I am disgusted with our party. I pray to god we get fresh blood in 16

[Dragon]

Here's your problem. Why should it make us uneasy? Marx was concerned about some of the same things that liberals are concerned about

It won't make you uneasy because you believe when ubiquitous government is created by liberal politicians who tell you what you want to hear that government can be controlled to provide the objectives used in it's creation. It "should" make you uneasy because you are wrong. The ability to elect your warden doesn't mean you're not a prisoner and you are building the prison walls of government around yourself. I object because you're building them around me as well.

Strong government is not the enemy of liberty. Government that is not contained by the rule of law is the enemy of liberty. And rich, powerful individuals are also the enemy of liberty, and government is the only tool we have to prevent them from oppressing the rest of us.

None of the government activities of a socialist-leaning character are any threat to MY freedom. They are only a threat to the freedom of the rich and powerful to oppress me, and I don't mind that one bit.

Now, you want to talk about the NDAA, or the Internet bill, or the Patriot Act, that's a different subject. But none of those are progressive or socialist-leaning initiatives.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rich, powerful institutions and individuals will always be the enemy of liberty if not restrained by law.

 

[kaz]

Here's your problem. Why should it make us uneasy? Marx was concerned about some of the same things that liberals are concerned about

It won't make you uneasy because you believe when ubiquitous government is created by liberal politicians who tell you what you want to hear that government can be controlled to provide the objectives used in it's creation. It "should" make you uneasy because you are wrong. The ability to elect your warden doesn't mean you're not a prisoner and you are building the prison walls of government around yourself. I object because you're building them around me as well.

Strong government is not the enemy of liberty. Government that is not contained by the rule of law is the enemy of liberty. And rich, powerful individuals are also the enemy of liberty, and government is the only tool we have to prevent them from oppressing the rest of us.

None of the government activities of a socialist-leaning character are any threat to MY freedom. They are only a threat to the freedom of the rich and powerful to oppress me, and I don't mind that one bit.

Now, you want to talk about the NDAA, or the Internet bill, or the Patriot Act, that's a different subject. But none of those are progressive or socialist-leaning initiatives.

In other words, "baaaa"...

 

[kaz]

Rich, powerful institutions and individuals will always be the enemy of liberty if not restrained by law.

Only one side has guns, and that's the side you trust.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rich, powerful institutions and individuals will always be the enemy of liberty if not restrained by law.

Only one side has guns, and that's the side you trust.

The history of humanity supports my point, not yours. Law, not individuals, protects human beings.

 

[kaz]

Rich, powerful institutions and individuals will always be the enemy of liberty if not restrained by law.

Only one side has guns, and that's the side you trust.

The history of humanity supports my point, not yours. Law, not individuals, protects human beings.

Yes, governments have no history of oppressing their populations, you got me there. You inherently trust government and suspiciously distrust business, where did I get the whacky idea you're a Democrat???

But you think that government, decrees a single solution for everyone backed up by the power of guns is trustworthy, a competitive market where if you don't like a company you can walk across the street to their competitor isn't. Gotcha. When did Gerald Ford say that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only one side has guns, and that's the side you trust.

The history of humanity supports my point, not yours. Law, not individuals, protects human beings.

Yes, governments have no history of oppressing their populations, you got me there. You inherently trust government and suspiciously distrust business, where did I get the whacky idea you're a Democrat???

But you think that government, decrees a single solution for everyone backed up by the power of guns is trustworthy, a competitive market where if you don't like a company you can walk across the street to their competitor isn't. Gotcha. When did Gerald Ford say that?

Your typical bonehead tactic of saying I said something that I did not is obvious.

I inherently trust governments based on the Declaration of Independence, the U. S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and minority protections.

If you don't, then you are not compatible with historical America.

 

[kaz]

Your typical bonehead tactic of saying I said something that I did not is obvious.

I inherently trust governments based on the Declaration of Independence, the U. S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and minority protections.

If you don't, then you are not compatible with historical America.

The US government was created by people who didn't trust it, not people who did. And you say "I" am "not compatible with historical America?" Sorry dude, you know nothing of American history. What grade did you drop of out school so you could start your job provided by your family?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your typical bonehead tactic of saying I said something that I did not is obvious.

I inherently trust governments based on the Declaration of Independence, the U. S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and minority protections.

If you don't, then you are not compatible with historical America.

