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.
You do suffer fools...and you are one.
The one size fits all thinking is the same bullshyt that got us us Obamacare. How does the federal government pretend to even know how to administer a program that covers 320,000,000 people with a huge spectrum of situations....all with a convoluted 2,000 page document.
You've already wiped out the options that 5 million people were exercising. Now, they are forced to another option many don't want.
And please, spare me the policies get cancelled all the time, horsecrap.
If that were the case, our Affirmate Action Moron would not have had to come out with his so called fix.
Yep, one size fits all is the liberal, authoritarian way.
Liberal and authoritarian are opposites.
What distinguishes liberalism from conservatism is solutions vs stasis. Action vs inaction. Building the future rather than longing for the past.
The reason that you don't know that is that you are a willing political puppet.
You'll accept anything that makes you feel informed, rather than take action to become informed.
The perfect stooge for those desperate for power that they lost due to incompetence.
I am sorry you can't accept responsibility for your own stupid posts and feel the need the deflect when caught in your own bullshyt.
I am much more informed than you could ever hope to be.
You and your one size fits all thinking....now that is liberal...and action we don't need...or want.
BTW...the GOP owns the house and it's looking even better. So your wet dream of a disappearing GOP (the same one Chris Matthews had in 2008) will need to be washed from your underwear.
Liberal and authoritarian are opposites.
What distinguishes liberalism from conservatism is solutions vs stasis. Action vs inaction. Building the future rather than longing for the past.
The reason that you don't know that is that you are a willing political puppet.
You'll accept anything that makes you feel informed, rather than take action to become informed.
The perfect stooge for those desperate for power that they lost due to incompetence.
I am sorry you can't accept responsibility for your own stupid posts and feel the need the deflect when caught in your own bullshyt.
I am much more informed than you could ever hope to be.
You and your one size fits all thinking....now that is liberal...and action we don't need...or want.
BTW...the GOP owns the house and it's looking even better. So your wet dream of a disappearing GOP (the same one Chris Matthews had in 2008) will need to be washed from your underwear.
"I am much more informed than you could ever hope to be."
But what you are much more informed about is not the truth, but propaganda. It's been issued to you for a reason. Political power. In the hope that you will accept what you wish to be true rather than challenge it and think critically about it.
You are the perfect victim.
Mostly what comes across is your persistent desire to see people controlled by a central authority. You seem to have a really hard time accepting the fact that others don't necessarily see things as you do and don't share your preferences, and you seem all too eager to force your views on others through government.
Live and let live is a less predictable ethic, but it's more human. I hope some day you'll see that.
I hope that some day you'll offer something tangible. Something other than, if mankind does nothing, problems will go away. That all problems are the result of solutions rather than all solutions are the result of problems. If we stop solving problems, a miracle will occur.
It's the mark of humanity to solve problems rather than hope for better without effort.
The purpose of laws is to let responsible mankind live and let live. Laws only get in the way of the irresponsible and criminal.
Why you favor them is quite beyond me.
ROTFLMAO.....
You mean like your opinions...on history, no less.
Your statement about laws is laughable. How do you have prohibition and not have prohibition...and have them both fit the same bill. TFM.
That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.
I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.
.
I'm sure, that, like you, I come across differently to different people. I don't suffer fools gladly. I'm sure that that comes across. I hope so.
The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. It's one size fits all thinking. Life is much more complex than that.
You do suffer fools...and you are one.
The one size fits all thinking is the same bullshyt that got us us Obamacare. How does the federal government pretend to even know how to administer a program that covers 320,000,000 people with a huge spectrum of situations....all with a convoluted 2,000 page document.
You've already wiped out the options that 5 million people were exercising. Now, they are forced to another option many don't want.
And please, spare me the policies get cancelled all the time, horsecrap.
If that were the case, our Affirmate Action Moron would not have had to come out with his so called fix.
Yep, one size fits all is the liberal, authoritarian way.
