not something I have actually done. You just reflexively defend yourself by claiming you are not a leftist whenever anyone proves you are wrong about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "defend your opinion does not mean defend your opinion"?............Not reading anything past that. I want to educate myself and clearly this will get me no where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read past the part where you saw something I didn't write?
> 
> Not sure how I am supposed to feel about that. I should point out that seeing things that are not there, AKA hallucinations, is symptomatic of some rather severe mental illnesses, and that maybe, just maybe, you should look into getting help for that. Then again, I am not really a nice person, so I might not point that out after all.
Click to expand...


Post #330.  It was your statement.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> "defend your opinion does not mean defend your opinion"?............Not reading anything past that. I want to educate myself and clearly this will get me no where.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read past the part where you saw something I didn't write?
> 
> Not sure how I am supposed to feel about that. I should point out that seeing things that are not there, AKA hallucinations, is symptomatic of some rather severe mental illnesses, and that maybe, just maybe, you should look into getting help for that. Then again, I am not really a nice person, so I might not point that out after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #330.  It was your statement.
Click to expand...


The one where I said: "For future reference, saying you will defend your opinion is not actually defending your opinion," and you read: "(D)efend your opinion does not mean defend your opinion"? Is that the one you are talking about?

Like I said, seeing things.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, you spelled it out perfectly. You don't understand my position because we hold different positions.
> 
> I am Anti-Party and you are Anti-Government. It's as simple as that. "I want to cut all government spending" is Anti-American. YOU are no Patriot and have no concept of We The People.
> 
> You stated, "I want to cut all tax funding including Defense"
> 
> You are a weakness to America and care more about your pocket book than the reason your pocket book has so much money in it. THINK ABOUT THAT.
> 
> You state that I don't have any facts. I don't post anything but facts and encourage people to prove my facts wrong, so I have facts and not bias nonsense. There is a reason 99.9% of people who respond to me state short insulting statements, because I hold facts, math, statistics, history, EDUCATION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes that government spending is too high across the board is anti-American?  Show me that this is a fact and post some supporting arguments, since I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you can't provide evidence other than your own opinion and anecdote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU didn't say you wanted to cut spending across the board. YOU stated you wanted to all taxes to defense.
> 
> Perhaps your wording was the flaw.
> 
> I want to cut -->SOME<-- tax funding towards defense too. Anyone with a brain would. But when you state, "I want to cut tax funding to the robotic squirrel" it sounds like you want to cut all funding, not minimize funding.
> 
> Either way, we are selling our enemies our old weapons so the Military Industrial Complex can profit (corporations that donate to politicians).
Click to expand...


Another example of you seeing things that are not there.


----------



## AntiParty

derk said:


> My opinion is... The two partiers are corrupt and they do it absolutely. No matter who gets in. They are in their system. They control the money and the message also the power once inside government. The only true way to be free of them is forced term limits. Once they are elected vote them out and let none of them make a career out of sucking at the public trough. Remain freer longer GO incumbent head hunting. Or the IRS could target you next year...muhwahhhhhh



You are on your way there and thank you. But you had better believe it's not a two party problem, it's EVERY party. 

In order for "the people" to hear about you today you have to pay media a hefty sum of money. Competition  in this arena causes some of the good politicians with good views to accept VERY LARGE  donations from Corporations they normally wouldn't accept or promote. Then, the politician changes his/her tone and starts justifying what is naturally wrong. Sadly, the blind people that can't think for themselves are busy and will repeat whatever that politician says because of his/her views from the past, or, pre- purchase. 

HERE is the boundary that some people meet. Some think that politicians get crazy because of the power complex when they get in power. Libertarians, Tea Party etc. 

Others follow the money and watch what Corporations are spending thousands/millions on that politician and controlling his/her actions. 

It's CERTAINLY not a power complex. It's a monetary complex. If I remember correctly, the person with the most money wins the election 90% of the time. THAT SHOULD DISTURB YOU!

I tend to think that it shouldn't cost money to get on the media. I think that the person with the best perspective will get the most attention via the People. I tend to wonder why the biggest media donors, in return, get campaign funding from that media. (The media controls the politician.......not the other way around. And yes...........the media is a Corporation who's only desire is profit)

"The problem" is more Citizens United than any party. That's the most common sense place to start. But this problem has been one since day 1. The rich buy politicians, straight up and easily.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, you spelled it out perfectly. You don't understand my position because we hold different positions.
> 
> I am Anti-Party and you are Anti-Government. It's as simple as that. "I want to cut all government spending" is Anti-American. YOU are no Patriot and have no concept of We The People.
> 
> You stated, "I want to cut all tax funding including Defense"
> 
> You are a weakness to America and care more about your pocket book than the reason your pocket book has so much money in it. THINK ABOUT THAT.
> 
> You state that I don't have any facts. I don't post anything but facts and encourage people to prove my facts wrong, so I have facts and not bias nonsense. There is a reason 99.9% of people who respond to me state short insulting statements, because I hold facts, math, statistics, history, EDUCATION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes that government spending is too high across the board is anti-American?  Show me that this is a fact and post some supporting arguments, since I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you can't provide evidence other than your own opinion and anecdote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU didn't say you wanted to cut spending across the board. YOU stated you wanted to all taxes to defense.
> 
> Perhaps your wording was the flaw.
> 
> I want to cut -->SOME<-- tax funding towards defense too. Anyone with a brain would. But when you state, "I want to cut tax funding to the robotic squirrel" it sounds like you want to cut all funding, not minimize funding.
> 
> Either way, we are selling our enemies our old weapons so the Military Industrial Complex can profit (corporations that donate to politicians).
Click to expand...


Gotcha.  I actually stated no such thing, but I did misunderstand what you were getting at.  Nvm.


----------



## Dune

AntiParty said:


> to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party.



All I need to read. Dumb as ever.


----------



## derk

AntiParty said:


> derk said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is... The two partiers are corrupt and they do it absolutely. No matter who gets in. They are in their system. They control the money and the message also the power once inside government. The only true way to be free of them is forced term limits. Once they are elected vote them out and let none of them make a career out of sucking at the public trough. Remain freer longer GO incumbent head hunting. Or the IRS could target you next year...muhwahhhhhh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are on your way there and thank you. But you had better believe it's not a two party problem, it's EVERY party.
> 
> In order for "the people" to hear about you today you have to pay media a hefty sum of money. Competition  in this arena causes some of the good politicians with good views to accept VERY LARGE  donations from Corporations they normally wouldn't accept or promote. Then, the politician changes his/her tone and starts justifying what is naturally wrong. Sadly, the blind people that can't think for themselves are busy and will repeat whatever that politician says because of his/her views from the past, or, pre- purchase.
> 
> HERE is the boundary that some people meet. Some think that politicians get crazy because of the power complex when they get in power. Libertarians, Tea Party etc.
> 
> Others follow the money and watch what Corporations are spending thousands/millions on that politician and controlling his/her actions.
> 
> It's CERTAINLY not a power complex. It's a monetary complex. If I remember correctly, the person with the most money wins the election 90% of the time. THAT SHOULD DISTURB YOU!
> 
> I tend to think that it shouldn't cost money to get on the media. I think that the person with the best perspective will get the most attention via the People. I tend to wonder why the biggest media donors, in return, get campaign funding from that media. (The media controls the politician.......not the other way around. And yes...........the media is a Corporation who's only desire is profit)
> 
> "The problem" is more Citizens United than any party. That's the most common sense place to start. But this problem has been one since day 1. The rich buy politicians, straight up and easily.
Click to expand...


It is the two party's system. They control the rules for getting there in each state. What your advocating is campaign limits on spending. Thats been said before. But my issue is you still have the repugs and demoncrats in control of the hen house once elected and no member will get anywhere in government without their support you couldnt get elected to a chair much less pass major legislation limiting the power of the incumbent politicians. Lets look at the media- IT is made up of their wives and husbands also some like Huckabe and Scarborough are ex two partiers. The media will hang out together and are friends  ex politicos and current politicos and so called journalists are all the same people. So saying its the money misses one important issue- THE MEDIA IS part of the system the two party's are a part of. Thats why it isnt objective anymore. These are all the same people!

Limiting the money is like building a fence around a chicken coupe, while the fox is in it, lol.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> "It that there"?.....anyway.



Typos R us.



> I'm fully aware of the Tea Party platform, but ty for posting it for others.
> 
> You are correct about the platform. Most parties want to meet all of those goals, not just the Tea Party.



Not the democrats, they oppose virtually everything on that list.



> The big difference is how they act. We don't lower taxation by shutting down the government. That is what a child would do when he can't figure out his test, he would throw down his pencil and walk out.



"Shutting down government" is a bullshit term created by the demagogues of the DNC press. What was shut down, exactly? Oh yes, the REAL child threw a tantrum and SPENT funds to block access by vets to WWII memorials, but you sure didn't see the fat and lazy federal bureaucracy doing without.



> You have to have the ability to think if you want to be a part of politics and government even at the lowest levels.




Government doesn't seek those who think, rather those who obey without question. 



> Also, the Tea party fights to free markets for profits.



I assume you mean they fight to maintain free markets and the profit motive?]

I should hope that the TEA party would do so.



> If you haven't seen this im embarrassed for you. I'm all about less government until my child has a toy made in China with lead paint on it.



That's nice.

But since that toy rides in on a Unicorn, it's of little concern. 



> The tea party never compromises on the free market,



I would hope not.



> they just want it free for profit.



As any rational and thinking person would.



> Perhaps a "no lead paint in toys but stop the excessive method used for scraping paint off of homes". You see, you can recognize that it costs thousands of dollars to use drop clothes and dispose of lead paint properly  while also understanding that lead paint regulations are good for our children. Understand?



There is no lead paint on toys. It's been prohibited since the 60's. If Chinese manufacturers are using lead, they are violating both U.S. and Chinese law, so I would expect this infallible goverment you so love to stop them. 



> *NOT ALL REGULATIONS ARE BAD REGULATIONS............................*



And?


----------



## AntiParty

Dune said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I need to read. Dumb as ever.
Click to expand...


You and thousands of others can't comprehend that. Liberty no matter what will create a stupid America. That's a fact. We already tried it!

What is more free to you? A 12 year old carrying an AK47 in school because that 12 year old has 100% Liberty? Or a school that doesn't allow a 12 year old to carry guns? I personally don't believe in no carry zones but the opposite is the ignorance of carry no matter what. 

I personally think my children are safer if they aren't allowed to carry guns in pre-school. Color me crazy all you want ..........And if you think parents would NEVER let their children carry in school.........you haven't seen 2014 have you....


----------



## AntiParty

derk said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> derk said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is... The two partiers are corrupt and they do it absolutely. No matter who gets in. They are in their system. They control the money and the message also the power once inside government. The only true way to be free of them is forced term limits. Once they are elected vote them out and let none of them make a career out of sucking at the public trough. Remain freer longer GO incumbent head hunting. Or the IRS could target you next year...muhwahhhhhh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are on your way there and thank you. But you had better believe it's not a two party problem, it's EVERY party.
> 
> In order for "the people" to hear about you today you have to pay media a hefty sum of money. Competition  in this arena causes some of the good politicians with good views to accept VERY LARGE  donations from Corporations they normally wouldn't accept or promote. Then, the politician changes his/her tone and starts justifying what is naturally wrong. Sadly, the blind people that can't think for themselves are busy and will repeat whatever that politician says because of his/her views from the past, or, pre- purchase.
> 
> HERE is the boundary that some people meet. Some think that politicians get crazy because of the power complex when they get in power. Libertarians, Tea Party etc.
> 
> Others follow the money and watch what Corporations are spending thousands/millions on that politician and controlling his/her actions.
> 
> It's CERTAINLY not a power complex. It's a monetary complex. If I remember correctly, the person with the most money wins the election 90% of the time. THAT SHOULD DISTURB YOU!
> 
> I tend to think that it shouldn't cost money to get on the media. I think that the person with the best perspective will get the most attention via the People. I tend to wonder why the biggest media donors, in return, get campaign funding from that media. (The media controls the politician.......not the other way around. And yes...........the media is a Corporation who's only desire is profit)
> 
> "The problem" is more Citizens United than any party. That's the most common sense place to start. But this problem has been one since day 1. The rich buy politicians, straight up and easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the two party's system. They control the rules for getting there in each state. What your advocating is campaign limits on spending. Thats been said before. But my issue is you still have the repugs and demoncrats in control of the hen house once elected and no member will get anywhere in government without their support you couldnt get elected to a chair much less pass major legislation limiting the power of the incumbent politicians. Lets look at the media- IT is made up of their wives and husbands also some like Huckabe and Scarborough are ex two partiers. The media will hang out together and are friends  ex politicos and current politicos and so called journalists are all the same people. So saying its the money misses one important issue- THE MEDIA IS part of the system the two party's are a part of. Thats why it isnt objective anymore. These are all the same people!
> 
> Limiting the money is like building a fence around a chicken coupe, while the fox is in it, lol.
Click to expand...


I respect your opinion and I use to be where you are. 

The rules on getting elected are based on who gets the most "news". People hate politics, they actually want the news to tell them who the best candidates are.  The news networks receive and donate millions of dollars during elections. 

The big flaw in your current and my former opinion is this. Why are ABC, NBC and CBS all in Obama's top ten campaign donors?..................You probably think it's politicians controlling media when in fact it's media controlling politicians, via, donations. 

Media are Corporations too, make no mistake. Of course they hid under aliases during election such as "Disney" so people wouldn't understand the source. All it takes is a smart person researching "who owns Disney" to find out truth.  

TRUE MEDIA will follow the story if it gains attention. If the best person is right for the job, and the people react with interest, the media will follow because the people will want to hear more. 

Being a part of this MONEY driven corruption is everything I'm against. 

WE THE PEOPLE run this country, not the Corporations. If you don't trust the people, that's on you. Fox News is teaching that very tactic. Fox News is teaching to stop trusting the people because the people don't know what is best for them anymore. Every part of this is DIRECTLY unconstitutional and profit driven.


----------



## AntiParty

Uncensored2008 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It that there"?.....anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typos R us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fully aware of the Tea Party platform, but ty for posting it for others.
> 
> You are correct about the platform. Most parties want to meet all of those goals, not just the Tea Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the democrats, they oppose virtually everything on that list.
> 
> 
> 
> "Shutting down government" is a bullshit term created by the demagogues of the DNC press. What was shut down, exactly? Oh yes, the REAL child threw a tantrum and SPENT funds to block access by vets to WWII memorials, but you sure didn't see the fat and lazy federal bureaucracy doing without.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government doesn't seek those who think, rather those who obey without question.
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you mean they fight to maintain free markets and the profit motive?]
> 
> I should hope that the TEA party would do so.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> But since that toy rides in on a Unicorn, it's of little concern.
> 
> 
> 
> I would hope not.
> 
> 
> 
> As any rational and thinking person would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a "no lead paint in toys but stop the excessive method used for scraping paint off of homes". You see, you can recognize that it costs thousands of dollars to use drop clothes and dispose of lead paint properly  while also understanding that lead paint regulations are good for our children. Understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no lead paint on toys. It's been prohibited since the 60's. If Chinese manufacturers are using lead, they are violating both U.S. and Chinese law, so I would expect this infallible goverment you so love to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NOT ALL REGULATIONS ARE BAD REGULATIONS............................*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...


AGAIN, I can't read past your very first sentence. What do you know about the Left Wing parties? I'll bet the only thing you know about them is what was taught to you by Fox News or another bias source. 

If you want to be truly educated in politics, you have to educate yourself in ALL PARTIES. I know, it's time consuming. But think of how much time you will save posting bias posts. 

(update) I read more and wished I didn't. He blamed the Left for the shutdown............Crazy how Ted Cruz openly put that on the floor and the Left spread information of the threat for WEEKS before the shutdown and the Republicans and Fox news never mentioned it. There is even paperwork that openly talks about the forced shutdown if there is no cooperation! Signed by the Right, not the Left!

Now THIS is your gem statement; "Government doesn't seek those who think, rather those who obey without question. " This statement proves in full that you have no clue about the Constitution or Government in general. This is simply amazing. 

Government isn't the people you see them as. GOVERNMENT are the people hired to do what THE PEOPLE want them to do. History has showed us what has what has corrupted the Government and it's always $. 

You seem to embrace the corruption but hate the Government....

THE PEOPLE aren't bad. PROFIT isn't bad. But profit driven corruption of the people is bad. 

Welcome to politics.


----------



## Clement

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually he openly attacks the right while supporting the left. He has been asked repeatedly to link us to any thread he started or post he made against the liberals. He can't do it. His anti party is a lie. he supports the liberal agenda.



That's the case with most people who self-identify as "independents". They are libs who don't have the guts to say so.


----------



## AntiParty

Clement said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he openly attacks the right while supporting the left. He has been asked repeatedly to link us to any thread he started or post he made against the liberals. He can't do it. His anti party is a lie. he supports the liberal agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the case with most people who self-identify as "independents". They are libs who don't have the guts to say so.
Click to expand...


This is where you are VERY WRONG. 

First off you quote someone I proved wrong immediately. I openly stated every Right Wing topic I'm in line with, why the blind eye?

Secondly, I understand why you think anyone that is not in the Right today is a "Liberal". It's what the trash media is selling. And it is EVERYTHING wrong with the Right Wing today. If you question the Right Wing Platform, you are a weakness and will be shunned like Bobby Jindal. 

Last, Indipependents are generalized as "people that don't know who to vote for".  I'm ABSOLUTELY an Independent thinker in politics, yet I always know who to vote for. 

Never confuse Anti-Party Platforms with Uneducated voters.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he openly attacks the right while supporting the left. He has been asked repeatedly to link us to any thread he started or post he made against the liberals. He can't do it. His anti party is a lie. he supports the liberal agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the case with most people who self-identify as "independents". They are libs who don't have the guts to say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where you are VERY WRONG.
> 
> First off you quote someone I proved wrong immediately. I openly stated every Right Wing topic I'm in line with, why the blind eye?
Click to expand...


The poster did not say that you don't lie about being right wing, he said you never attack the Democrats.  As of yet, you have provided no proof that he is wrong about that, which is rather surprising considering that I can point to Democrats charged with gun running that you haven't said a fucking thing about if you were actually anti party.



AntiParty said:


> Secondly, I understand why you think anyone that is not in the Right today is a "Liberal". It's what the trash media is selling. And it is EVERYTHING wrong with the Right Wing today. If you question the Right Wing Platform, you are a weakness and will be shunned like Bobby Jindal.



You must point me to all the people, other than you, who say that everyone who isn't on the right is a "Liberal." So far you are the only person I have seen that says that, and you always accuse other people of labeling you a liberal even when they don't mention the word.



AntiParty said:


> Last, Indipependents are generalized as "people that don't know who to vote for".  I'm ABSOLUTELY an Independent thinker in politics, yet I always know who to vote for.



Funny, I never saw anyone characterize them that way. I guess that is because intelligent people talk about independents, not "Indipependents."



AntiParty said:


> Never confuse Anti-Party Platforms with Uneducated voters.



I never confuse people who cannot spell with educated anything, which is why I never confuse you with Jethro Bodine.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> to make every decision based on Liberty would mean a stupid party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I need to read. Dumb as ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and thousands of others can't comprehend that. Liberty no matter what will create a stupid America. That's a fact. We already tried it!
> 
> What is more free to you? A 12 year old carrying an AK47 in school because that 12 year old has 100% Liberty? Or a school that doesn't allow a 12 year old to carry guns? I personally don't believe in no carry zones but the opposite is the ignorance of carry no matter what.
> 
> I personally think my children are safer if they aren't allowed to carry guns in pre-school. Color me crazy all you want ..........And if you think parents would NEVER let their children carry in school.........you haven't seen 2014 have you....
Click to expand...


There was a time when this nation understood the concept of a minor. Minors do not accrue the rights of adults.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> AGAIN, I can't read past your very first sentence.



I'm not here to help you with your literacy issues, Comrade, only your reasoning skills.



> What do you know about the Left Wing parties? I'll bet the only thing you know about them is what was taught to you by Fox News or another bias source.



You are very young, aren't you? Living in moms basement and outraged that the world doesn't cater to you the way mom does.



> If you want to be truly educated in politics, you have to educate yourself in ALL PARTIES. I know, it's time consuming. But think of how much time you will save posting bias posts.



Son, I'm a Libertarian. The views I promote are those of Republican ideals (Jefferson, not the GOP, since you clearly lack the education to grasp what Republican means.) 

I've read Marx, Krugman, Chomsky, Zinn, AND all of you KOS Kiddies here. I reject your ideas as infantile and moronic.

The reason I reject them is your ideas are infantile and moronic.



> (update) I read more and wished I didn't. He blamed the Left for the shutdown............Crazy how Ted Cruz openly put that on the floor and the Left spread information of the threat for WEEKS before the shutdown and the Republicans and Fox news never mentioned it. There is even paperwork that openly talks about the forced shutdown if there is no cooperation! Signed by the Right, not the Left!




You're quite stupid - no doubt much of the reason you failed to finish high school.

I said that the shutdown was a farce perpetrated by the media. The only real effect was your little tin god attacking vets at a war memorial.



> Now THIS is your gem statement; "Government doesn't seek those who think, rather those who obey without question. " This statement proves in full that you have no clue about the Constitution or Government in general. This is simply amazing.



Really?

Explain in what way the government seeks a thinking populace, sploogy?



> Government isn't the people you see them as. GOVERNMENT are the people hired to do what THE PEOPLE want them to do. History has showed us what has what has corrupted the Government and it's always $.



So, you think government is infallible, and only corrupted if capitalists are allowed the freedom to trade?




> You seem to embrace the corruption but hate the Government....
> 
> THE PEOPLE aren't bad. PROFIT isn't bad. But profit driven corruption of the people is bad.
> 
> Welcome to politics.



You are a shallow little child, lacking wits and education.

You are a perfect leftist.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the case with most people who self-identify as "independents". They are libs who don't have the guts to say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you are VERY WRONG.
> 
> First off you quote someone I proved wrong immediately. I openly stated every Right Wing topic I'm in line with, why the blind eye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poster did not say that you don't lie about being right wing, he said you never attack the Democrats.  As of yet, you have provided no proof that he is wrong about that, which is rather surprising considering that I can point to Democrats charged with gun running that you haven't said a fucking thing about if you were actually anti party.
> 
> 
> 
> You must point me to all the people, other than you, who say that everyone who isn't on the right is a "Liberal." So far you are the only person I have seen that says that, and you always accuse other people of labeling you a liberal even when they don't mention the word.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last, Indipependents are generalized as "people that don't know who to vote for".  I'm ABSOLUTELY an Independent thinker in politics, yet I always know who to vote for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I never saw anyone characterize them that way. I guess that is because intelligent people talk about independents, not "Indipependents."
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never confuse Anti-Party Platforms with Uneducated voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never confuse people who cannot spell with educated anything, which is why I never confuse you with Jethro Bodine.
Click to expand...


Another one sentence in stop reading. I'm openly against abortion. I've stated this before...

But are you trying to make me attack democrats? I'm not sure what you are getting at here. 

I attack substance. Not parties. You simply think that I'm attacking your party if you are on the wrong end of substance by large.


----------



## AntiParty

Uncensored2008 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I need to read. Dumb as ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and thousands of others can't comprehend that. Liberty no matter what will create a stupid America. That's a fact. We already tried it!
> 
> What is more free to you? A 12 year old carrying an AK47 in school because that 12 year old has 100% Liberty? Or a school that doesn't allow a 12 year old to carry guns? I personally don't believe in no carry zones but the opposite is the ignorance of carry no matter what.
> 
> I personally think my children are safer if they aren't allowed to carry guns in pre-school. Color me crazy all you want ..........And if you think parents would NEVER let their children carry in school.........you haven't seen 2014 have you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time when this nation understood the concept of a minor. Minors do not accrue the rights of adults.
Click to expand...


Then talk to a Libertarian leader about that topic and tell me what they tell you  

Again, Libertarians are Liberty no matter what. No thinking involved.


----------



## AntiParty

Uncensored2008 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN, I can't read past your very first sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not here to help you with your literacy issues, Comrade, only your reasoning skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you know about the Left Wing parties? I'll bet the only thing you know about them is what was taught to you by Fox News or another bias source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are very young, aren't you? Living in moms basement and outraged that the world doesn't cater to you the way mom does.
> 
> 
> 
> Son, I'm a Libertarian. The views I promote are those of Republican ideals (Jefferson, not the GOP, since you clearly lack the education to grasp what Republican means.)
> 
> I've read Marx, Krugman, Chomsky, Zinn, AND all of you KOS Kiddies here. I reject your ideas as infantile and moronic.
> 
> The reason I reject them is your ideas are infantile and moronic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're quite stupid - no doubt much of the reason you failed to finish high school.
> 
> I said that the shutdown was a farce perpetrated by the media. The only real effect was your little tin god attacking vets at a war memorial.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Explain in what way the government seeks a thinking populace, sploogy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government isn't the people you see them as. GOVERNMENT are the people hired to do what THE PEOPLE want them to do. History has showed us what has what has corrupted the Government and it's always $.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think government is infallible, and only corrupted if capitalists are allowed the freedom to trade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to embrace the corruption but hate the Government....
> 
> THE PEOPLE aren't bad. PROFIT isn't bad. But profit driven corruption of the people is bad.
> 
> Welcome to politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a shallow little child, lacking wits and education.
> 
> You are a perfect leftist.
Click to expand...


No, you made it quite clear you were Libertarian when you resorted to "MOM" style insults.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you are VERY WRONG.
> 
> First off you quote someone I proved wrong immediately. I openly stated every Right Wing topic I'm in line with, why the blind eye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poster did not say that you don't lie about being right wing, he said you never attack the Democrats.  As of yet, you have provided no proof that he is wrong about that, which is rather surprising considering that I can point to Democrats charged with gun running that you haven't said a fucking thing about if you were actually anti party.
> 
> 
> 
> You must point me to all the people, other than you, who say that everyone who isn't on the right is a "Liberal." So far you are the only person I have seen that says that, and you always accuse other people of labeling you a liberal even when they don't mention the word.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never saw anyone characterize them that way. I guess that is because intelligent people talk about independents, not "Indipependents."
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never confuse Anti-Party Platforms with Uneducated voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never confuse people who cannot spell with educated anything, which is why I never confuse you with Jethro Bodine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another one sentence in stop reading. I'm openly against abortion. I've stated this before...
> 
> But are you trying to make me attack democrats? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
> 
> I attack substance. Not parties. You simply think that I'm attacking your party if you are on the wrong end of substance by large.
Click to expand...


