Alaska Darin Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Nice article, actually. Though this line made me laugh: "With the kids huddled in front of TV cameras, a woman began to scream, "George Bush is responsible for the misfortune of everyone who's disabled. ... He should be charged with a citizen's arrest for his crimes against humanity."" People like that is why I developed such a heartfelt contempt for protest marches. 13307[/snapback] Passion+stupidity=liberal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Passion+stupidity=liberal 13309[/snapback] Not true. We have plenty of conservatives here that combine passion and stupidity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Actually, the anarchists protesting the RNC were also protesting the DNC as well. They are hardly representative of the Democratic party. And of course they're going to say the police response was brutal...they're friggin' anarchists. They're dead set against the principle of law enforcing bodies. What I really want to know, though, is why the Institute for Anarchist Studies has a .org website. 13185[/snapback] So they are an organization? Organized Anarchists! Sometings wrong with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Passion+stupidity=liberal 13309[/snapback] Passion+stupidity+anarchy=libertarian Can it be true?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Passion+stupidity+anarchy=libertarian Can it be true?? 13375[/snapback] I'd say individual liberty + personal responsibility + understanding of history + governing by the Constitution = Libertarian. That said, I'm not a member of the party because the stance on "Open Borders" is blindingly stupid. Limiting the roll of the Federal government to the Constitution is something I completely agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I'm sorry to hear that a police officer was hurt - I haven't seen it in the press nor heard it on the radio but perhaps I will this evening. Regarding all the bitching about why we have lousy candidates to choose from: go read any number of threads on this board. When people stop judging qualifications based on how people look, what their kids do, whether they flubbed a question and other superficialities, then perhaps we'll get something more than a person with ambition and a thick skin. Adapting a metaphor I've used before: If Mother Theresa ran for president, would we be reading about her wrinkles, funny accent and crooked back and making jokes about her vow of celibacy? Probably. So don't complain when good people don't run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I'd say individual liberty + personal responsibility + understanding of history + governing by the Constitution = Libertarian. That said, I'm not a member of the party because the stance on "Open Borders" is blindingly stupid. Limiting the roll of the Federal government to the Constitution is something I completely agree with. 13384[/snapback] You did say infrastructure is in the constitution, didn't you? Does the Northwest Ordinance count also? Am I safe in what I do? Please, please, say yes!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I'm sorry to hear that a police officer was hurt - I haven't seen it in the press nor heard it on the radio but perhaps I will this evening. 13391[/snapback] It probably just hasn't made it's way to blzrulistan or whatever your little world is named. It was all over the news this morning... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...pr/cvn_protests About halfway down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 You did say infrastructure is in the constitution, didn't you? Does the Northwest Ordinance count also? Am I safe in what I do? Please, please, say yes!... 13393[/snapback] It certainly is in the Constitution. I'd say the USACoE would be whacked but the folks at your level would be safe. We all know how well that particular entity is managed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Regarding all the bitching about why we have lousy candidates to choose from: go read any number of threads on this board. When people stop judging qualifications based on how people look, what their kids do, whether they flubbed a question and other superficialities, then perhaps we'll get something more than a person with ambition and a thick skin. Adapting a metaphor I've used before: If Mother Theresa ran for president, would we be reading about her wrinkles, funny accent and crooked back and making jokes about her vow of celibacy? Probably. So don't complain when good people don't run. Thats life in the modern world. Sucks...but just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I'd say individual liberty + personal responsibility + understanding of history + governing by the Constitution = Libertarian. That said, I'm not a member of the party because the stance on "Open Borders" is blindingly stupid. Limiting the roll of the Federal government to the Constitution is something I completely agree with. 13384[/snapback] I was just finding a clever way of turning your equation on its ear. If you understand history, then you must realize that giving everyone the freedom to do what they choose is a recipe for disaster, and leads to anarchy! I don't see how anyone can lead in a society where Joe Schmo can shoot up whenever he feels like it, or parents can keep their kids from going to school... individuals are incapable of policing themselves; SOME order is needed. How much limitation are you advocating? I am curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I was just finding a clever way of turning your equation on its ear. If you understand history, then you must realize that giving everyone the freedom to do what they choose is a recipe for disaster, and leads to anarchy! I don't see how anyone can lead in a society where Joe Schmo can shoot up whenever he feels like it, or parents can keep their kids from going to school... individuals are incapable of policing themselves; SOME order is needed. How much limitation are you advocating? I am curious... 