Azalin

I doubt it - I'm certainly not going to. I'm only saying that I agree with your premise, and that I'm cynical enough to believe that intelligence organizations are more concerned with what Americans are saying given the current climate than they are with spying on others.

They're probably saving the cutting edge, high-tech stuff for spying on us.

I can't help but have the feeling that I probably should've heard that one before

I've never been a member of any party. I used to be very, very leftist when I was in my late teens & throughout my 20's, for no reason other than I thought conservatives were stuffy, old, out of touch, and uncool. My adopting a more conservative philosophy came in my early 30's after putting myself through tech school while working full time as a cook. After graduating it took me almost three years to land a tech-oriented job, but I was determined to pay off my student loans and put my years of restaurant work behind me for good. I had to move a lot, and had to work pretty hard. It made me appreciate the value of applying myself to improve my own life. I began to resent people I knew who griped and complained about not having anything while not lifting a finger to do anything about it. I found myself picking up an occasional copy of the Wall Street Journal instead of the local paper. I started to realize that I had been basing my values and forming my opinions on unrealistic, utopian ideals. Eventually, I started to identify as a conservative. I don't believe that people ever stop growing as they age. At this point in my life I'm not sure what label would most accurately apply to me (but I'm sure I've been called plenty of things around here ). I'm about 60% conservative and 40% libertarian: I'm staunch in my support of individual liberties, privacy, property ownership, and near-extreme fiscal restraint on the part of the federal government. I think there's no need to have departments at the federal level that we already have a version of at the state level - that we can do much better without the redundancy of having multiple tiers of government involved in what should either be a local, state, or federal issue, and I've come to believe based on past performance that neither party in Washington is functioning on behalf of the citizens, but rather increasing their influence in our lives and spinning it to make them look like heroes.

Yeah, that was easily the most offensive thing I've ever seen here by far. And if I remember correctly, he posted it in what he thought was a humorous context.

But I like Red Lobster. They have fresh oysters that are inexpensive, and their margaritas are surprisingly tasty.

I think everybody is in agreement that affordable insurance and quality healthcare is something everyone deserves. I'm with you 100% on that much at least. I simply do not trust legislators, based on their track record, to provide the right fix. Exactly.

Not a denier, just skeptical of the extent to which humanity is involved, and annoyed that the science has been as politicized to the extent that it has. But, yeah - clips like that do annoy the hell out of me.

That's even better.

You do realize that's the way it was before government intruded into the health care industry, right? Why do you think coverage became so damned convoluted and complicated - because doctors did it? This is not aimed specifically at you, Rockpile233 - just a general statement: I've said this before, but with a wave of new visitors to this forum it bears repeating: Health care is NOT a system. It's private enterprise. It's an industry. Doctors are not, nor should they be, government employees. Politicians do not know what your personal medical needs are, nor should they - it's not their job. Medicine and treatment was pretty damned good in this country before they got involved. It's politicians that created all the stupid, bureaucratic legislation that has made everything inaccessible to most people, and to look to the same bunch to make it affordable again is nothing short of retarded.

Well, I'm convinced. I thought I understood science, but this clip from a television show has opened my eyes. I'm riding my bike to work until I can move to the mountains - probably the Colorado Rockies, where I can enjoy beachfront property in my retirement years.

I guess he's just gifted.

So does cultural appropriation go both ways? I mean, if white guys can't wear dreads and white girls can't wear hoop earrings, should African Americans stop wearing western-styled clothing and their women stop straightening their hair? How freakin' stupid and petty do people have to be? The girl that waited on me at the Pizza place down the the other day road was an early-mid twenties little white girl who wore a Dashiki. Should I yell at her next time I see her appropriating African culture? For the love of all that's holy, people are really, really stupid.

I was going to put him on ignore, but I think he got banned before I could do it.

Just for the sake of argument, why not make food and housing rights as well? If we're going to consider staple items as rights, why not include them? And as a second point, how would you turn them into rights if you were able to do so?

I'm guessing it's an odd amalgam of Dutch, Cantonese, and badger, and I'm probably not going to fall for another one by trying to translate it.

Why, you.... I spent a little while copying some of that and trying to run it through various translators just to figure out what you were saying.

Gabby Boyst is right!

I thought the same thing.

That's Merkel?! I thought it was Rob Ford.

I hate resorting to the slippery slope argument, but I'm afraid it best describes my beliefs in this regard. Constitutional liberties are limits on governmental power and control, not freedoms that are afforded us by our government. Not only do I believe they should never be altered, I also believe literal interpretation is the only way to guarantee they remain intact.

As if that will make any real difference?

Fear not. Give it time, get your legs, and become acquainted with people. Some are annoying as hell, but most are decent folks and at least try to have a discussion. Granted, it's ruder here than on the other boards, but that just makes it funnier. Hypocrisy is everywhere. Too many people lack introspection, especially among those discussing topics such as those found here. Personally, I like to have fun with it when it pops up, and I encourage everyone to so the same.

You're right in that there will never be an acceptable consensus on regulatory ownership, so what then would be a better alternative? I understand that invocation of the second amendment can be irritating during the course of discussion, but would you really support an attempt to alter one of the fundamental constitutional liberties we're guaranteed? The precedent would easily become applicable with respect to the other constitutional rights as well. Search & seizure, cruel and inhuman punishment, self-incrimination, private property, religious freedom, speech & expression - all of them would become subject for review and refit once you allow any liberties to be changed. In addition, it must be remembered that constitutional liberties are not provided by the government - they are ours inherently because we exist, and the entire document is a statement of control and limits of federal control over us.

Who decides what guns are to be allowed and which are okay? How often does that get reviewed? Would you require licenses for private ownership? Is it important to allow people the same personal defensive firepower as criminals, terrorists, or even law enforcement have? How do we stop the production of similar firearms overseas and prevent them from being imported or smuggled into the country? I think there are plenty of substantive arguments to be made without engaging in a long back & forth.