If you were half as good at research as you think you are this wouldn't be so much fun. There are actually a lot of Democrats that oppose abortion, they even organize themselves .

Democrats For Life of America

If you attacked substance you would attack Democrats when they were wrong. What you actually attack is the Tea Party because you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than they are. The funny thing is that all the political analysts say that the Tea Party tend to be better educated, and have a better grasp of politics, than the typical voter. In other words, they are exactly what you claim you are, yet you attack them because they watch Fox News, even though there is no evidence tat they do.

You wouldn't know what to do with substantial post if someone handed it to you on a silver platter, you aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## BobPlumb

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poster did not say that you don't lie about being right wing, he said you never attack the Democrats.  As of yet, you have provided no proof that he is wrong about that, which is rather surprising considering that I can point to Democrats charged with gun running that you haven't said a fucking thing about if you were actually anti party.
> 
> 
> 
> You must point me to all the people, other than you, who say that everyone who isn't on the right is a "Liberal." So far you are the only person I have seen that says that, and you always accuse other people of labeling you a liberal even when they don't mention the word.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never saw anyone characterize them that way. I guess that is because intelligent people talk about independents, not "Indipependents."
> 
> 
> 
> I never confuse people who cannot spell with educated anything, which is why I never confuse you with Jethro Bodine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one sentence in stop reading. I'm openly against abortion. I've stated this before...
> 
> But are you trying to make me attack democrats? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
> 
> I attack substance. Not parties. You simply think that I'm attacking your party if you are on the wrong end of substance by large.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were half as good at research as you think you are this wouldn't be so much fun. There are actually a lot of Democrats that oppose abortion, they even organize themselves .
> 
> Democrats For Life of America
> 
> If you attacked substance you would attack Democrats when they were wrong. What you actually attack is the Tea Party because you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than they are. The funny thing is that all the political analysts say that the Tea Party tend to be better educated, and have a better grasp of politics, than the typical voter. In other words, they are exactly what you claim you are, yet you attack them because they watch Fox News, even though there is no evidence tat they do.
> 
> You wouldn't know what to do with substantial post if someone handed it to you on a silver platter, you aren't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...


Many people, democrats especially like to claim to personally be against abortion, but then say that they are for individuals right to choose to have an abortion.  Well, I'm personally against serial killing, but I am for the right of individuals to choose to be serial killers.  Give me a break!


----------



## BobPlumb

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poster did not say that you don't lie about being right wing, he said you never attack the Democrats.  As of yet, you have provided no proof that he is wrong about that, which is rather surprising considering that I can point to Democrats charged with gun running that you haven't said a fucking thing about if you were actually anti party.
> 
> 
> 
> You must point me to all the people, other than you, who say that everyone who isn't on the right is a "Liberal." So far you are the only person I have seen that says that, and you always accuse other people of labeling you a liberal even when they don't mention the word.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never saw anyone characterize them that way. I guess that is because intelligent people talk about independents, not "Indipependents."
> 
> 
> 
> I never confuse people who cannot spell with educated anything, which is why I never confuse you with Jethro Bodine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one sentence in stop reading. I'm openly against abortion. I've stated this before...
> 
> But are you trying to make me attack democrats? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
> 
> I attack substance. Not parties. You simply think that I'm attacking your party if you are on the wrong end of substance by large.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were half as good at research as you think you are this wouldn't be so much fun. There are actually a lot of Democrats that oppose abortion, they even organize themselves .
> 
> Democrats For Life of America
> 
> If you attacked substance you would attack Democrats when they were wrong. What you actually attack is the Tea Party because you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than they are. The funny thing is that all the political analysts say that the Tea Party tend to be better educated, and have a better grasp of politics, than the typical voter. In other words, they are exactly what you claim you are, yet you attack them because they watch Fox News, even though there is no evidence tat they do.
> 
> You wouldn't know what to do with substantial post if someone handed it to you on a silver platter, you aren't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...


I find the Democrats for Life organization to be quite illogical.  They are anti-abortion, yet when the rubber meets the road they support the pro-abortion party.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> Then talk to a Libertarian leader about that topic and tell me what they tell you
> 
> Again, Libertarians are Liberty no matter what. No thinking involved.



Child, I am a Libertarian. I've dined socially with Harry Browne (dearly missed.) I know full well what I believe. You won't find rational Libertarians suggesting that children have the rights of adults., Not Rothbard, not Rockwell, oh Chomsky might have said it, but the old Marxist fuck was never a Libertarian.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> No, you made it quite clear you were Libertarian when you resorted to "MOM" style insults.



That's not an insult, just an observation: You are no doubt 30 going on 13.


----------



## HackinJack

right


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poster did not say that you don't lie about being right wing, he said you never attack the Democrats.  As of yet, you have provided no proof that he is wrong about that, which is rather surprising considering that I can point to Democrats charged with gun running that you haven't said a fucking thing about if you were actually anti party.
> 
> 
> 
> You must point me to all the people, other than you, who say that everyone who isn't on the right is a "Liberal." So far you are the only person I have seen that says that, and you always accuse other people of labeling you a liberal even when they don't mention the word.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never saw anyone characterize them that way. I guess that is because intelligent people talk about independents, not "Indipependents."
> 
> 
> 
> I never confuse people who cannot spell with educated anything, which is why I never confuse you with Jethro Bodine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one sentence in stop reading. I'm openly against abortion. I've stated this before...
> 
> But are you trying to make me attack democrats? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
> 
> I attack substance. Not parties. You simply think that I'm attacking your party if you are on the wrong end of substance by large.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were half as good at research as you think you are this wouldn't be so much fun. There are actually a lot of Democrats that oppose abortion, they even organize themselves .
> 
> Democrats For Life of America
> 
> If you attacked substance you would attack Democrats when they were wrong. What you actually attack is the Tea Party because you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than they are. The funny thing is that all the political analysts say that the Tea Party tend to be better educated, and have a better grasp of politics, than the typical voter. In other words, they are exactly what you claim you are, yet you attack them because they watch Fox News, even though there is no evidence tat they do.
> 
> You wouldn't know what to do with substantial post if someone handed it to you on a silver platter, you aren't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...


So you attack my anti-party platform stance by stating that "some Democrats don't agree with Abortion"............................................................................................

You clearly don't get the point at all. 

I'm embarrassed for you at this point.


----------



## AntiParty

BobPlumb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one sentence in stop reading. I'm openly against abortion. I've stated this before...
> 
> But are you trying to make me attack democrats? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
> 
> I attack substance. Not parties. You simply think that I'm attacking your party if you are on the wrong end of substance by large.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were half as good at research as you think you are this wouldn't be so much fun. There are actually a lot of Democrats that oppose abortion, they even organize themselves .
> 
> Democrats For Life of America
> 
> If you attacked substance you would attack Democrats when they were wrong. What you actually attack is the Tea Party because you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than they are. The funny thing is that all the political analysts say that the Tea Party tend to be better educated, and have a better grasp of politics, than the typical voter. In other words, they are exactly what you claim you are, yet you attack them because they watch Fox News, even though there is no evidence tat they do.
> 
> You wouldn't know what to do with substantial post if someone handed it to you on a silver platter, you aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many people, democrats especially like to claim to personally be against abortion, but then say that they are for individuals right to choose to have an abortion.  Well, I'm personally against serial killing, but I am for the right of individuals to choose to be serial killers.  Give me a break!
Click to expand...


Let me break down your perspective on the matter...........

Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities. 

Rightists believe that once the act has happened, (sex), God has the plan for that baby. 

The overall question has *ALWAYS* been, _"Is it a child"_ 

Science has it's beliefs, Christians have their beliefs and then some. But neither side wants to understand the other even though the Constitution says, "Freedom of Religion" which means no forced Christian scenarios or other religion scenarios BY LAW. 

At what point it's determined a human is the actual debate. 

Do we have the Liberty to take a human life, most say no, but it depends on the circumstances <--100% Right Wing logic even when they are the "I shall not kill party" by majority. 

Do we have the ability to flush out an embryo that shows no signs of being a human, <---100% science logic. Science lines up with the Left.

Yet the Right has overstepped it's boundaries and tries to control items that can prevent pregnancy to begin with saying that, "God will decide". These people have never heard of Satin...................................


----------



## AntiParty

Uncensored2008 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then talk to a Libertarian leader about that topic and tell me what they tell you
> 
> Again, Libertarians are Liberty no matter what. No thinking involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Child, I am a Libertarian. I've dined socially with Harry Browne (dearly missed.) I know full well what I believe. You won't find rational Libertarians suggesting that children have the rights of adults., Not Rothbard, not Rockwell, oh Chomsky might have said it, but the old Marxist fuck was never a Libertarian.
Click to expand...


You believe in Rational Libertarians..........are you underground in a bunker LOL. 

Liberty is important for all parties. The need for a Libertarian party SHOULD be obsolete. 

Liberty is a cornerstone. When politicians started focusing on $$$ and not people the small minded felt comfort in the Libertarian paradise that praised it does not work for Corporations. 

Sadly, all those Libertarians still work for corporations and the money trail is easy to see. 

At this point I'm planning to vote for Rand Paul in hopes that he is working for the people. 


Libertarians believe we should own all the same weapons our Military does. That has been the basic concept for years now. (Because Fox News has them scared to death)

BTW; You never dined with anyone. If you did, it was the most uneducated night of your life. I went through a phase where I tried to dine with my local Libertarian ring leader. Turns out he had TONS of money and just hated taxation.


----------



## westwall

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one sentence in stop reading. I'm openly against abortion. I've stated this before...
> 
> But are you trying to make me attack democrats? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
> 
> I attack substance. Not parties. You simply think that I'm attacking your party if you are on the wrong end of substance by large.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were half as good at research as you think you are this wouldn't be so much fun. There are actually a lot of Democrats that oppose abortion, they even organize themselves .
> 
> Democrats For Life of America
> 
> If you attacked substance you would attack Democrats when they were wrong. What you actually attack is the Tea Party because you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than they are. The funny thing is that all the political analysts say that the Tea Party tend to be better educated, and have a better grasp of politics, than the typical voter. In other words, they are exactly what you claim you are, yet you attack them because they watch Fox News, even though there is no evidence tat they do.
> 
> You wouldn't know what to do with substantial post if someone handed it to you on a silver platter, you aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you attack my anti-party platform stance by stating that "some Democrats don't agree with Abortion"............................................................................................
> 
> You clearly don't get the point at all.
> 
> I'm embarrassed for you at this point.
Click to expand...






No we attack your claim to be "anti-party".  You are a progressive of the first order, that makes you a member of the most destructive, murderous, group (PARTY) the world has ever seen.


----------



## BobPlumb

I am pro-party.  Cake, ice cream, funny hats, noise makers, what is there not to like?  Let's party!


----------



## BobPlumb

AntiParty said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were half as good at research as you think you are this wouldn't be so much fun. There are actually a lot of Democrats that oppose abortion, they even organize themselves .
> 
> Democrats For Life of America
> 
> If you attacked substance you would attack Democrats when they were wrong. What you actually attack is the Tea Party because you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than they are. The funny thing is that all the political analysts say that the Tea Party tend to be better educated, and have a better grasp of politics, than the typical voter. In other words, they are exactly what you claim you are, yet you attack them because they watch Fox News, even though there is no evidence tat they do.
> 
> You wouldn't know what to do with substantial post if someone handed it to you on a silver platter, you aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people, democrats especially like to claim to personally be against abortion, but then say that they are for individuals right to choose to have an abortion.  Well, I'm personally against serial killing, but I am for the right of individuals to choose to be serial killers.  Give me a break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me break down your perspective on the matter...........
> 
> Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities.
> 
> Rightists believe that once the act has happened, (sex), God has the plan for that baby.
> 
> The overall question has *ALWAYS* been, _"Is it a child"_
> 
> Science has it's beliefs, Christians have their beliefs and then some. But neither side wants to understand the other even though the Constitution says, "Freedom of Religion" which means no forced Christian scenarios or other religion scenarios BY LAW.
> 
> At what point it's determined a human is the actual debate.
> 
> Do we have the Liberty to take a human life, most say no, but it depends on the circumstances <--100% Right Wing logic even when they are the "I shall not kill party" by majority.
> 
> Do we have the ability to flush out an embryo that shows no signs of being a human, <---100% science logic. Science lines up with the Left.
> 
> Yet the Right has overstepped it's boundaries and tries to control items that can prevent pregnancy to begin with saying that, "God will decide". These people have never heard of Satin...................................
Click to expand...


A (human) embryo does not have human qualities....... Thanks for breaking that down for me.


----------



## AntiParty

westwall said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were half as good at research as you think you are this wouldn't be so much fun. There are actually a lot of Democrats that oppose abortion, they even organize themselves .
> 
> Democrats For Life of America
> 
> If you attacked substance you would attack Democrats when they were wrong. What you actually attack is the Tea Party because you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than they are. The funny thing is that all the political analysts say that the Tea Party tend to be better educated, and have a better grasp of politics, than the typical voter. In other words, they are exactly what you claim you are, yet you attack them because they watch Fox News, even though there is no evidence tat they do.
> 
> You wouldn't know what to do with substantial post if someone handed it to you on a silver platter, you aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you attack my anti-party platform stance by stating that "some Democrats don't agree with Abortion"............................................................................................
> 
> You clearly don't get the point at all.
> 
> I'm embarrassed for you at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we attack your claim to be "anti-party".  You are a progressive of the first order, that makes you a member of the most destructive, murderous, group (PARTY) the world has ever seen.
Click to expand...


I'm certainly not against SMART progress. If you have people teaching you that progress is everything bad in America then you need to re-think your political skills. Even the Constitution was written to be progressive.....

To stop time and the ability to change would mean you have* no ability to learn*....... Because when you learn things, you change...

Progress/change isn't a bad word because a politician used it as a slogan...


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were half as good at research as you think you are this wouldn't be so much fun. There are actually a lot of Democrats that oppose abortion, they even organize themselves .
> 
> Democrats For Life of America
> 
> If you attacked substance you would attack Democrats when they were wrong. What you actually attack is the Tea Party because you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than they are. The funny thing is that all the political analysts say that the Tea Party tend to be better educated, and have a better grasp of politics, than the typical voter. In other words, they are exactly what you claim you are, yet you attack them because they watch Fox News, even though there is no evidence tat they do.
> 
> You wouldn't know what to do with substantial post if someone handed it to you on a silver platter, you aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people, democrats especially like to claim to personally be against abortion, but then say that they are for individuals right to choose to have an abortion.  Well, I'm personally against serial killing, but I am for the right of individuals to choose to be serial killers.  Give me a break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me break down your perspective on the matter...........
> 
> Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities.
> 
> Rightists believe that once the act has happened, (sex), God has the plan for that baby.
> 
> The overall question has *ALWAYS* been, _"Is it a child"_
> 
> Science has it's beliefs, Christians have their beliefs and then some. But neither side wants to understand the other even though the Constitution says, "Freedom of Religion" which means no forced Christian scenarios or other religion scenarios BY LAW.
> 
> At what point it's determined a human is the actual debate.
> 
> Do we have the Liberty to take a human life, most say no, but it depends on the circumstances <--100% Right Wing logic even when they are the "I shall not kill party" by majority.
> 
> Do we have the ability to flush out an embryo that shows no signs of being a human, <---100% science logic. Science lines up with the Left.
> 
> Yet the Right has overstepped it's boundaries and tries to control items that can prevent pregnancy to begin with saying that, "God will decide". These people have never heard of Satin...................................
Click to expand...


Your language in this post makes it difficult to believe that you're actually anti-abortion.

"Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities."

The implication here, based on the fact that you included that leftists believe in science, is that science believes that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities.

If you imply that science believes this, you imply that it is reality.

If your belief is that physical reality tells us that the embryo isn't human until a certain point, and you are not a religious man, then you believe that the embryo isn't a human until a certain point.

You either see nothing wrong with abortion up to this certain point, or you have a soft spot for parasites, which is how you would define a non human organism feeding off of its host's life functions.

What makes it really funny is that your initial claim is silly as shit.  What "science" is it that you speak of that ignores that the embryo, from conception, has distinctly human genes?  Or that it's the product of human sperm and egg cells, and attaches itself to the uterus just like every other human embryo did at one time or another?

The distinction in human qualities and whether that embryo is human or a parasite is a purely philosophical debate, it isn't the science vs religion question you make it out to be, and the fact that you've drawn the line there, coupled with the fact that you, yourself, aren't religious, really makes your singular claim to a non-democrat ideal pretty f'in fishy.

When all your own reasoning would inevitably point someone of your mindset in the direction that abortion simply favors the rights of a human over a non-human, but you claim that your conclusion is the opposite, I can't help but smell bullshit.

Or, if the science and leftists statement really is something that you think, -and- you truly believe that abortion is inherently wrong, maybe your logic is just completely piss-poor, in which case you're a funny guy for thinking that you've got anything substantive to say about anything substantive


----------



## AntiParty

Not2BSubjugated said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people, democrats especially like to claim to personally be against abortion, but then say that they are for individuals right to choose to have an abortion.  Well, I'm personally against serial killing, but I am for the right of individuals to choose to be serial killers.  Give me a break!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me break down your perspective on the matter...........
> 
> Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities.
> 
> Rightists believe that once the act has happened, (sex), God has the plan for that baby.
> 
> The overall question has *ALWAYS* been, _"Is it a child"_
> 
> Science has it's beliefs, Christians have their beliefs and then some. But neither side wants to understand the other even though the Constitution says, "Freedom of Religion" which means no forced Christian scenarios or other religion scenarios BY LAW.
> 
> At what point it's determined a human is the actual debate.
> 
> Do we have the Liberty to take a human life, most say no, but it depends on the circumstances <--100% Right Wing logic even when they are the "I shall not kill party" by majority.
> 
> Do we have the ability to flush out an embryo that shows no signs of being a human, <---100% science logic. Science lines up with the Left.
> 
> Yet the Right has overstepped it's boundaries and tries to control items that can prevent pregnancy to begin with saying that, "God will decide". These people have never heard of Satin...................................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your language in this post makes it difficult to believe that you're actually anti-abortion.
> 
> "Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities."
> 
> The implication here, based on the fact that you included that leftists believe in science, is that science believes that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities.
> 
> If you imply that science believes this, you imply that it is reality.
> 
> If your belief is that physical reality tells us that the embryo isn't human until a certain point, and you are not a religious man, then you believe that the embryo isn't a human until a certain point.
> 
> You either see nothing wrong with abortion up to this certain point, or you have a soft spot for parasites, which is how you would define a non human organism feeding off of its host's life functions.
> 
> What makes it really funny is that your initial claim is silly as shit.  What "science" is it that you speak of that ignores that the embryo, from conception, has distinctly human genes?  Or that it's the product of human sperm and egg cells, and attaches itself to the uterus just like every other human embryo did at one time or another?
> 
> The distinction in human qualities and whether that embryo is human or a parasite is a purely philosophical debate, it isn't the science vs religion question you make it out to be, and the fact that you've drawn the line there, coupled with the fact that you, yourself, aren't religious, really makes your singular claim to a non-democrat ideal pretty f'in fishy.
> 
> When all your own reasoning would inevitably point someone of your mindset in the direction that abortion simply favors the rights of a human over a non-human, but you claim that your conclusion is the opposite, I can't help but smell bullshit.
> 
> Or, if the science and leftists statement really is something that you think, -and- you truly believe that abortion is inherently wrong, maybe your logic is just completely piss-poor, in which case you're a funny guy for thinking that you've got anything substantive to say about anything substantive
Click to expand...


^The bias are still attacking... "You have to be a Leftist! YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME!"

My perspective on abortion is this.....; 

If everyone had access to birth control, why would abortion be a necessary for *anyone*?  Abortion would be obsolete... (and one topic voters would stop voting for turds ready to sell out America based on *ONE TOPIC)*

But I'm sure you think women should just keep their legs shut if they don't want to get pregnant and meanwhile, you have no responsibility in the matter.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AntiParty said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me break down your perspective on the matter...........
> 
> Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities.
> 
> Rightists believe that once the act has happened, (sex), God has the plan for that baby.
> 
> The overall question has *ALWAYS* been, _"Is it a child"_
> 
> Science has it's beliefs, Christians have their beliefs and then some. But neither side wants to understand the other even though the Constitution says, "Freedom of Religion" which means no forced Christian scenarios or other religion scenarios BY LAW.
> 
> At what point it's determined a human is the actual debate.
> 
> Do we have the Liberty to take a human life, most say no, but it depends on the circumstances <--100% Right Wing logic even when they are the "I shall not kill party" by majority.
> 
> Do we have the ability to flush out an embryo that shows no signs of being a human, <---100% science logic. Science lines up with the Left.
> 
> Yet the Right has overstepped it's boundaries and tries to control items that can prevent pregnancy to begin with saying that, "God will decide". These people have never heard of Satin...................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your language in this post makes it difficult to believe that you're actually anti-abortion.
> 
> "Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities."
> 
> The implication here, based on the fact that you included that leftists believe in science, is that science believes that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities.
> 
> If you imply that science believes this, you imply that it is reality.
> 
> If your belief is that physical reality tells us that the embryo isn't human until a certain point, and you are not a religious man, then you believe that the embryo isn't a human until a certain point.
> 
> You either see nothing wrong with abortion up to this certain point, or you have a soft spot for parasites, which is how you would define a non human organism feeding off of its host's life functions.
> 
> What makes it really funny is that your initial claim is silly as shit.  What "science" is it that you speak of that ignores that the embryo, from conception, has distinctly human genes?  Or that it's the product of human sperm and egg cells, and attaches itself to the uterus just like every other human embryo did at one time or another?
> 
> The distinction in human qualities and whether that embryo is human or a parasite is a purely philosophical debate, it isn't the science vs religion question you make it out to be, and the fact that you've drawn the line there, coupled with the fact that you, yourself, aren't religious, really makes your singular claim to a non-democrat ideal pretty f'in fishy.
> 
> When all your own reasoning would inevitably point someone of your mindset in the direction that abortion simply favors the rights of a human over a non-human, but you claim that your conclusion is the opposite, I can't help but smell bullshit.
> 
> Or, if the science and leftists statement really is something that you think, -and- you truly believe that abortion is inherently wrong, maybe your logic is just completely piss-poor, in which case you're a funny guy for thinking that you've got anything substantive to say about anything substantive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^The bias are still attacking... "You have to be a Leftist! YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME!"
> 
> My perspective on abortion is this.....;
> 
> If everyone had access to birth control, why would abortion be a necessary for *anyone*?  Abortion would be obsolete... (and one topic voters would stop voting for turds ready to sell out America based on *ONE TOPIC)*
> 
> But I'm sure you think women should just keep their legs shut if they don't want to get pregnant and meanwhile, you have no responsibility in the matter.
Click to expand...


Everyone does have access to birth control./contraceptives, yet abortion still exists.  Maybe if your brain could think beyond one topic you would realize how stupid it sounds to claim that one topic is all that matters.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me break down your perspective on the matter...........
> 
> Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities.
> 
> Rightists believe that once the act has happened, (sex), God has the plan for that baby.
> 
> The overall question has *ALWAYS* been, _"Is it a child"_
> 
> Science has it's beliefs, Christians have their beliefs and then some. But neither side wants to understand the other even though the Constitution says, "Freedom of Religion" which means no forced Christian scenarios or other religion scenarios BY LAW.
> 
> At what point it's determined a human is the actual debate.
> 
> Do we have the Liberty to take a human life, most say no, but it depends on the circumstances <--100% Right Wing logic even when they are the "I shall not kill party" by majority.
> 
> Do we have the ability to flush out an embryo that shows no signs of being a human, <---100% science logic. Science lines up with the Left.
> 
> Yet the Right has overstepped it's boundaries and tries to control items that can prevent pregnancy to begin with saying that, "God will decide". These people have never heard of Satin...................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your language in this post makes it difficult to believe that you're actually anti-abortion.
> 
> "Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities."
> 
> The implication here, based on the fact that you included that leftists believe in science, is that science believes that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities.
> 
> If you imply that science believes this, you imply that it is reality.
> 
> If your belief is that physical reality tells us that the embryo isn't human until a certain point, and you are not a religious man, then you believe that the embryo isn't a human until a certain point.
> 
> You either see nothing wrong with abortion up to this certain point, or you have a soft spot for parasites, which is how you would define a non human organism feeding off of its host's life functions.
> 
> What makes it really funny is that your initial claim is silly as shit.  What "science" is it that you speak of that ignores that the embryo, from conception, has distinctly human genes?  Or that it's the product of human sperm and egg cells, and attaches itself to the uterus just like every other human embryo did at one time or another?
> 
> The distinction in human qualities and whether that embryo is human or a parasite is a purely philosophical debate, it isn't the science vs religion question you make it out to be, and the fact that you've drawn the line there, coupled with the fact that you, yourself, aren't religious, really makes your singular claim to a non-democrat ideal pretty f'in fishy.
> 
> When all your own reasoning would inevitably point someone of your mindset in the direction that abortion simply favors the rights of a human over a non-human, but you claim that your conclusion is the opposite, I can't help but smell bullshit.
> 
> Or, if the science and leftists statement really is something that you think, -and- you truly believe that abortion is inherently wrong, maybe your logic is just completely piss-poor, in which case you're a funny guy for thinking that you've got anything substantive to say about anything substantive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^The bias are still attacking... "You have to be a Leftist! YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME!"
> 
> My perspective on abortion is this.....;
> 
> If everyone had access to birth control, why would abortion be a necessary for *anyone*?  Abortion would be obsolete... (and one topic voters would stop voting for turds ready to sell out America based on *ONE TOPIC)*
> 
> But I'm sure you think women should just keep their legs shut if they don't want to get pregnant and meanwhile, you have no responsibility in the matter.
Click to expand...


I like that you assume I'm biased in the opposite direction of my actual bias.

I am absolutely against the Federal government weighing in on abortion at all.

Personally, I believe the fetus is a human, if you made one and you have to kill, you fucked up.  I believe it to be morally wrong.

I know, however, that I can't prove it's humanity on a philosophical level, and I accept that the argument could be made, though it doesn't suit my beliefs, that the fetus is a parasite until some point in its development.

As a libertarian, I'm opposed to the government imposing virtually any sort of moral standards, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with the particular moral in question.

So, actually, your stated conclusion is perfectly in line with my own on this issue.  The fact that you've stated that -science- states that a fetus has no human characteristics baffles me, though, and implies that you, who have stated many times that you side with science, believe that a fetus has no human characteristics.  If that's your belief, why are you opposed to killing one?  I honestly don't get it.