13426[/snapback] Not much. Individuals are more than capable of policing themselves. Crime against individuals was significantly lower in the Old West than it is in Washington D.C. today, contrary to what Hollywood tells you. Before you go off on a tangent, it is but one example. By passing off individual responsibility in favor of big government rule, the worm has turned 180 degrees. Individuals now feel totally powerless to affect change and it shows everytime there is an election. We just had the primary here and less than 25% of registered voters turned out. The biggest reason cited by those interviewed was apathy. We ain't changing it, so why bother? We now have a government that thinks it's OK to spend your money to protect Germany, England and Japan, while our own borders are virtually wide open (please don't turn this into a posse comitus debate, because that's not the meaning of the statement). They throw more and more money at every problem and it has virtually no effect on what ails us. Education? Broken. Higher education? Broken and ridiculously expensive. Social Security? Broken. Medicare? Broken. Virtually everything the government touches becomes a bloated and bureaucratic mess of epic proportions and the answer is always "we need more money and then it'll be fixed." When does the experiment end? We're already giving the beast more than the GDP of all but a handful of countries every year, and they manage to squander that on false idols PLUS spend an additional 20-25% that they DON'T HAVE. But the populous continues to bite the bait while pretending that tax rates in excess of 40% are actually fair. Until we realize that the individual is more important than the collective, the collective will continue to suffer. The taxation rates are absolutely criminal and those who are meant to reap the rewards ain't. Instead, we have politicians living high on the hog while "trickle down" programs fail miserably. It has nothing to do with not caring about others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Not much. Individuals are more than capable of policing themselves. Crime against individuals was significantly lower in the Old West than it is in Washington D.C. today, contrary to what Hollywood tells you. Before you go off on a tangent, it is but one example. By passing off individual responsibility in favor of big government rule, the worm has turned 180 degrees. Individuals now feel totally powerless to affect change and it shows everytime there is an election. We just had the primary here and less than 25% of registered voters turned out. The biggest reason cited by those interviewed was apathy. We ain't changing it, so why bother? We now have a government that thinks it's OK to spend your money to protect Germany, England and Japan, while our own borders are virtually wide open (please don't turn this into a posse comitus debate, because that's not the meaning of the statement). They throw more and more money at every problem and it has virtually no effect on what ails us. Education? Broken. Higher education? Broken and ridiculously expensive. Social Security? Broken. Medicare? Broken. Virtually everything the government touches becomes a bloated and bureaucratic mess of epic proportions and the answer is always "we need more money and then it'll be fixed." When does the experiment end? We're already giving the beast more than the GDP of all but a handful of countries every year, and they manage to squander that on false idols PLUS spend an additional 20-25% that they DON'T HAVE. But the populous continues to bite the bait while pretending that tax rates in excess of 40% are actually fair. Until we realize that the individual is more important than the collective, the collective will continue to suffer. The taxation rates are absolutely criminal and those who are meant to reap the rewards ain't. Instead, we have politicians living high on the hog while "trickle down" programs fail miserably. It has nothing to do with not caring about others. 13461[/snapback] Well, I always thought of libertarians as those who advocate a free society in which anything goes... I personally agree that drugs should STAY illegal, and that includes marijuana. Does the Libertarian Party agree? That's my main concern; I don't want my children using drugs casually like it's a six pack or something. Government in itself has become VASTLY bloated ever since the income tax was passed in 1913. Since then, the government has so much of our money, that it feels the need to distribute it in many crazy ways. I just wish that we could take it all back, and start over, but they won't let us do that, and you know what I mean by they. The parties have us by the balls, forcing us to accept one or the other, feeding us crap that we are forced to swallow. I am a Democrat because I can't STAND the right-wing ideaology.. NOT because I agree with the party itself. I WANT to change things, but I am immensely frustrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Well, I always thought of libertarians as those who advocate a free society in which anything goes... I personally agree that drugs should STAY illegal, and that includes marijuana. Does the Libertarian Party agree? That's my main concern; I don't want my children using drugs casually like it's a six pack or something. Government in itself has become VASTLY bloated ever since the income tax was passed in 1913. Since then, the government has so much of our money, that it feels the need to distribute it in many crazy ways. I just wish that we could take it all back, and start over, but they won't let us do that, and you know what I mean by they. The parties have us by the balls, forcing us to accept one or the other, feeding us crap that we are forced to swallow. I am a Democrat because I can't STAND the right-wing ideaology.. NOT because I agree with the party itself. I WANT to change things, but I am immensely frustrated. 