I'm sure, that, like you, I come across differently to different people. I don't suffer fools gladly. I'm sure that that comes across. I hope so.
The brain is a terrible thing to waste and that's what dogma does. It's one size fits all thinking. Life is much more complex than that.
You do suffer fools...and you are one.
The one size fits all thinking is the same bullshyt that got us us Obamacare. How does the federal government pretend to even know how to administer a program that covers 320,000,000 people with a huge spectrum of situations....all with a convoluted 2,000 page document.
You've already wiped out the options that 5 million people were exercising. Now, they are forced to another option many don't want.
And please, spare me the policies get cancelled all the time, horsecrap.
If that were the case, our Affirmate Action Moron would not have had to come out with his so called fix.
Yep, one size fits all is the liberal, authoritarian way.
You defend your right to be ignorant intensely.
I have to go now, I'll address your propaganda attempt later.
Liberal and authoritarian are opposites.
You do suffer fools...and you are one.
The one size fits all thinking is the same bullshyt that got us us Obamacare. How does the federal government pretend to even know how to administer a program that covers 320,000,000 people with a huge spectrum of situations....all with a convoluted 2,000 page document.
You've already wiped out the options that 5 million people were exercising. Now, they are forced to another option many don't want.
And please, spare me the policies get cancelled all the time, horsecrap.
If that were the case, our Affirmate Action Moron would not have had to come out with his so called fix.
Yep, one size fits all is the liberal, authoritarian way.
You defend your right to be ignorant intensely.
I have to go now, I'll address your propaganda attempt later.
Actually, I would prefer you not.
I am going to put you on ignore and you can do the same for me. In considering your contributions to threads here and other places, I find them to be a waste of time.
You defend your right to be ignorant intensely.
I have to go now, I'll address your propaganda attempt later.
Actually, I would prefer you not.
I am going to put you on ignore and you can do the same for me. In considering your contributions to threads here and other places, I find them to be a waste of time.
While I don't blame you for disengaging when faced with the inability to defend your dogma, I have no intention of doing that while you're on the run.
See, the problem isn't your inability to defend, the problem is that conservative dogma is indefensible. It's illegitimate in that it's based on only what benefits you, while it must be defended as what's best for the country. Impossible considering the country's actual experience with it. Even if you were fooled in the beginning as to it's potential, you have to be certifiably isolated from reality to deny its actual impact in America. We'll be paying for it for generations.
The fashion of conservatism has, in a relatively short time, destroyed American business, government and religion. The triple crown.
It will take our democracy a few election cycles before its hold on us is completely eradicated, but that's emanately doable.
Know that there is no need for you to agree or disagree with any of this. This is not a debate. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. History is written by winners and you just were unable to achieve that.
Mine is a defensible prediction of the history of these times.
Actually, I would prefer you not.
I am going to put you on ignore and you can do the same for me. In considering your contributions to threads here and other places, I find them to be a waste of time.
While I don't blame you for disengaging when faced with the inability to defend your dogma, I have no intention of doing that while you're on the run.
See, the problem isn't your inability to defend, the problem is that conservative dogma is indefensible. It's illegitimate in that it's based on only what benefits you, while it must be defended as what's best for the country. Impossible considering the country's actual experience with it. Even if you were fooled in the beginning as to it's potential, you have to be certifiably isolated from reality to deny its actual impact in America. We'll be paying for it for generations.
The fashion of conservatism has, in a relatively short time, destroyed American business, government and religion. The triple crown.
It will take our democracy a few election cycles before its hold on us is completely eradicated, but that's emanately doable.
Know that there is no need for you to agree or disagree with any of this. This is not a debate. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. History is written by winners and you just were unable to achieve that.
Mine is a defensible prediction of the history of these times.
This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
Actually, I would prefer you not.
I am going to put you on ignore and you can do the same for me. In considering your contributions to threads here and other places, I find them to be a waste of time.