Are you opposed to killing tape worms?  If the fetus isn't human, its practically the same as a tape worm.  Where do you drawn the line?  Which parasites are to be protected?

No, it's not that you don't agree with me that makes you a leftist.  It's the fact that you're a leftist that makes you a leftist.  The fact that the only thing that you disagree with the Dems on is abortion, but that your conclusion on abortion flies in the face of your reasoning, makes me think your'e less anti-party than you claim to be.  You don't like the idea of being a sheep-like partisan follower, but unfortunately you are one.  It's my suspicion that if this abortion thing isn't outright bullshit so you can separate yourself from a purely partisan Democrat, then you're clinging to it as a psychological defense against having to admit that you are what you rail against.


----------



## AntiParty

Quantum Windbag said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your language in this post makes it difficult to believe that you're actually anti-abortion.
> 
> "Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities."
> 
> The implication here, based on the fact that you included that leftists believe in science, is that science believes that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities.
> 
> If you imply that science believes this, you imply that it is reality.
> 
> If your belief is that physical reality tells us that the embryo isn't human until a certain point, and you are not a religious man, then you believe that the embryo isn't a human until a certain point.
> 
> You either see nothing wrong with abortion up to this certain point, or you have a soft spot for parasites, which is how you would define a non human organism feeding off of its host's life functions.
> 
> What makes it really funny is that your initial claim is silly as shit.  What "science" is it that you speak of that ignores that the embryo, from conception, has distinctly human genes?  Or that it's the product of human sperm and egg cells, and attaches itself to the uterus just like every other human embryo did at one time or another?
> 
> The distinction in human qualities and whether that embryo is human or a parasite is a purely philosophical debate, it isn't the science vs religion question you make it out to be, and the fact that you've drawn the line there, coupled with the fact that you, yourself, aren't religious, really makes your singular claim to a non-democrat ideal pretty f'in fishy.
> 
> When all your own reasoning would inevitably point someone of your mindset in the direction that abortion simply favors the rights of a human over a non-human, but you claim that your conclusion is the opposite, I can't help but smell bullshit.
> 
> Or, if the science and leftists statement really is something that you think, -and- you truly believe that abortion is inherently wrong, maybe your logic is just completely piss-poor, in which case you're a funny guy for thinking that you've got anything substantive to say about anything substantive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^The bias are still attacking... "You have to be a Leftist! YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME!"
> 
> My perspective on abortion is this.....;
> 
> If everyone had access to birth control, why would abortion be a necessary for *anyone*?  Abortion would be obsolete... (and one topic voters would stop voting for turds ready to sell out America based on *ONE TOPIC)*
> 
> But I'm sure you think women should just keep their legs shut if they don't want to get pregnant and meanwhile, you have no responsibility in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone does have access to birth control./contraceptives, yet abortion still exists.  Maybe if your brain could think beyond one topic you would realize how stupid it sounds to claim that one topic is all that matters.
Click to expand...


Everyone with money...

But the inability to think beyond ones self is a hard obstacle for some. WELCOME TO POLITICS


----------



## AntiParty

Not2BSubjugated said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your language in this post makes it difficult to believe that you're actually anti-abortion.
> 
> "Leftists believe in Science and they believe that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities."
> 
> The implication here, based on the fact that you included that leftists believe in science, is that science believes that at certain stages the embryo has no signs of human qualities.
> 
> If you imply that science believes this, you imply that it is reality.
> 
> If your belief is that physical reality tells us that the embryo isn't human until a certain point, and you are not a religious man, then you believe that the embryo isn't a human until a certain point.
> 
> You either see nothing wrong with abortion up to this certain point, or you have a soft spot for parasites, which is how you would define a non human organism feeding off of its host's life functions.
> 
> What makes it really funny is that your initial claim is silly as shit.  What "science" is it that you speak of that ignores that the embryo, from conception, has distinctly human genes?  Or that it's the product of human sperm and egg cells, and attaches itself to the uterus just like every other human embryo did at one time or another?
> 
> The distinction in human qualities and whether that embryo is human or a parasite is a purely philosophical debate, it isn't the science vs religion question you make it out to be, and the fact that you've drawn the line there, coupled with the fact that you, yourself, aren't religious, really makes your singular claim to a non-democrat ideal pretty f'in fishy.
> 
> When all your own reasoning would inevitably point someone of your mindset in the direction that abortion simply favors the rights of a human over a non-human, but you claim that your conclusion is the opposite, I can't help but smell bullshit.
> 
> Or, if the science and leftists statement really is something that you think, -and- you truly believe that abortion is inherently wrong, maybe your logic is just completely piss-poor, in which case you're a funny guy for thinking that you've got anything substantive to say about anything substantive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^The bias are still attacking... "You have to be a Leftist! YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME!"
> 
> My perspective on abortion is this.....;
> 
> If everyone had access to birth control, why would abortion be a necessary for *anyone*?  Abortion would be obsolete... (and one topic voters would stop voting for turds ready to sell out America based on *ONE TOPIC)*
> 
> But I'm sure you think women should just keep their legs shut if they don't want to get pregnant and meanwhile, you have no responsibility in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like that you assume I'm biased in the opposite direction of my actual bias.
> 
> I am absolutely against the Federal government weighing in on abortion at all.
> 
> Personally, I believe the fetus is a human, if you made one and you have to kill, you fucked up.  I believe it to be morally wrong.
> 
> I know, however, that I can't prove it's humanity on a philosophical level, and I accept that the argument could be made, though it doesn't suit my beliefs, that the fetus is a parasite until some point in its development.
> 
> As a libertarian, I'm opposed to the government imposing virtually any sort of moral standards, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with the particular moral in question.
> 
> So, actually, your stated conclusion is perfectly in line with my own on this issue.  The fact that you've stated that -science- states that a fetus has no human characteristics baffles me, though, and implies that you, who have stated many times that you side with science, believe that a fetus has no human characteristics.  If that's your belief, why are you opposed to killing one?  I honestly don't get it.
> 
> Are you opposed to killing tape worms?  If the fetus isn't human, its practically the same as a tape worm.  Where do you drawn the line?  Which parasites are to be protected?
> 
> No, it's not that you don't agree with me that makes you a leftist.  It's the fact that you're a leftist that makes you a leftist.  The fact that the only thing that you disagree with the Dems on is abortion, but that your conclusion on abortion flies in the face of your reasoning, makes me think your'e less anti-party than you claim to be.  You don't like the idea of being a sheep-like partisan follower, but unfortunately you are one.  It's my suspicion that if this abortion thing isn't outright bullshit so you can separate yourself from a purely partisan Democrat, then you're clinging to it as a psychological defense against having to admit that you are what you rail against.
Click to expand...


I REALLY didn't have to read beyond this because it's true in so many stories, "As a libertarian, I'm opposed to the government imposing virtually any sort of moral standards, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with the particular moral in question.
"
Don't you understand that everything Government made was based on MORALS. Libertarian party paints "Governemnt is always  bad" but what about the 2A, wasn't that based on MORALS. Isn't LIBERTY in general based on morals?! 

What Libertarians lack is the fact that THE PEOPLE run the Government, not the other way around. THE PEOPLE can change the government at any time through the correct process. They can even change the Constitution. 

What I've heard lately from MANY Libertarians is that "the people don't know what is best for them anymore" because that is what Fox News paints for them. 

UNITED WE STAND.........Put your trust in the people and the people will be the best America always. Put your trust in government or corporations (the same), we will never be successful.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^The bias are still attacking... "You have to be a Leftist! YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME!"
> 
> My perspective on abortion is this.....;
> 
> If everyone had access to birth control, why would abortion be a necessary for *anyone*?  Abortion would be obsolete... (and one topic voters would stop voting for turds ready to sell out America based on *ONE TOPIC)*
> 
> But I'm sure you think women should just keep their legs shut if they don't want to get pregnant and meanwhile, you have no responsibility in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like that you assume I'm biased in the opposite direction of my actual bias.
> 
> I am absolutely against the Federal government weighing in on abortion at all.
> 
> Personally, I believe the fetus is a human, if you made one and you have to kill, you fucked up.  I believe it to be morally wrong.
> 
> I know, however, that I can't prove it's humanity on a philosophical level, and I accept that the argument could be made, though it doesn't suit my beliefs, that the fetus is a parasite until some point in its development.
> 
> As a libertarian, I'm opposed to the government imposing virtually any sort of moral standards, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with the particular moral in question.
> 
> So, actually, your stated conclusion is perfectly in line with my own on this issue.  The fact that you've stated that -science- states that a fetus has no human characteristics baffles me, though, and implies that you, who have stated many times that you side with science, believe that a fetus has no human characteristics.  If that's your belief, why are you opposed to killing one?  I honestly don't get it.
> 
> Are you opposed to killing tape worms?  If the fetus isn't human, its practically the same as a tape worm.  Where do you drawn the line?  Which parasites are to be protected?
> 
> No, it's not that you don't agree with me that makes you a leftist.  It's the fact that you're a leftist that makes you a leftist.  The fact that the only thing that you disagree with the Dems on is abortion, but that your conclusion on abortion flies in the face of your reasoning, makes me think your'e less anti-party than you claim to be.  You don't like the idea of being a sheep-like partisan follower, but unfortunately you are one.  It's my suspicion that if this abortion thing isn't outright bullshit so you can separate yourself from a purely partisan Democrat, then you're clinging to it as a psychological defense against having to admit that you are what you rail against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I REALLY didn't have to read beyond this because it's true in so many stories, "As a libertarian, I'm opposed to the government imposing virtually any sort of moral standards, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with the particular moral in question.
> "
> Don't you understand that everything Government made was based on MORALS. Libertarian party paints "Governemnt is always  bad" but what about the 2A, wasn't that based on MORALS. Isn't LIBERTY in general based on morals?!
> 
> What Libertarians lack is the fact that THE PEOPLE run the Government, not the other way around. THE PEOPLE can change the government at any time through the correct process. They can even change the Constitution.
> 
> What I've heard lately from MANY Libertarians is that "the people don't know what is best for them anymore" because that is what Fox News paints for them.
> 
> UNITED WE STAND.........Put your trust in the people and the people will be the best America always. Put your trust in government or corporations (the same), we will never be successful.
Click to expand...


So you're going to ignore everything that I said except for the fact that I'm a libertarian?  Should I take that as your concession that you are, in fact, a partisan Democrat?

Also, no, liberty isn't based on morals.  Liberty is a word that describes the freedom to act according to one's own will and without the interference of anyone else's will.  Liberty is man's natural state.  In a vacuum free of any other people, a human being has liberty.

That said, yes, all governments are based on morals.  Our government, as is made crystal clear in the language of our founding documents, was based largely around the moral value of individual liberty, which is coincidentally the highest political-philosophical value for most libertarians.  Each citizen being free to follow their -own- morals as opposed to someone else forcing them to conduct themselves in any particular way.

The concession to morality therein is that the right to self-determination ends at the point at which one forces their will onto someone else.  -Individual- rights.  Live and let live.

What you're talking about is a moral issue that doesn't involve one citizen using force against another. . . nowhere do our founding documents necessitate that a fetus is a human or a citizen.  The fetus's status as a full-fledged human is purely a philosophical argument and nothing that necessarily affects any human being other than the mother.  Therefore, I see no reason for government intervention for moral purposes as the immoral act can be said to be victimless.  I don't agree with these particular definitions, but again I feel that this potentially enforces my moral will on people who aren't necessarily affecting anyone but themselves.

Next up, "Government is always bad" is a hopelessly fuckin stupid simplification of libertarian philosophy.  What that describes is the philosophy of an anarchist, which is not the same thing.

A libertarian believes that government is a necessary evil to ensure that each individual's rights are protected from other individuals and groups who would force their will upon others.

Also, this people run the government, put your trust in the people, the people will be the best America always. . . um. . . what!?

I'm guessing this odd tangent is your way of doubling down on the same concept that drives your beliefs regarding the mainstream media?  Popularity = correctness?

What about when "the people" believed the Earth was flat?  What about when "the people" believed man would never fly?  What about when "the people" believed that "the people" of African decent weren't really "people"?

Sorry, but the masses don't know shit and Fox News didn't tell me anything of the sort.  History books did.

Speaking of Fox News, how is it that you've come under the mistaken belief that libertarians take their queues from Fox News?  John Stossel and Judge Napolitano are the only libertarians on that entire network.  Stossel has a 1 hr spot weekly during some shit ratings window and Napolitano doesn't even have a show, just guest spots here and there.

Most of Fox News tends to side with harder right republican types, particularly those in the "establishment", and most libertarians, myself included, consider most of Fox News to be republican party cheerleaders and not a balanced source of information.  Fox pushed Romney, libertarians voted Paul.  Fox pushes Christian social values and conservative social engineering, libertarians tend to value the government staying as far out of social issues as possible.  You're seriously confusing several different factions when you make the implication that Fox News is a guiding influence on libertarian opinions.

It's actually even more ironic because your entire schtick is that people should think for themselves in stead of following blindly behind a party platform.  Libertarians are an example of exactly that, and yet you mistakenly paint them as the republican rank and file.  Sorry, but that rank and file is pretty far from libertarian.  That rank and file tends toward socially conservative statism and most libertarians, myself included, don't approve.