13496[/snapback] Libertarians aren't for your kids using drugs. They are for adults having the right to make a choice. Right now, you can drop me in any city in this country with nothing more than $100 in my pocket and by nightfall I'd have a gun and a bag of weed or crack. They're already illegal. The peripheral crime because of the profit margin involved seem to me to make them worse. I seriously doubt your kids use six packs casually... Good luck with changing those 2 entities. Maybe I'll start a political party whose only slogan is: We ain't either of the other 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 It probably just hasn't made it's way to blzrulistan or whatever your little world is named. It was all over the news this morning... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...pr/cvn_protests About halfway down... 13398[/snapback] Thanks for the link. I see that it was ONE protestor attacking ONE officer. When I read the initial topic it gave me the impression that a gang of protestors beat the guy up. But that's not what happened. One a-hole is all it takes I suppose but painting millions of people nutso because of this one guy is like...like...painting an entire country with a bullseye because you don't like their leader or their religion or their lifestyle. Of course it's still bad but this article says he's not injured badly which is good and I am grateful for that. But let's try not to be so divisive eh? Things are bad enough already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 So why didn't the peace and love left grab the guy and not let him escape? The lefties are a bunch of intolerant thugs- free speech only when they agree with it. I saw it firsthand. I was at Union Square in SF the day after Thanksgiving 2000 to take part in a Freep for Bush (during Gore's attempt to violate the law). There were about 100 of us-we had a permit to march around the square and then to various media outlets, including marching down Market street. At the same time the anti-fur wackos (AFW) were out - Union Sq. is where Neiman-Marcus, Macy's, etc are. We marched around the square and when we passed the AFW, we shut up as not to inflame them. Otherwise, we chanted Bush won, Gore lost, etc and sang patriotic songs. A woman was spit upon, an elderly woman was shoved and we got so many birds flipped at us we lost count. About every other word out of thier mouths were swear words.There were tons of cops (mounted, motorcycle, and the paddy wagon) for the AFWs as they had broken windows the year before. When we went through the streets, everytime I got a middle finger, I blew them a kiss and said "Thank you, yes Bush is #1!" Got them even madder . We followed every order of the cops, and when done gave them three cheers. A cop told us he wished that all the marchers could act like us. Also, the AFWs looked to be an average age of 16, almost all with ski hats, pants falling off their butts and enough metal in their faces to set off 10 metal detectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Thanks for the link. I see that it was ONE protestor attacking ONE officer. When I read the initial topic it gave me the impression that a gang of protestors beat the guy up. But that's not what happened. One a-hole is all it takes I suppose but painting millions of people nutso because of this one guy is like...like...painting an entire country with a bullseye because you don't like their leader or their religion or their lifestyle. Of course it's still bad but this article says he's not injured badly which is good and I am grateful for that. But let's try not to be so divisive eh? Things are bad enough already. 13590[/snapback] Don't tell me...I already knew it was one assailant, one officer. I understand why you'd get that impression from Bill's original post...but you have to keep in mind, he used to be a NYC cop. Things like this hit close to home for him. Overall, given that there's been 500 arrests in three days with a few hundred thousand protesters involved...I think everyone's showing remarkable restraint so far. But as you said...it only takes a few nut-cases to spark something. And though I manifestly do NOT think the anarchists involved in the protests are representative of Democrats in general...if you check their web sites, their stated intent is to provoke confrontation. And as for the "blzrulistan" crack...I just liked the sound of it. The story really has been pretty widely reported, I'm surprised you hadn't heard about it earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 My cousin's retired NYPD. And I have for years used "Fleborkistan", "Flaboozlestan" and any other "stan" that comes to mind. So if you were trying to insult me it didn't work, I wasn't insulted, only mildly amused. I suppose YOU should be frightened that we'd have similar thought patterns, remote tho they are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 My cousin's retired NYPD. And I have for years used "Fleborkistan", "Flaboozlestan" and any other "stan" that comes to mind. So if you were trying to insult me it didn't work, I wasn't insulted, only mildly amused. I suppose YOU should be frightened that we'd have similar thought patterns, remote tho they are! 13687[/snapback] Insulted or amused, either one works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 I SEVERELY doubt that. That saying is worn and tired and incorrect. What can WE do to bring down the two-party system in America? I'm not the problem, so obviously I must be part of the solution, therefore....?? It's beat your head against the wall time on THAT one 13096[/snapback] Vote libertarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts