Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Right.Just like far left is a catchy term thrown around by non-thinking righties.
Economic libertarians do try to hook onto the right to legitimize their miserable existences.
The far right can be equally statist and totalitarian.
Progressivism for instance is a reform impulse far more than an ideology. We have conservative statist Progressives, like Santorum, who would use the weight of government to suppress women's rights or to enforce rigidly a right to religious expression in the public forum that the Founders would never have embraced themselves.
You paint yourself as you attempt to paint the so-called "far left."
I know there are statists on the right and didn't argue that there aren't so I don't get how you came to your conclusion I painted myself into any corner. I'm simply saying either limited small government libertarianism is far right or big government social conservatism is far right. They cannot both be far right. They're not the same and have nothing in common. Get what I'm saying?
Indeed. I'm pretty much the same as you, though I'm socially conservative on abortion and a few other things. But I'm basically a live and let live kind of guy, I believe my freedom stops when it infringes upon someone else's.Right.Just like far left is a catchy term thrown around by non-thinking righties.
Economic libertarians do try to hook onto the right to legitimize their miserable existences.
The far right can be equally statist and totalitarian.
Progressivism for instance is a reform impulse far more than an ideology. We have conservative statist Progressives, like Santorum, who would use the weight of government to suppress women's rights or to enforce rigidly a right to religious expression in the public forum that the Founders would never have embraced themselves.
You paint yourself as you attempt to paint the so-called "far left."
I know there are statists on the right and didn't argue that there aren't so I don't get how you came to your conclusion I painted myself into any corner. I'm simply saying either limited small government libertarianism is far right or big government social conservatism is far right. They cannot both be far right. They're not the same and have nothing in common. Get what I'm saying?
This is why I have issues with the term "conservative". I am socially liberal (libertarian ideals), and fiscally conservative (which also is an embrace of libertarian ideals). Yet, in the USA, I am classified as a conservative.
Conservative is a joke word in the USA.
Liberal is as well.
Both groups have serious authoritarians among their members.
Oh you're one of those"corporations are acting all corporationy" types.
Corporations have nothing to do with whether I maintain my economic status or not. You're a leftist, you're not fooling anyone Mr. Joe Butler. You spout the same nonsense every other leftist spouts.
Right.Just like far left is a catchy term thrown around by non-thinking righties.
Economic libertarians do try to hook onto the right to legitimize their miserable existences.
The far right can be equally statist and totalitarian.
Progressivism for instance is a reform impulse far more than an ideology. We have conservative statist Progressives, like Santorum, who would use the weight of government to suppress women's rights or to enforce rigidly a right to religious expression in the public forum that the Founders would never have embraced themselves.
You paint yourself as you attempt to paint the so-called "far left."
I know there are statists on the right and didn't argue that there aren't so I don't get how you came to your conclusion I painted myself into any corner. I'm simply saying either limited small government libertarianism is far right or big government social conservatism is far right. They cannot both be far right. They're not the same and have nothing in common. Get what I'm saying?
This is why I have issues with the term "conservative". I am socially liberal (libertarian ideals), and fiscally conservative (which also is an embrace of libertarian ideals). Yet, in the USA, I am classified as a conservative.
Conservative is a joke word in the USA.
Liberal is as well.
Both groups have serious authoritarians among their members.
Oh you're one of those"corporations are acting all corporationy" types.
Corporations have nothing to do with whether I maintain my economic status or not. You're a leftist, you're not fooling anyone Mr. Joe Butler. You spout the same nonsense every other leftist spouts.
Well, true, you'd probably be living in the trailer park regardless...
For the rest of us, though, things are really pretty bad. And it ain't a left-right thing. Both parties have been bought out.
Yes that's why I put centrism in there.Right.I know there are statists on the right and didn't argue that there aren't so I don't get how you came to your conclusion I painted myself into any corner. I'm simply saying either limited small government libertarianism is far right or big government social conservatism is far right. They cannot both be far right. They're not the same and have nothing in common. Get what I'm saying?
This is why I have issues with the term "conservative". I am socially liberal (libertarian ideals), and fiscally conservative (which also is an embrace of libertarian ideals). Yet, in the USA, I am classified as a conservative.
Conservative is a joke word in the USA.
Liberal is as well.
Both groups have serious authoritarians among their members.
Some consider ourselves MODERATE or CENTRIST.