Seriously, if you're going to go so far out of your way to bash libertarianism, figure out wtf you're bashing first.  The only thing worse than being ignorant is being hostile and opinionated about it.  You should've started your post off with, "We don't take kindly to your type around these here parts!"

Edit:  I keep mixing up queues and cues lately.  I gotta lay off the weed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^The bias are still attacking... "You have to be a Leftist! YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME!"
> 
> My perspective on abortion is this.....;
> 
> If everyone had access to birth control, why would abortion be a necessary for *anyone*?  Abortion would be obsolete... (and one topic voters would stop voting for turds ready to sell out America based on *ONE TOPIC)*
> 
> But I'm sure you think women should just keep their legs shut if they don't want to get pregnant and meanwhile, you have no responsibility in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone does have access to birth control./contraceptives, yet abortion still exists.  Maybe if your brain could think beyond one topic you would realize how stupid it sounds to claim that one topic is all that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone with money...
> 
> But the inability to think beyond ones self is a hard obstacle for some. WELCOME TO POLITICS
Click to expand...


Let me google that for you

Leftism is the manifestation of abject stupidity.


----------



## AntiParty

Not2BSubjugated said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like that you assume I'm biased in the opposite direction of my actual bias.
> 
> I am absolutely against the Federal government weighing in on abortion at all.
> 
> Personally, I believe the fetus is a human, if you made one and you have to kill, you fucked up.  I believe it to be morally wrong.
> 
> I know, however, that I can't prove it's humanity on a philosophical level, and I accept that the argument could be made, though it doesn't suit my beliefs, that the fetus is a parasite until some point in its development.
> 
> As a libertarian, I'm opposed to the government imposing virtually any sort of moral standards, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with the particular moral in question.
> 
> So, actually, your stated conclusion is perfectly in line with my own on this issue.  The fact that you've stated that -science- states that a fetus has no human characteristics baffles me, though, and implies that you, who have stated many times that you side with science, believe that a fetus has no human characteristics.  If that's your belief, why are you opposed to killing one?  I honestly don't get it.
> 
> Are you opposed to killing tape worms?  If the fetus isn't human, its practically the same as a tape worm.  Where do you drawn the line?  Which parasites are to be protected?
> 
> No, it's not that you don't agree with me that makes you a leftist.  It's the fact that you're a leftist that makes you a leftist.  The fact that the only thing that you disagree with the Dems on is abortion, but that your conclusion on abortion flies in the face of your reasoning, makes me think your'e less anti-party than you claim to be.  You don't like the idea of being a sheep-like partisan follower, but unfortunately you are one.  It's my suspicion that if this abortion thing isn't outright bullshit so you can separate yourself from a purely partisan Democrat, then you're clinging to it as a psychological defense against having to admit that you are what you rail against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I REALLY didn't have to read beyond this because it's true in so many stories, "As a libertarian, I'm opposed to the government imposing virtually any sort of moral standards, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with the particular moral in question.
> "
> Don't you understand that everything Government made was based on MORALS. Libertarian party paints "Governemnt is always  bad" but what about the 2A, wasn't that based on MORALS. Isn't LIBERTY in general based on morals?!
> 
> What Libertarians lack is the fact that THE PEOPLE run the Government, not the other way around. THE PEOPLE can change the government at any time through the correct process. They can even change the Constitution.
> 
> What I've heard lately from MANY Libertarians is that "the people don't know what is best for them anymore" because that is what Fox News paints for them.
> 
> UNITED WE STAND.........Put your trust in the people and the people will be the best America always. Put your trust in government or corporations (the same), we will never be successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're going to ignore everything that I said except for the fact that I'm a libertarian?  Should I take that as your concession that you are, in fact, a partisan Democrat?
> 
> Also, no, liberty isn't based on morals.  Liberty is a word that describes the freedom to act according to one's own will and without the interference of anyone else's will.  Liberty is man's natural state.  In a vacuum free of any other people, a human being has liberty.
> 
> That said, yes, all governments are based on morals.  Our government, as is made crystal clear in the language of our founding documents, was based largely around the moral value of individual liberty, which is coincidentally the highest political-philosophical value for most libertarians.  Each citizen being free to follow their -own- morals as opposed to someone else forcing them to conduct themselves in any particular way.
> 
> The concession to morality therein is that the right to self-determination ends at the point at which one forces their will onto someone else.  -Individual- rights.  Live and let live.
> 
> What you're talking about is a moral issue that doesn't involve one citizen using force against another. . . nowhere do our founding documents necessitate that a fetus is a human or a citizen.  The fetus's status as a full-fledged human is purely a philosophical argument and nothing that necessarily affects any human being other than the mother.  Therefore, I see no reason for government intervention for moral purposes as the immoral act can be said to be victimless.  I don't agree with these particular definitions, but again I feel that this potentially enforces my moral will on people who aren't necessarily affecting anyone but themselves.
> 
> Next up, "Government is always bad" is a hopelessly fuckin stupid simplification of libertarian philosophy.  What that describes is the philosophy of an anarchist, which is not the same thing.
> 
> A libertarian believes that government is a necessary evil to ensure that each individual's rights are protected from other individuals and groups who would force their will upon others.
> 
> Also, this people run the government, put your trust in the people, the people will be the best America always. . . um. . . what!?
> 
> I'm guessing this odd tangent is your way of doubling down on the same concept that drives your beliefs regarding the mainstream media?  Popularity = correctness?
> 
> What about when "the people" believed the Earth was flat?  What about when "the people" believed man would never fly?  What about when "the people" believed that "the people" of African decent weren't really "people"?
> 
> Sorry, but the masses don't know shit and Fox News didn't tell me anything of the sort.  History books did.
> 
> Speaking of Fox News, how is it that you've come under the mistaken belief that libertarians take their queues from Fox News?  John Stossel and Judge Napolitano are the only libertarians on that entire network.  Stossel has a 1 hr spot weekly during some shit ratings window and Napolitano doesn't even have a show, just guest spots here and there.
> 
> Most of Fox News tends to side with harder right republican types, particularly those in the "establishment", and most libertarians, myself included, consider most of Fox News to be republican party cheerleaders and not a balanced source of information.  Fox pushed Romney, libertarians voted Paul.  Fox pushes Christian social values and conservative social engineering, libertarians tend to value the government staying as far out of social issues as possible.  You're seriously confusing several different factions when you make the implication that Fox News is a guiding influence on libertarian opinions.
> 
> It's actually even more ironic because your entire schtick is that people should think for themselves in stead of following blindly behind a party platform.  Libertarians are an example of exactly that, and yet you mistakenly paint them as the republican rank and file.  Sorry, but that rank and file is pretty far from libertarian.  That rank and file tends toward socially conservative statism and most libertarians, myself included, don't approve.
> 
> Seriously, if you're going to go so far out of your way to bash libertarianism, figure out wtf you're bashing first.  The only thing worse than being ignorant is being hostile and opinionated about it.  You should've started your post off with, "We don't take kindly to your type around these here parts!"
> 
> Edit:  I keep mixing up queues and cues lately.  I gotta lay off the weed.
Click to expand...


Again, your first sentence says it all and I don't have to read any further. You stated that you are a Libertarian, I didn't put those words into your mouth. I never stated I was a Democrat, you did. You seem to have some things you need to work out so go do that.

I did breeze through and you are kind of a typical Libertarian. "Liberty over everything" is the Libertarian policy. "DON'T MAKE ME WEAR A SEAT BELT!" Car crashes, the FREEDOM Driver gets injured so bad he'll never be the same...who has the Liberty in this scenario....The driver or the family that have to modify their life around the person that refused to wear a seat belt. Who has more Liberty. The Insurance payers who's premiums went up because of this situation, or the FREEDOM Driver. 

I think all parties should have an extreme focus on Liberty. But when your only focus is Liberty, you start making bad judgements. I tend to use the "Risk vs. Necessity" process I invented when determining if something should be a Liberty (I know, you don't have to think about it, it's easy for you) Seat belt, how hard is it to put on, how much does it infringe that person's Liberty putting it on. And what is the possible outcome of not putting it on. 

It's nothing against you or Libertarians. I just know platforms and all platforms think the same for the most part. It's why I'm Anti-Party


----------



## AntiParty

Uncensored2008 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone does have access to birth control./contraceptives, yet abortion still exists.  Maybe if your brain could think beyond one topic you would realize how stupid it sounds to claim that one topic is all that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone with money...
> 
> But the inability to think beyond ones self is a hard obstacle for some. WELCOME TO POLITICS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> Leftism is the manifestation of abject stupidity.
Click to expand...


Yea, yea. I'm aware that the extreme Right thinks everyone that isn't EXTREME Right is Left. It's why you assume I'm Left just like the other guy. Even though there is a rather big hint in my name that I'm not..................

But I have one question for you. If the debate was so easy for you, why did you finish with "You are stupid". 

I hear this over and over. If you had a debate then you would debate me. This notion Fox News sells that simply stating an insult makes you smarter than the other person is pretty Junior High.


----------



## AntiParty

The standard for the Right has been for years now;

If they don't conform to every thought process we have, they are LEFTISTS!

But I'll challenge ANYONE topic to topic on why something is Left or Right or Me. It's EXTREMELY SIMPLE when it's ME. Because I just think for myself and don't let others think for me. *That's true Liberty*. 

And I'm not afraid to change. I've openly thanked lot's of people over the years for holding outstanding arguments that have helped me change into the person that I am. It's not easy to thank people who oppose you so why oppose people? Why are Leftists bad? Why are Rightists bad? You are all bias. Just think about the topic, what it means to you and decide for yourself as an individual. Politics is opinion based. If you solidify yourself with a party it means you are willing to let that party focus YOUR opinion. That's not Liberty. You are you. You decide for YOU.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AntiParty said:


> Yea, yea. I'm aware that the extreme Right thinks everyone that isn't EXTREME Right is Left. It's why you assume I'm Left just like the other guy. Even though there is a rather big hint in my name that I'm not..................
> 
> But I have one question for you. If the debate was so easy for you, why did you finish with "You are stupid".
> 
> I hear this over and over. If you had a debate then you would debate me. This notion Fox News sells that simply stating an insult makes you smarter than the other person is pretty Junior High.



What does that have to do with your mentally retarded claim that only those with money can obtain birth control?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Uncensored2008 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, yea. I'm aware that the extreme Right thinks everyone that isn't EXTREME Right is Left. It's why you assume I'm Left just like the other guy. Even though there is a rather big hint in my name that I'm not..................
> 
> But I have one question for you. If the debate was so easy for you, why did you finish with "You are stupid".
> 
> I hear this over and over. If you had a debate then you would debate me. This notion Fox News sells that simply stating an insult makes you smarter than the other person is pretty Junior High.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with your mentally retarded claim that only those with money can obtain birth control?
Click to expand...


