"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[JakeStarkey]

wash, you are losing the discussion. NYC clearly and unequivocally demonstrated the phoniness of the Rand following. Our Constitution protects all and no beliefs in deity. Our Declaration of Independence clearly states our natural rights come from God. So if you are turning your back on God, wash, I easily turn my back on your arguments. Move along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.

I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.

And if you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, or Juan Williams are Conservative's that will make you a complete moron in my book.

They are clearly not liberals, and your statement reveals clearly you are not a Conservative. Step along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.

I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.

*I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this patheitic?

pathetic? yes, T, you certainly are. yes, you certainly gave up.

 

[Big Fitz]

Of course anyone that agree's with a liberal is nothing but a liberal. You are a far left wacko futher than Longhner.

You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian. Don't ever think you understand the Constitution. Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.

In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.

You are a liberal socialist.

Just like the guy who shot Gabby Giffords.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian. Don't ever think you understand the Constitution. Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.

In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.

You are a liberal socialist.

Just like the guy who shot Gabby Giffords.

Who shares the values of big fitz and his gang. The shooter is not a liberal or socialist. He is a weirdo, just like the far far right wack gang here.

 

[The T]

You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.

I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.

*I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this patheitic?

pathetic? yes, T, you certainly are. yes, you certainly gave up.

*as far as you ascertain* I did...

 

[The T]

You are a liberal socialist.

Just like the guy who shot Gabby Giffords.

Who shares the values of big fitz and his gang. The shooter is not a liberal or socialist. He is a weirdo, just like the far far right wack gang here.

The guy was a LEFTIST...dumbass. And I say WAS because he's done. /Story.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.

I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.

And if you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, or Juan Williams are Conservative's that will make you a complete moron in my book.

They are clearly not liberals, and your statement reveals clearly you are not a Conservative. Step along.

None of the above are Conservative and that includes you.

 

[Big Fitz]

See, that's the problem with Rand. Ultimately she's forced to accept contradictions, or be rejected completely.

And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die. Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people. Or die. that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.

The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person. Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam. At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest. Most aren't.

So, your premise is flawed.

I happen to agree with you. But the unanswered question still remains, what to do about it? The only workable solution is to slowly wean those unproductive people OFF their support systems. And it won't happen overnight because there are too many unknowns: High unemployment, children who are unaware of the positions of their parent(s) who rely on life-sustaining programs, etc.

First end duplication of effort. Second, start cutting redirect funds into efforts to ween them off the dole, mostly by adding work requirements to even receive government money. Then, slowly start cutting roles AND department size simultaneously.

The second part is the hard one. Getting government to work towards it's own obsolesence.

In the same time, provide small tax breaks to people who volunteer or donate money to PRIVATE charities of any type that do not receive government funds to cover those who are really in need due to disability or other very specific circumstance till private organizations come about.

The problem with eliminating dolists is to make poverty survivable but uncomfortable. Even benjamin Franklin pointed that out. So here's one extreme way.

You need housing? Fine. Don't expect an apartment. Here's a dorm room at a government Dorm you will be sharing it with another person, bathroom's down the hall. TV? Sure. Shared common room. Meals prison cafeteria style, hope you like what they cook, seconds are available. Manditory job training if you're not working. If you are working, you pay some rent. Children? They'll be attending a school in the day, and have their own dorms. Parents can visit them as needed. No booze, no cigarettes, no drugs. Internet is in the public room by appointment.

It's somewhat degrading, I agree. Humiliating to live in such a circumstance, but That is the point. They are fed, clothed, sheltered and offered a little bit of privacy, and they will get job training if needed, or put into a work program. No lingering about during the day waiting for meals. You want them motivated to leave it as soon as possible and getting their own life, home and ability to stand on their own.

And like I said... this is one extreme example, that 150 years ago, actually would have been quite common in places like England after the poverty laws and Metropolitan Police force, and Peeler reforms kicked in. A modern Dickensian aspect I guess and that could only be countered by tight regulation of the system... and even better still if you have it contracted out to private management companies that have performance based incentives to run a good facility.

Just thinking outside the box.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And if you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, or Juan Williams are Conservative's that will make you a complete moron in my book.

They are clearly not liberals, and your statement reveals clearly you are not a Conservative. Step along.

None of the above are Conservative and that includes you.

They are GOP conservatives, George Will is on their side, and their gang opposes you wacks far out their to the far far weird right. You are not the party, you will never be the party, and you will never have the power. Why? Because the Wills, Scarboroughs, Williams, McCains etc will always oppose your weak loud mouth very small minority.

 

[Big Fitz]

Is refusal to defend defense of marriage and working with the soviets conservative positions.

Nah.

*Psychobabble*

The correct term is "Libberish".

 

[The T]

Is refusal to defend defense of marriage and working with the soviets conservative positions.

Nah.

*Psychobabble*

The correct term is "Libberish".

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Libberish" = those who to be thought of as conservative or libertarian, thus libberish. Very good, guys.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Libberish" = those who to be thought of as conservative or libertarian, thus libberish. Very good, guys.

Nope jake
But we have no way of communicating with them. They speak in a totally different language, known as "libberish". I have cracked the code and have provided a service in translating bits and pieces of their language so that someday, we'll be able to discuss and debate with them. Or maybe they'll just still call conservatives "Nazis". Who knows? But keep in mind, I'm trying to help break the language barrier here.

Liberal to English Dictionary

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do you need a grenade launcher, bigreb? Better put, why do you want one?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do you need a grenade launcher, bigreb? Better put, why do you want one?

I have answered you already go to the thread The words "to bear arms" is a military term post 413 for your answer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the 2nd Amendment does not give you a civilian's right to a grenade launcher.

We have been through this.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, the 2nd Amendment does not give you a civilian's right to a grenade launcher.

We have been through this.

I'm not going to derail this thread because of your childish bullshit. The answer based with Judical facts was given in that thread. Go to that thread if you want to discuss it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, neither law nor Amendment nor Miller give you that right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.

I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.

*I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this patheitic?

I think he's a burned out crackhead.