Lol! Nice zinger there. I'll post some pics of my "trailer" for you in a bit, jackass.
Continue fighting those big corporational corporatists, corporatizing for a corporatocracy, conspiring together on more ways to be all corporational in their corporate jets and just plain being evil and corporationy.
*yawn*Lol! Nice zinger there. I'll post some pics of my "trailer" for you in a bit, jackass.
Continue fighting those big corporational corporatists, corporatizing for a corporatocracy, conspiring together on more ways to be all corporational in their corporate jets and just plain being evil and corporationy.
You aren't going to post pics of someone else's mansion and claim they are yours, are you guy? that's kind of pathetic, really.
Then again, so is most of your ranting....
Lol! Nice zinger there. I'll post some pics of my "trailer" for you in a bit, jackass.
Continue fighting those big corporational corporatists, corporatizing for a corporatocracy, conspiring together on more ways to be all corporational in their corporate jets and just plain being evil and corporationy.
You aren't going to post pics of someone else's mansion and claim they are yours, are you guy? that's kind of pathetic, really.
Then again, so is most of your ranting....
Lol! Nice zinger there. I'll post some pics of my "trailer" for you in a bit, jackass.
Continue fighting those big corporational corporatists, corporatizing for a corporatocracy, conspiring together on more ways to be all corporational in their corporate jets and just plain being evil and corporationy.
You aren't going to post pics of someone else's mansion and claim they are yours, are you guy? that's kind of pathetic, really.
Then again, so is most of your ranting....
No, I'm not a liberal. I just have a 4 bedroom house with a pool and a mancave I just have to build the bar and paint. No mansion.
Frankly, I have to wonder about people on the Internet accusing people they disagree with of living in trailers and have corny avatars that try to put a new spin on the old soviet hammer and sickle, and constantly whine about corporations to strangers. Those folks, like yourself, have to project their living situations onto other people because they fail at life.You aren't going to post pics of someone else's mansion and claim they are yours, are you guy? that's kind of pathetic, really.
Then again, so is most of your ranting....
No, I'm not a liberal. I just have a 4 bedroom house with a pool and a mancave I just have to build the bar and paint. No mansion.
Ooooohkay, guy.
Frankly, I wonder about people who have to brag about their "success" to strangers on the internet.
Hyperbole much, Zander?
I have to admit I found the cartoon to be rather hybolish too but appropriately so.
It illustrates their point rather nicely.
Lets face it...Zimmermans life is pretty much over now. Even if he is found not guilty, whats he going to do next? Whos going to hire him? What happens when he walks into the grocery store?
The guy is screwed by all of the media coverage.
I mean seriously...put left and right aside for a second folks...should we REALLY know as much about this case as we do?
At risk of being called a conspiracy theorist, I'd say it's entirely possible that's the point. Shaming gun owners. The administration has shown how far they're willing to go with fast & furious. Would it surprise you?
Oh you're one of those"corporations are acting all corporationy" types.You sure like to pretend you know things none of us have any possible way of knowing for certain. You don't know if Martin was committing a crime, like car prowling or casing residences, you and I might believe that isn't the case, but we have no way of knowing for sure. And dumbfuck, If he did Infact attack Zimmerman then he was commiting a crime as soon as he hit Zimmerman, Rufus. That's number 1.
Number 2, my suspicions about fast & furious are based upon facts and backed up by Holder's own words in the video where he stated he wanted to "brainwash" people into being against gun ownership. So you can take your opinion on my theory and shove it up your ass.
And 3rd, this incident doesnt say anything about gun owners and we don't need to be ashamed for anything. You're just a big pussy who hates facts, in this case the fact that lax gun laws lead to less crime and you cannot prove otherwise.
All you have, like most leftists, is emotional appeals and feeeelings. Jackass.
Sorry, man, not a leftist, just a pragmatist.
1) We know exactly why Trayvon was in that neighborhood. He was visiting his father, who lived there with his girlfriend. He went out for an energy drink and some candy, when Zimmerman started following him for WWB (Walking While Black). We ONLY have Zimmerman's word that Trayvon attacked him, but if that was true, it was because this guy was following him. Zimmerman isn't a cop, he had no legal authority to chase Trayvon. The police dispatcher told him not to follow him.