Because he has no facts, all he has are opinions, which proves he can never be wrong.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I REALLY didn't have to read beyond this because it's true in so many stories, "As a libertarian, I'm opposed to the government imposing virtually any sort of moral standards, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with the particular moral in question.
> "
> Don't you understand that everything Government made was based on MORALS. Libertarian party paints "Governemnt is always  bad" but what about the 2A, wasn't that based on MORALS. Isn't LIBERTY in general based on morals?!
> 
> What Libertarians lack is the fact that THE PEOPLE run the Government, not the other way around. THE PEOPLE can change the government at any time through the correct process. They can even change the Constitution.
> 
> What I've heard lately from MANY Libertarians is that "the people don't know what is best for them anymore" because that is what Fox News paints for them.
> 
> UNITED WE STAND.........Put your trust in the people and the people will be the best America always. Put your trust in government or corporations (the same), we will never be successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're going to ignore everything that I said except for the fact that I'm a libertarian?  Should I take that as your concession that you are, in fact, a partisan Democrat?
> 
> Also, no, liberty isn't based on morals.  Liberty is a word that describes the freedom to act according to one's own will and without the interference of anyone else's will.  Liberty is man's natural state.  In a vacuum free of any other people, a human being has liberty.
> 
> That said, yes, all governments are based on morals.  Our government, as is made crystal clear in the language of our founding documents, was based largely around the moral value of individual liberty, which is coincidentally the highest political-philosophical value for most libertarians.  Each citizen being free to follow their -own- morals as opposed to someone else forcing them to conduct themselves in any particular way.
> 
> The concession to morality therein is that the right to self-determination ends at the point at which one forces their will onto someone else.  -Individual- rights.  Live and let live.
> 
> What you're talking about is a moral issue that doesn't involve one citizen using force against another. . . nowhere do our founding documents necessitate that a fetus is a human or a citizen.  The fetus's status as a full-fledged human is purely a philosophical argument and nothing that necessarily affects any human being other than the mother.  Therefore, I see no reason for government intervention for moral purposes as the immoral act can be said to be victimless.  I don't agree with these particular definitions, but again I feel that this potentially enforces my moral will on people who aren't necessarily affecting anyone but themselves.
> 
> Next up, "Government is always bad" is a hopelessly fuckin stupid simplification of libertarian philosophy.  What that describes is the philosophy of an anarchist, which is not the same thing.
> 
> A libertarian believes that government is a necessary evil to ensure that each individual's rights are protected from other individuals and groups who would force their will upon others.
> 
> Also, this people run the government, put your trust in the people, the people will be the best America always. . . um. . . what!?
> 
> I'm guessing this odd tangent is your way of doubling down on the same concept that drives your beliefs regarding the mainstream media?  Popularity = correctness?
> 
> What about when "the people" believed the Earth was flat?  What about when "the people" believed man would never fly?  What about when "the people" believed that "the people" of African decent weren't really "people"?
> 
> Sorry, but the masses don't know shit and Fox News didn't tell me anything of the sort.  History books did.
> 
> Speaking of Fox News, how is it that you've come under the mistaken belief that libertarians take their queues from Fox News?  John Stossel and Judge Napolitano are the only libertarians on that entire network.  Stossel has a 1 hr spot weekly during some shit ratings window and Napolitano doesn't even have a show, just guest spots here and there.
> 
> Most of Fox News tends to side with harder right republican types, particularly those in the "establishment", and most libertarians, myself included, consider most of Fox News to be republican party cheerleaders and not a balanced source of information.  Fox pushed Romney, libertarians voted Paul.  Fox pushes Christian social values and conservative social engineering, libertarians tend to value the government staying as far out of social issues as possible.  You're seriously confusing several different factions when you make the implication that Fox News is a guiding influence on libertarian opinions.
> 
> It's actually even more ironic because your entire schtick is that people should think for themselves in stead of following blindly behind a party platform.  Libertarians are an example of exactly that, and yet you mistakenly paint them as the republican rank and file.  Sorry, but that rank and file is pretty far from libertarian.  That rank and file tends toward socially conservative statism and most libertarians, myself included, don't approve.
> 
> Seriously, if you're going to go so far out of your way to bash libertarianism, figure out wtf you're bashing first.  The only thing worse than being ignorant is being hostile and opinionated about it.  You should've started your post off with, "We don't take kindly to your type around these here parts!"
> 
> Edit:  I keep mixing up queues and cues lately.  I gotta lay off the weed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your first sentence says it all and I don't have to read any further. You stated that you are a Libertarian, I didn't put those words into your mouth. I never stated I was a Democrat, you did. You seem to have some things you need to work out so go do that.
> 
> I did breeze through and you are kind of a typical Libertarian. "Liberty over everything" is the Libertarian policy. "DON'T MAKE ME WEAR A SEAT BELT!" Car crashes, the FREEDOM Driver gets injured so bad he'll never be the same...who has the Liberty in this scenario....The driver or the family that have to modify their life around the person that refused to wear a seat belt. Who has more Liberty. The Insurance payers who's premiums went up because of this situation, or the FREEDOM Driver.
> 
> I think all parties should have an extreme focus on Liberty. But when your only focus is Liberty, you start making bad judgements. I tend to use the "Risk vs. Necessity" process I invented when determining if something should be a Liberty (I know, you don't have to think about it, it's easy for you) Seat belt, how hard is it to put on, how much does it infringe that person's Liberty putting it on. And what is the possible outcome of not putting it on.
> 
> It's nothing against you or Libertarians. I just know platforms and all platforms think the same for the most part. It's why I'm Anti-Party
Click to expand...


So you fancy yourself an independent thinker. . .

Yet when you argue with me, you don't actually respond to -ANYTHING- that I've said, you just spew common misconceptions about libertarians.

Sorry, but anti-party or not, you're not a thinker, independent or otherwise.  This is the worst kind of intellectual fear/laziness, and you're even more guilty of it than the partisan ideologues that you bash.  Frankly, I can't even fathom how someone could be so interested in politics that they'd waste time arguing it on a message board, but not actually interested enough to research their opinions.  For that matter, how can you want to argue but not want to be argued with?  Sad, really.


----------



## AntiParty

Uncensored2008 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, yea. I'm aware that the extreme Right thinks everyone that isn't EXTREME Right is Left. It's why you assume I'm Left just like the other guy. Even though there is a rather big hint in my name that I'm not..................
> 
> But I have one question for you. If the debate was so easy for you, why did you finish with "You are stupid".
> 
> I hear this over and over. If you had a debate then you would debate me. This notion Fox News sells that simply stating an insult makes you smarter than the other person is pretty Junior High.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with your mentally retarded claim that only those with money can obtain birth control?
Click to expand...


If birth control free? No. So yes, birth control costs money. This is a pretty basic point you keep driving in but not understanding. (You do realize that "birth control" is the standard generalization of a pill or other medical device/system that prevents pregnancy correct?)

Or perhaps you are one of those "abstinence is birth control" people who have no ability to realize hormones overwhelm humans and accidents happen...


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^The bias are still attacking... "You have to be a Leftist! YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME!"
> 
> My perspective on abortion is this.....;
> 
> If everyone had access to birth control, why would abortion be a necessary for *anyone*?  Abortion would be obsolete... (and one topic voters would stop voting for turds ready to sell out America based on *ONE TOPIC)*
> 
> But I'm sure you think women should just keep their legs shut if they don't want to get pregnant and meanwhile, you have no responsibility in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone does have access to birth control./contraceptives, yet abortion still exists.  Maybe if your brain could think beyond one topic you would realize how stupid it sounds to claim that one topic is all that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone with money...
> 
> But the inability to think beyond ones self is a hard obstacle for some. WELCOME TO POLITICS
Click to expand...


You're seriously arguing that the problem is that abortion is less cost prohibitive than, say, condoms or morning after pills?

Please, find me those numbers 

I'm starting to wonder why I'm still bothering with you.  For having -no- idea what you're talking about, you sure say a lot of stuff.

Also, when did birth control become at -all- cost prohibitive?  For several years, I could afford ramen diets and a corner in the living room of a 1 bedroom apartment where I could put my bed, which was 2 mattresses stacked on each other.  Still managed to wrap my dick up in those days, and if I didn't have my parachute, I didn't jump.

If you can't afford your own birth control, maybe you shouldn't fuck until you get ahold of some.  Just a thought from someone for whom that philosophy seems to have paid off.  Hormones or no, every individual is responsible for his or her own actions.  I'm a victim to the human condition just like the rest of us and somehow I've been able to turn down sex when it was a bad idea, even during periods of my life where sex was pretty hard to come by.  If you can't take similar responsibility for yourself, I have no interest in coming out of pocket to help you fix your mistakes.


----------



## AntiParty

Not2BSubjugated said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're going to ignore everything that I said except for the fact that I'm a libertarian?  Should I take that as your concession that you are, in fact, a partisan Democrat?
> 
> Also, no, liberty isn't based on morals.  Liberty is a word that describes the freedom to act according to one's own will and without the interference of anyone else's will.  Liberty is man's natural state.  In a vacuum free of any other people, a human being has liberty.
> 
> That said, yes, all governments are based on morals.  Our government, as is made crystal clear in the language of our founding documents, was based largely around the moral value of individual liberty, which is coincidentally the highest political-philosophical value for most libertarians.  Each citizen being free to follow their -own- morals as opposed to someone else forcing them to conduct themselves in any particular way.
> 
> The concession to morality therein is that the right to self-determination ends at the point at which one forces their will onto someone else.  -Individual- rights.  Live and let live.
> 
> What you're talking about is a moral issue that doesn't involve one citizen using force against another. . . nowhere do our founding documents necessitate that a fetus is a human or a citizen.  The fetus's status as a full-fledged human is purely a philosophical argument and nothing that necessarily affects any human being other than the mother.  Therefore, I see no reason for government intervention for moral purposes as the immoral act can be said to be victimless.  I don't agree with these particular definitions, but again I feel that this potentially enforces my moral will on people who aren't necessarily affecting anyone but themselves.
> 
> Next up, "Government is always bad" is a hopelessly fuckin stupid simplification of libertarian philosophy.  What that describes is the philosophy of an anarchist, which is not the same thing.
> 
> A libertarian believes that government is a necessary evil to ensure that each individual's rights are protected from other individuals and groups who would force their will upon others.
> 
> Also, this people run the government, put your trust in the people, the people will be the best America always. . . um. . . what!?
> 
> I'm guessing this odd tangent is your way of doubling down on the same concept that drives your beliefs regarding the mainstream media?  Popularity = correctness?
> 
> What about when "the people" believed the Earth was flat?  What about when "the people" believed man would never fly?  What about when "the people" believed that "the people" of African decent weren't really "people"?
> 
> Sorry, but the masses don't know shit and Fox News didn't tell me anything of the sort.  History books did.
> 
> Speaking of Fox News, how is it that you've come under the mistaken belief that libertarians take their queues from Fox News?  John Stossel and Judge Napolitano are the only libertarians on that entire network.  Stossel has a 1 hr spot weekly during some shit ratings window and Napolitano doesn't even have a show, just guest spots here and there.
> 
> Most of Fox News tends to side with harder right republican types, particularly those in the "establishment", and most libertarians, myself included, consider most of Fox News to be republican party cheerleaders and not a balanced source of information.  Fox pushed Romney, libertarians voted Paul.  Fox pushes Christian social values and conservative social engineering, libertarians tend to value the government staying as far out of social issues as possible.  You're seriously confusing several different factions when you make the implication that Fox News is a guiding influence on libertarian opinions.
> 
> It's actually even more ironic because your entire schtick is that people should think for themselves in stead of following blindly behind a party platform.  Libertarians are an example of exactly that, and yet you mistakenly paint them as the republican rank and file.  Sorry, but that rank and file is pretty far from libertarian.  That rank and file tends toward socially conservative statism and most libertarians, myself included, don't approve.
> 
> Seriously, if you're going to go so far out of your way to bash libertarianism, figure out wtf you're bashing first.  The only thing worse than being ignorant is being hostile and opinionated about it.  You should've started your post off with, "We don't take kindly to your type around these here parts!"
> 
> Edit:  I keep mixing up queues and cues lately.  I gotta lay off the weed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your first sentence says it all and I don't have to read any further. You stated that you are a Libertarian, I didn't put those words into your mouth. I never stated I was a Democrat, you did. You seem to have some things you need to work out so go do that.
> 
> I did breeze through and you are kind of a typical Libertarian. "Liberty over everything" is the Libertarian policy. "DON'T MAKE ME WEAR A SEAT BELT!" Car crashes, the FREEDOM Driver gets injured so bad he'll never be the same...who has the Liberty in this scenario....The driver or the family that have to modify their life around the person that refused to wear a seat belt. Who has more Liberty. The Insurance payers who's premiums went up because of this situation, or the FREEDOM Driver.
> 
> I think all parties should have an extreme focus on Liberty. But when your only focus is Liberty, you start making bad judgements. I tend to use the "Risk vs. Necessity" process I invented when determining if something should be a Liberty (I know, you don't have to think about it, it's easy for you) Seat belt, how hard is it to put on, how much does it infringe that person's Liberty putting it on. And what is the possible outcome of not putting it on.
> 
> It's nothing against you or Libertarians. I just know platforms and all platforms think the same for the most part. It's why I'm Anti-Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you fancy yourself an independent thinker. . .
> 
> Yet when you argue with me, you don't actually respond to -ANYTHING- that I've said, you just spew common misconceptions about libertarians.
> 
> Sorry, but anti-party or not, you're not a thinker, independent or otherwise.  This is the worst kind of intellectual fear/laziness, and you're even more guilty of it than the partisan ideologues that you bash.  Frankly, I can't even fathom how someone could be so interested in politics that they'd waste time arguing it on a message board, but not actually interested enough to research their opinions.  For that matter, how can you want to argue but not want to be argued with?  Sad, really.
Click to expand...


I gave you time. You openly profiled yourself as a whole very quickly in all of your posts. Libertarians don't have to elaborate at all, the concept is EXTREMELY SIMPLE. Yet they always feel the need to...

Ron Paul is awesome but he's probably the only one. You do realize that Libertarians think we should be able to own armed tanks and drive them in the streets. They think we should own war ships. They think we should let our kids carry guns in school. Because Liberty is the only focus of Libertarians, not the consequences of the action taken. 

*I STUDY ALL PARTIES. * It's much more work than any party person will ever do. Party people watch their bias media and think that what their bias media teaches them is what the other parties are...

If a Right Winger would watch Jon Stewart, he/she would be much more informed. If a Left Winger would watch Mike Huckabee, he/she would be much more informed. The Tea Party is the profit party, nothing else matters to them and the people are sold out. Libertarians are Liberty no matter what.

It's really pretty basic. If you take my stance, you can be part of all parties. And an outcast of all parties. I believe in a Fiscal Conservative America that isn't fast to change and thinks about it's changes. But I do believe in change because you would have to be completely uneducated not to believe in it. Once you learn something, you have changed. I believe in the people, not the Corporations. Corporations are not people. They are an entity based on profit and NO CORPORATION by law is allowed to force all of it's employee's to vote a specific way, which means, Corporations are not people unless they all vote the same way. 

The irony is that once Corporations get blocked from thinking for the people, the people will find true Liberty. True OPINIONS instead of sheeple based media that feeds us one liners. 

True Liberty is the ability to think for yourself and stand up for it. Sometimes against people who are farmed to think they know what Liberty is.