While I don't blame you for disengaging when faced with the inability to defend your dogma, I have no intention of doing that while you're on the run.
See, the problem isn't your inability to defend, the problem is that conservative dogma is indefensible. It's illegitimate in that it's based on only what benefits you, while it must be defended as what's best for the country. Impossible considering the country's actual experience with it. Even if you were fooled in the beginning as to it's potential, you have to be certifiably isolated from reality to deny its actual impact in America. We'll be paying for it for generations.
The fashion of conservatism has, in a relatively short time, destroyed American business, government and religion. The triple crown.
It will take our democracy a few election cycles before its hold on us is completely eradicated, but that's emanately doable.
Know that there is no need for you to agree or disagree with any of this. This is not a debate. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. History is written by winners and you just were unable to achieve that.
Mine is a defensible prediction of the history of these times.
This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
While I don't blame you for disengaging when faced with the inability to defend your dogma, I have no intention of doing that while you're on the run.
See, the problem isn't your inability to defend, the problem is that conservative dogma is indefensible. It's illegitimate in that it's based on only what benefits you, while it must be defended as what's best for the country. Impossible considering the country's actual experience with it. Even if you were fooled in the beginning as to it's potential, you have to be certifiably isolated from reality to deny its actual impact in America. We'll be paying for it for generations.
The fashion of conservatism has, in a relatively short time, destroyed American business, government and religion. The triple crown.
It will take our democracy a few election cycles before its hold on us is completely eradicated, but that's emanately doable.
Know that there is no need for you to agree or disagree with any of this. This is not a debate. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. History is written by winners and you just were unable to achieve that.
Mine is a defensible prediction of the history of these times.
This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
Starkey redux. The neo-cons aren't really conservative or liberal in any traditionally American way. They're deeply authoritarian and see government as the be-all, end-all of human society. Ultimately, all they respect and desire is coercion, and fundamentally oppose the real liberal values of equality protection and individual liberty. They want government that "runs" society, much like a corporation runs a business, treating its citizens as resources and employees that must be utilized to achieve its ends.
I hope our nation wakes up to this threat before we lose control entirely.
While I don't blame you for disengaging when faced with the inability to defend your dogma, I have no intention of doing that while you're on the run.
See, the problem isn't your inability to defend, the problem is that conservative dogma is indefensible. It's illegitimate in that it's based on only what benefits you, while it must be defended as what's best for the country. Impossible considering the country's actual experience with it. Even if you were fooled in the beginning as to it's potential, you have to be certifiably isolated from reality to deny its actual impact in America. We'll be paying for it for generations.
The fashion of conservatism has, in a relatively short time, destroyed American business, government and religion. The triple crown.
It will take our democracy a few election cycles before its hold on us is completely eradicated, but that's emanately doable.
Know that there is no need for you to agree or disagree with any of this. This is not a debate. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. History is written by winners and you just were unable to achieve that.
Mine is a defensible prediction of the history of these times.
This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
Starkey redux. The neo-cons aren't really conservative or liberal in any traditionally American way. They're deeply authoritarian and see government as the be-all, end-all of human society. Ultimately, all they respect and desire is coercion, and fundamentally oppose the real liberal values of equality protection and individual liberty. They want government that "runs" society, much like a corporation runs a business, treating its citizens as resources and employees that must be utilized to achieve its ends.
I hope our nation wakes up to this threat before we lose control entirely.
This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
Starkey redux. The neo-cons aren't really conservative or liberal in any traditionally American way. They're deeply authoritarian and see government as the be-all, end-all of human society. Ultimately, all they respect and desire is coercion, and fundamentally oppose the real liberal values of equality protection and individual liberty. They want government that "runs" society, much like a corporation runs a business, treating its citizens as resources and employees that must be utilized to achieve its ends.
I hope our nation wakes up to this threat before we lose control entirely.
When you say "they want government" do think it is important to consider which level of government ?
I want the fed to be a corner office building in D.C.
I want my state doing most of the heavy lifting.