The US government was created by people who didn't trust it, not people who did. And you say "I" am "not compatible with historical America?" Sorry dude, you know nothing of American history. What grade did you drop of out school so you could start your job provided by your family?

You are a bonehead far libertarian trying to rewrite definitions, facts, and history.

You fail, period.

This is why sensible Republicans have fought you guys so hard since July 2009, and why we are winning. One, there are far more sensible GOP than you, and, two, we are committed to historical America. Third, you are not, and you are losing out.

 

[JoeB131]

Christie has far more cred with the GOP righties than Pawlenty, and will hold the heartland every bit as well as Pawlenty.

Again, Jersey won't be in play, Minnesota might be, and Pawlenty has street cred with the Evangelicals, which Romney needs badly.

Now, don't get me wrong, I want Romney to lose. I want him to lose by Goldwater level proportions so that no Republican ever again mutters the words "We need to nominate a nice moderate".

But looking at the tactical problem, Pawlenty or Perry gets Romney more than Christie does. Although Veep candidates never make a positive difference, anyway. They are usually the opposite, like Eagleton, Quayle and Palin. As in a "What were you thinking" kind of way.

 

[rdean]

I am disgusted with our party. I pray to god we get fresh blood in 16

You would think they would be satisfied with the blood of the American Middle Class. They sure are bloodthirsty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christie has far more cred with the GOP righties than Pawlenty, and will hold the heartland every bit as well as Pawlenty.

Again, Jersey won't be in play, Minnesota might be, and Pawlenty has street cred with the Evangelicals, which Romney needs badly.

Now, don't get me wrong, I want Romney to lose. I want him to lose by Goldwater level proportions so that no Republican ever again mutters the words "We need to nominate a nice moderate".

But looking at the tactical problem, Pawlenty or Perry gets Romney more than Christie does. Although Veep candidates never make a positive difference, anyway. They are usually the opposite, like Eagleton, Quayle and Palin. As in a "What were you thinking" kind of way.

You won't get what you want.

 

[kaz]

I am disgusted with our party. I pray to god we get fresh blood in 16

You would think they would be satisfied with the blood of the American Middle Class. They sure are bloodthirsty.

I wouldn't worry. You can't do worse then Obama. Well you can, but it's not easy, even for the Democrats.

 

[Dragon]

In other words, "baaaa"...

No, that's what you're saying. I've just challenged the basic assumptions of your ideology and you have no coherent answer. So you just bleat the same old response.

Libertarianism is based on false premises and a failure to understand where the real threat to liberty comes from. The assumption that the government is the only danger to liberty is nothing but an unthinking, knee-jerk response without a scrap of logic or evidence behind it.

 

[kaz]

In other words, "baaaa"...

No, that's what you're saying

I'm a sheep for thinking that I should be responsible for my own life. You are not a sheep because you want politicians to protect you from evil businesses. If a company sucks, I want the choice to walk across the street to their competitor. You want government do take care of it for you. Which makes..me...a sheep....

Got it. Noted and filed for future reference.

 

[Dragon]

I'm a sheep for thinking that I should be responsible for my own life.

Sheep do take responsibility for their own lives. They graze. They breed. They run from danger. Just as their genes impel them to do. What they never do is THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

And that describes you perfectly: so inflexibly bound by libertarian dogma that you never for a second question whether government is really the only foe of liberty out there. It doesn't even seem that you are capable of questioning this dogma.

Just like a sheep.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I know I'll probably get flamed for this post but I don't care. I don't have a job secure from this shitty economy and I desperately need change.

Not to worry.

You NOW have someone.....

....to BLAME!!!!!

 

[kaz]

so inflexibly bound by libertarian dogma that you never for a second question whether government is really the only foe of liberty out there

The "only" foe? What a dumb ass...

This is how liberals have to argue because you're stupid. Then again if you weren't stupid politicians couldn't solve your problems for you better then you can on your own. You'd also notice...they don't solve your problems...

 

[pvsi.]

I am disgusted with our party. I pray to god we get fresh blood in 16

You will get fresh blood in a few days, question is weather you will spread it or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

so inflexibly bound by libertarian dogma that you never for a second question whether government is really the only foe of liberty out there

The "only" foe? What a dumb ass...

This is how liberals have to argue because you're stupid. Then again if you weren't stupid politicians couldn't solve your problems for you better then you can on your own. You'd also notice...they don't solve your problems...

kaz, you are a liber wolfie pretending to be a patriot. Go "baaa" elsewhere, please.