----------



## AntiParty

Not2BSubjugated said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone does have access to birth control./contraceptives, yet abortion still exists.  Maybe if your brain could think beyond one topic you would realize how stupid it sounds to claim that one topic is all that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone with money...
> 
> But the inability to think beyond ones self is a hard obstacle for some. WELCOME TO POLITICS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're seriously arguing that the problem is that abortion is less cost prohibitive than, say, condoms or morning after pills?
> 
> Please, find me those numbers
> 
> I'm starting to wonder why I'm still bothering with you.  For having -no- idea what you're talking about, you sure say a lot of stuff.
> 
> Also, when did birth control become at -all- cost prohibitive?  For several years, I could afford ramen diets and a corner in the living room of a 1 bedroom apartment where I could put my bed, which was 2 mattresses stacked on each other.  Still managed to wrap my dick up in those days, and if I didn't have my parachute, I didn't jump.
> 
> If you can't afford your own birth control, maybe you shouldn't fuck until you get ahold of some.  Just a thought from someone for whom that philosophy seems to have paid off.  Hormones or no, every individual is responsible for his or her own actions.  I'm a victim to the human condition just like the rest of us and somehow I've been able to turn down sex when it was a bad idea, even during periods of my life where sex was pretty hard to come by.  If you can't take similar responsibility for yourself, I have no interest in coming out of pocket to help you fix your mistakes.
Click to expand...


I never stated this at all...

_"You're seriously arguing that the problem is that abortion is less cost prohibitive than, say, condoms or morning after pills?"_

You simply failed when you somehow thought birth control was free and now you are trying to 180. Or something, I'm not sure your thought process here. Last post you were arguing that birth control is free and now you are making this jump.


----------



## AntiParty

Think about this then........since your focus is abortion........

What would happen if every Religious organization used donations to cover the cost of birth control, morning after and condoms. 

Would this mean they denied their morals or would this mean they accepted that we are all sinners? Guess what, if we don't sin, we don't die, we are ALL SINNERS in one way shape or form. The problem with religion has always been the sinners who tend to focus on other sinners, "yea, they are terrible people, I'm holy". EVERYONE SINS. DO NOT JUDGE OR BE JUDGED. 

The sooner religion is willing to accept that we have sinners and none of us are Jesus like, the better. Children have hormones. Accidents happen. And politicians who have affairs change their tune once they get the mistress preggo. 

Pay for the problem prevention and there will be no debate about abortion. 

But that is a CONSERVATIVE thought topic. $ vs. Abortion. Knowing that $ could end the necessity of Abortion is enough for me. How about you?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

AntiParty said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your first sentence says it all and I don't have to read any further. You stated that you are a Libertarian, I didn't put those words into your mouth. I never stated I was a Democrat, you did. You seem to have some things you need to work out so go do that.
> 
> I did breeze through and you are kind of a typical Libertarian. "Liberty over everything" is the Libertarian policy. "DON'T MAKE ME WEAR A SEAT BELT!" Car crashes, the FREEDOM Driver gets injured so bad he'll never be the same...who has the Liberty in this scenario....The driver or the family that have to modify their life around the person that refused to wear a seat belt. Who has more Liberty. The Insurance payers who's premiums went up because of this situation, or the FREEDOM Driver.
> 
> I think all parties should have an extreme focus on Liberty. But when your only focus is Liberty, you start making bad judgements. I tend to use the "Risk vs. Necessity" process I invented when determining if something should be a Liberty (I know, you don't have to think about it, it's easy for you) Seat belt, how hard is it to put on, how much does it infringe that person's Liberty putting it on. And what is the possible outcome of not putting it on.
> 
> It's nothing against you or Libertarians. I just know platforms and all platforms think the same for the most part. It's why I'm Anti-Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you fancy yourself an independent thinker. . .
> 
> Yet when you argue with me, you don't actually respond to -ANYTHING- that I've said, you just spew common misconceptions about libertarians.
> 
> Sorry, but anti-party or not, you're not a thinker, independent or otherwise.  This is the worst kind of intellectual fear/laziness, and you're even more guilty of it than the partisan ideologues that you bash.  Frankly, I can't even fathom how someone could be so interested in politics that they'd waste time arguing it on a message board, but not actually interested enough to research their opinions.  For that matter, how can you want to argue but not want to be argued with?  Sad, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you time. You openly profiled yourself as a whole very quickly in all of your posts. Libertarians don't have to elaborate at all, the concept is EXTREMELY SIMPLE. Yet they always feel the need to...
> 
> Ron Paul is awesome but he's probably the only one. You do realize that Libertarians think we should be able to own armed tanks and drive them in the streets. They think we should own war ships. They think we should let our kids carry guns in school. Because Liberty is the only focus of Libertarians, not the consequences of the action taken.
> 
> *I STUDY ALL PARTIES. * It's much more work than any party person will ever do. Party people watch their bias media and think that what their bias media teaches them is what the other parties are...
> 
> If a Right Winger would watch Jon Stewart, he/she would be much more informed. If a Left Winger would watch Mike Huckabee, he/she would be much more informed. The Tea Party is the profit party, nothing else matters to them and the people are sold out. Libertarians are Liberty no matter what.
> 
> It's really pretty basic. If you take my stance, you can be part of all parties. And an outcast of all parties. I believe in a Fiscal Conservative America that isn't fast to change and thinks about it's changes. But I do believe in change because you would have to be completely uneducated not to believe in it. Once you learn something, you have changed. I believe in the people, not the Corporations. Corporations are not people. They are an entity based on profit and NO CORPORATION by law is allowed to force all of it's employee's to vote a specific way, which means, Corporations are not people unless they all vote the same way.
> 
> The irony is that once Corporations get blocked from thinking for the people, the people will find true Liberty. True OPINIONS instead of sheeple based media that feeds us one liners.
> 
> True Liberty is the ability to think for yourself and stand up for it. Sometimes against people who are farmed to think they know what Liberty is.
Click to expand...


*If you study all parties, why do you not know what the Tea Party platform is?  Why are your ideas about what libertarians stand for so far off the actual mark?  Define study lol*

The more you speak about libertarians and tea partiers, the more I'm convinced that you know nothing about libertarians and even less about the tea party.  You talk about party ideologues not doing their research, yet with every ignorant opinion you spew you show us all that you, yourself, don't research -shit-.  The very fact that you consider Jon Stewart or even Mike Huckaby legitimate sources of news, in fact, shows me that you wouldn't even know where to begin researching the shit you're talking about.  The latter is a cheerleader for the republican party who I've never seen stray from the party line, and the former isn't even attempting to be a serious news source.  The Daily Show is comedy, dude!  Jon Stewart knowingly mischaracterizes facts and statements for the sake of making jokes.  Delivering news is a peripheral function of that show at best.  You gotta be fucking kidding me!

I'm sorry, but you're so breathtakingly ignorant that your "intellectual" self-assurance is actually -offending- me, so I'm gonna stop.

You just go on and continue to attack everything that your uninformed pals have told you libertarians are and, by all means, continue to do so without researching your opinions.

Also, don't look up what tea partiers actually stand for.  I'm sure MSNBC's given you a pretty good arsenal of random accusations to assume are facts.  Also, do continue to ignore the fact that none of the super rich support the tea party, and continue to confuse them with Karl Rove's ilk.

I'd hate for you to have to actually look this shit up and risk challenging your own omniscience.

Lastly, block the corporations from thinking for the people?  All those corporations can do is speak.  They can't -force- you to believe them.  If the corporations are thinking for the people, that means the people are willingly conceding their cognitive functions to whoever's on TV.  IF they won't think for themselves, fuck 'em.  Let's try not to shit on the 1st Amendment just because most people are too fuckin dumb not to be swayed by the loudest speaker.


----------



## AntiParty

Not2BSubjugated said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you fancy yourself an independent thinker. . .
> 
> Yet when you argue with me, you don't actually respond to -ANYTHING- that I've said, you just spew common misconceptions about libertarians.
> 
> Sorry, but anti-party or not, you're not a thinker, independent or otherwise.  This is the worst kind of intellectual fear/laziness, and you're even more guilty of it than the partisan ideologues that you bash.  Frankly, I can't even fathom how someone could be so interested in politics that they'd waste time arguing it on a message board, but not actually interested enough to research their opinions.  For that matter, how can you want to argue but not want to be argued with?  Sad, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you time. You openly profiled yourself as a whole very quickly in all of your posts. Libertarians don't have to elaborate at all, the concept is EXTREMELY SIMPLE. Yet they always feel the need to...
> 
> Ron Paul is awesome but he's probably the only one. You do realize that Libertarians think we should be able to own armed tanks and drive them in the streets. They think we should own war ships. They think we should let our kids carry guns in school. Because Liberty is the only focus of Libertarians, not the consequences of the action taken.
> 
> *I STUDY ALL PARTIES. * It's much more work than any party person will ever do. Party people watch their bias media and think that what their bias media teaches them is what the other parties are...
> 
> If a Right Winger would watch Jon Stewart, he/she would be much more informed. If a Left Winger would watch Mike Huckabee, he/she would be much more informed. The Tea Party is the profit party, nothing else matters to them and the people are sold out. Libertarians are Liberty no matter what.
> 
> It's really pretty basic. If you take my stance, you can be part of all parties. And an outcast of all parties. I believe in a Fiscal Conservative America that isn't fast to change and thinks about it's changes. But I do believe in change because you would have to be completely uneducated not to believe in it. Once you learn something, you have changed. I believe in the people, not the Corporations. Corporations are not people. They are an entity based on profit and NO CORPORATION by law is allowed to force all of it's employee's to vote a specific way, which means, Corporations are not people unless they all vote the same way.
> 
> The irony is that once Corporations get blocked from thinking for the people, the people will find true Liberty. True OPINIONS instead of sheeple based media that feeds us one liners.
> 
> True Liberty is the ability to think for yourself and stand up for it. Sometimes against people who are farmed to think they know what Liberty is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you study all parties, why do you not know what the Tea Party platform is?  Why are your ideas about what libertarians stand for so far off the actual mark?  Define study lol*
> 
> The more you speak about libertarians and tea partiers, the more I'm convinced that you know nothing about libertarians and even less about the tea party.  You talk about party ideologues not doing their research, yet with every ignorant opinion you spew you show us all that you, yourself, don't research -shit-.  The very fact that you consider Jon Stewart or even Mike Huckaby legitimate sources of news, in fact, shows me that you wouldn't even know where to begin researching the shit you're talking about.  The latter is a cheerleader for the republican party who I've never seen stray from the party line, and the former isn't even attempting to be a serious news source.  The Daily Show is comedy, dude!  Jon Stewart knowingly mischaracterizes facts and statements for the sake of making jokes.  Delivering news is a peripheral function of that show at best.  You gotta be fucking kidding me!
> 
> I'm sorry, but you're so breathtakingly ignorant that your "intellectual" self-assurance is actually -offending- me, so I'm gonna stop.
> 
> You just go on and continue to attack everything that your uninformed pals have told you libertarians are and, by all means, continue to do so without researching your opinions.
> 
> Also, don't look up what tea partiers actually stand for.  I'm sure MSNBC's given you a pretty good arsenal of random accusations to assume are facts.  Also, do continue to ignore the fact that none of the super rich support the tea party, and continue to confuse them with Karl Rove's ilk.
> 
> I'd hate for you to have to actually look this shit up and risk challenging your own omniscience.
> 
> Lastly, block the corporations from thinking for the people?  All those corporations can do is speak.  They can't -force- you to believe them.  If the corporations are thinking for the people, that means the people are willingly conceding their cognitive functions to whoever's on TV.  IF they won't think for themselves, fuck 'em.  Let's try not to shit on the 1st Amendment just because most people are too fuckin dumb not to be swayed by the loudest speaker.
Click to expand...


I stood in all parties trying to find common sense. 

Ask your Libertarian leader if Americans should have the Liberty to own an aircraft carrier. He/she will tell you yes. Ask your Libertarian leader if people should be allowed to own an armed tank, they will state yes. Libertarians are the reason for the backwards logic gun displays creating panic that make people want to ban guns such as Starbucks and Chipotle. Gun ownership isn't STUPID amounts of freedom, it's a responsibility to be thought about. 

But Libertarians and Tea party are all about profits for Corporations. They are just more up front than most parties. Tea party is absolutely IN YOUR FACE PROFIT party. 

The tea party holds every platform ideology except for "Free market" . Basically the same with the Libertarian party, but the Libertarians have a side note of drugs. 

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows the Government to regulate Commerce. The Free Market Concept is a movement to push the people out of politics in order to allow businesses to think for the people instead of the other way around. Think China, they have "smog days" when the smog is too bad for kids to go to school. Do you want a Free Market or Regulations that prevent Smog days?


----------



## AntiParty

The Daily Show is on Comedy Central. That's fact. But I'm sick of people who can't stand to watch it just because it's comedy. It's more full of information than Fox News is all day and that's a fact. I'm sure people can get through the jokes if they try hard...heh. I mean, the reason it's comedy is probably YOU!

As I stated before, receive input from all parties. If you think MSNBC is the best source, then the joke is on you. 

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the best Leftist news sources hands down. 

If you don't agree that Mike Huckabee is the best Right Wing news source then I'm all ears. There isn't much education on Fox News. Or maybe someone can name someone that is more informed. Please say Hannity, O'Reilly, or better yet....please...please say Beck..


----------



## Zmrzlina

> Totalitarian states love voting. You get people to the polls and they register their approval. I know there is a difference-they have one party and we have two parties. We have one more party than they have, you see. -Howard Zinn



I would love to see a proportional representative, multiparty, coalition based government in the US.


----------



## Ringel05

I've been anti-party for years now.  Political agnostics unite!!

Oh and I drink alone.......


----------



## AntiParty

Ringel05 said:


> I've been anti-party for years now.  Political agnostics unite!!
> 
> Oh and I drink alone.......



With nobody else


----------