I want my county government addressing many issues that I don't want the fed touching.
As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me. I assume that as a local group we are all in touch with what we are doing.
While I tend to lean libertarian...I am not a total libertarian.
This from the retarded piece of shit that claims to be a republican.
Starkey redux. The neo-cons aren't really conservative or liberal in any traditionally American way. They're deeply authoritarian and see government as the be-all, end-all of human society. Ultimately, all they respect and desire is coercion, and fundamentally oppose the real liberal values of equality protection and individual liberty. They want government that "runs" society, much like a corporation runs a business, treating its citizens as resources and employees that must be utilized to achieve its ends.
I hope our nation wakes up to this threat before we lose control entirely.
When you say "they want government" do think it is important to consider which level of government ?
I want the fed to be a corner office building in D.C.
I want my state doing most of the heavy lifting.
I want my county government addressing many issues that I don't want the fed touching.
As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me. I assume that as a local group we are all in touch with what we are doing.
While I tend to lean libertarian...I am not a total libertarian.
Starkey redux. The neo-cons aren't really conservative or liberal in any traditionally American way. They're deeply authoritarian and see government as the be-all, end-all of human society. Ultimately, all they respect and desire is coercion, and fundamentally oppose the real liberal values of equality protection and individual liberty. They want government that "runs" society, much like a corporation runs a business, treating its citizens as resources and employees that must be utilized to achieve its ends.
I hope our nation wakes up to this threat before we lose control entirely.
When you say "they want government" do think it is important to consider which level of government ?
I want the fed to be a corner office building in D.C.
I want my state doing most of the heavy lifting.
I want my county government addressing many issues that I don't want the fed touching.
As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me. I assume that as a local group we are all in touch with what we are doing.
While I tend to lean libertarian...I am not a total libertarian.
Total libertarian does not equal anarchist, despite the strawman that's usually built. In any case, yeah, localized government is less threatening to liberty on the whole. But I think there is place for strong federal oversight of state government by the feds - especially regarding equal protection and basic civil liberties.
When you say "they want government" do think it is important to consider which level of government ?
I want the fed to be a corner office building in D.C.
I want my state doing most of the heavy lifting.
I want my county government addressing many issues that I don't want the fed touching.
As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me. I assume that as a local group we are all in touch with what we are doing.
While I tend to lean libertarian...I am not a total libertarian.
Total libertarian does not equal anarchist, despite the strawman that's usually built. In any case, yeah, localized government is less threatening to liberty on the whole. But I think there is place for strong federal oversight of state government by the feds - especially regarding equal protection and basic civil liberties.
I agree. And I don't find anarchist a dirty word....FYI.
I can't think of a time when the federal government protected "civil" liberties. Can you provide me an example of what you are talking about.
Total libertarian does not equal anarchist, despite the strawman that's usually built. In any case, yeah, localized government is less threatening to liberty on the whole. But I think there is place for strong federal oversight of state government by the feds - especially regarding equal protection and basic civil liberties.
I agree. And I don't find anarchist a dirty word....FYI.
I can't think of a time when the federal government protected "civil" liberties. Can you provide me an example of what you are talking about.
I can give you an example of something I'd like to see them take a more active role in. The fourteenth amendment stipulates that the states must extend equal protection of the law to all citizens. I think that's crucial to a free society. One of the dysfunctions of the federalist system is the built in incentive for states to 'compete' for investment from large companies and wealthy interests. That's not necessarily bad thing, but it leads to indulging a practice that, to me, is an obvious violation of equal protection and largely ignored by the federal government.
I'm talking about the special deals that states and local governments cut with businesses giving them special perks - tax abatements, tax-payer financed infrastructure support, etc... This is fundamentally unfair to all businesses - whether in direct competition with the target investors or not - who don't receive these perks.
It's now common for large businesses to 'shop' for the best deal from state and local government, essentially demanding these special perks. This creates a corrosive competition among the states, each racing to sacrifice equal protection in the name of attracting outside financial interests.