2) Please, compared to Clinton, Obama and Holder aren't even trying for more gun control and wouldn't be caught having a drink with Sarah Brady. Even after the Giffords shooting, (which shows just how lax our laws are) they didn't push for tougher laws.
3) Your last statement is ridiculous. If Zimmerman hadn't been walking around packing heat and thinking he could get away with it, there would have been no shooting.
Incidently, I'm not pro- or anti- gun control. As a practical matter, when you already have 100 million guns out there, the horse is not only already out of the barn, but the barn's burned down.
But as you watch big corporations slowly take your middle class lifestyle apart, you can cling to your gun and still think you have some control over your life.
Corporations have nothing to do with whether I maintain my economic status or not. You're a leftist, you're not fooling anyone Mr. Joe Butler. You spout the same nonsense every other leftist spouts.
I have to admit I found the cartoon to be rather hybolish too but appropriately so.
It illustrates their point rather nicely.
Lets face it...Zimmermans life is pretty much over now. Even if he is found not guilty, whats he going to do next? Whos going to hire him? What happens when he walks into the grocery store?
The guy is screwed by all of the media coverage.
I mean seriously...put left and right aside for a second folks...should we REALLY know as much about this case as we do?
At risk of being called a conspiracy theorist, I'd say it's entirely possible that's the point. Shaming gun owners. The administration has shown how far they're willing to go with fast & furious. Would it surprise you?
ok man Im gonna call you the conspiracy theory on that one ( but in a good natured way, not a finger pointing dickhead way )
One would expect the argument to be about the GUN instead of the two people involved in this case if it were an attack on guns.
Im just not seeing it.
At risk of being called a conspiracy theorist, I'd say it's entirely possible that's the point. Shaming gun owners. The administration has shown how far they're willing to go with fast & furious. Would it surprise you?
ok man Im gonna call you the conspiracy theory on that one ( but in a good natured way, not a finger pointing dickhead way )
One would expect the argument to be about the GUN instead of the two people involved in this case if it were an attack on guns.
Im just not seeing it.
It interrupts the pity for the Defendant to discuss his weapon of choice. "HIS LIFE IS RUINED!" Unlike the victim, he still HAS one however.
He could start a new life in Texas, without much fuss.At risk of being called a conspiracy theorist, I'd say it's entirely possible that's the point. Shaming gun owners. The administration has shown how far they're willing to go with fast & furious. Would it surprise you?
ok man Im gonna call you the conspiracy theory on that one ( but in a good natured way, not a finger pointing dickhead way )
One would expect the argument to be about the GUN instead of the two people involved in this case if it were an attack on guns.
Im just not seeing it.
It interrupts the pity for the Defendant to discuss his weapon of choice. "HIS LIFE IS RUINED!" Unlike the victim, he still HAS one however.
ok man Im gonna call you the conspiracy theory on that one ( but in a good natured way, not a finger pointing dickhead way )
One would expect the argument to be about the GUN instead of the two people involved in this case if it were an attack on guns.
Im just not seeing it.
It interrupts the pity for the Defendant to discuss his weapon of choice. "HIS LIFE IS RUINED!" Unlike the victim, he still HAS one however.
Ya he should have let Martin kill him instead, right? Then not only wouldn't we have heard about it, if we did you would claim Martin was justified, right?
That affidavit shows that Florida's state attorney is just a dumb c***. It accuses, without evidence, that Zimmerman was motivated by racism. And, it doesn't even argue that there was a crime. It merely argues that Zimmerman shot the African in a course of a struggle - which is consistent with self-defense. Yet, the charge is second degree murder.
Under Florida Statute, second degree murder requires one of the following conditions:
1) Showing no regard for human life. Or,
2) Killing while committing a felony.
The Affidavit doesn't even attempt to demonstrate either of these.
The Prosecution has nothing.
That affidavit shows that Florida's state attorney is just a dumb c***. It accuses, without evidence, that Zimmerman was motivated by racism. And, it doesn't even argue that there was a crime. It merely argues that Zimmerman shot the African in a course of a struggle - which is consistent with self-defense. Yet, the charge is second degree murder.
Under Florida Statute, second degree murder requires one of the following conditions:
1) Showing no regard for human life. Or,
2) Killing while committing a felony.
The Affidavit doesn't even attempt to demonstrate either of these.
The Prosecution has nothing.
Why do you keep saying "the African," and why are you too much of a pussy to answer this question?