I'd like to see this, and other discriminatory tax and regulatory practices, abolished in the name of equality under the law - at all levels of government. That, to me, would be the proper use of federal power - ensuring that all the states are committed to a core cause of protecting our freedom consistently.
Another area where I think the feds productively oversee states is in protecting voter rights. In my view the political games played to manipulate voter representation (gerrymandering, voter id, etc....) are some of the ugliest and corrupt political shenanigans happening at the local level and it's proper for the feds to keep an eye on it.
There are other examples. Sadly, the federal government seems more interest in grabbing power that it can sell to corporate lobbyists.
When you say "they want government" do think it is important to consider which level of government ?
I want the fed to be a corner office building in D.C.
I want my state doing most of the heavy lifting.
I want my county government addressing many issues that I don't want the fed touching.
As I look at smaller governments coercion becomes less a concern for me. I assume that as a local group we are all in touch with what we are doing.
While I tend to lean libertarian...I am not a total libertarian.
Total libertarian does not equal anarchist, despite the strawman that's usually built. In any case, yeah, localized government is less threatening to liberty on the whole. But I think there is place for strong federal oversight of state government by the feds - especially regarding equal protection and basic civil liberties.
I agree. And I don't find anarchist a dirty word....FYI.
I can't think of a time when the federal government protected "civil" liberties. Can you provide me an example of what you are talking about.
I agree. And I don't find anarchist a dirty word....FYI.
I can't think of a time when the federal government protected "civil" liberties. Can you provide me an example of what you are talking about.
I can give you an example of something I'd like to see them take a more active role in. The fourteenth amendment stipulates that the states must extend equal protection of the law to all citizens. I think that's crucial to a free society. One of the dysfunctions of the federalist system is the built in incentive for states to 'compete' for investment from large companies and wealthy interests. That's not necessarily bad thing, but it leads to indulging a practice that, to me, is an obvious violation of equal protection and largely ignored by the federal government.
I'm talking about the special deals that states and local governments cut with businesses giving them special perks - tax abatements, tax-payer financed infrastructure support, etc... This is fundamentally unfair to all businesses - whether in direct competition with the target investors or not - who don't receive these perks.
It's now common for large businesses to 'shop' for the best deal from state and local government, essentially demanding these special perks. This creates a corrosive competition among the states, each racing to sacrifice equal protection in the name of attracting outside financial interests.
I'd like to see this, and other discriminatory tax and regulatory practices, abolished in the name of equality under the law - at all levels of government. That, to me, would be the proper use of federal power - ensuring that all the states are committed to a core cause of protecting our freedom consistently.
Another area where I think the feds productively oversee states is in protecting voter rights. In my view the political games played to manipulate voter representation (gerrymandering, voter id, etc....) are some of the ugliest and corrupt political shenanigans happening at the local level and it's proper for the feds to keep an eye on it.
There are other examples. Sadly, the federal government seems more interest in grabbing power that it can sell to corporate lobbyists.
Thanks for the examples.
I won't agree with you on tax breaks, but I will say that the issue is worth examining.
On gerrymandering....If the fed wasn't such a f**king sink hole of money and power, nobody would give shyt about what those districts looked like anyway. You really think the federal government, the the collection of baboons we have in there right now, would do anything different ?
I'm sure, we'll not too, that your opinion matters to someone. It's not me. If I let people like you tell me how to think, I'd be no better than them.
What a drag.
Once you've learned to think independently and critically, you can't go back.
That is just it peanut ... I have never told you how to think ... Or suggested anyone is better than anyone else.
If you don't like the way you come across to others when you describe what you think ... That is neither my fault nor my problem.
I find it more entertaining than a drag ... But that's just me I guess.
If a person thinks at all ... It is independent and conscience in as no one else is in your brain ... The problem is not enough people think about what they believe and disregard introspection as an useful tool.
.
