Where is my party.

[Kelzie]

After a glimpse, it appears fuel cells is a misnomer. A fuel cell does not store fuel, it converts fuel into energy(electricity). The cars I refer to are cumbustion engines. Fuel cell cars would have electric motors. Tons of sites on this. H2 combustion engines work the same as cars now, only use H2 for fuel. I prefer the combustion type. You get to hang your arm out the window (you know, to make your bicep look bigger) and rev the engine impressing chicks. Fuel cells cars would make a whining noise. Hey champs....

A service call for a black customer.

A "service" call huh? teach, I never knew...

 

[teacher]

A "service" call huh? teach, I never knew...

I've been smacked by a girl. How embarrassing. This on the heels of a superior TT. Good thing I'm cuter.

Oh yea, well Nurse likes me more than you.

And my dad can beat up your dad.

Of course you know, this means war.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

hydrogen fuel cells are the cure for foriegn oil dependency I already stated this but I suppose no one bothers to read the sci/tech threads.

 

[teacher]

hydrogen fuel cells are the cure for foriegn oil dependency I already stated this but I suppose no one bothers to read the sci/tech threads.

I stated the same thing before you joined. Na na na na na.

But my GRAND idea will get me killed by the oil co's.l

But before tonight I didn't know H2 fuel cells could replace small batteries and be recharged. It's to good an idea to be used.

 

[cnredd]

I stated the same thing before you joined. Na na na na na.

But my GRAND idea will get me killed by the oil co's.l

But before tonight I didn't know H2 fuel cells could replace small batteries and be recharged. It's to good an idea to be used.

Is there a Monkey Army Corps of Engineers that we can defer to?:2wave:

 

[teacher]

Look. This is back before I found out galenrox was gay. He still liked me back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakurus
Teacher, you aren't a libertarian, you're a dumbass.

Galen: you're a jerk! He's making a serious point here about the failures of the two parties, and makes a long thought out statement, and your response is essentially to verbally drool on yourself.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here's a speech I gave the other day arguing against the so called new conservatism:

I am of the opinion that George W. Bush is quite possibly the most liberal president in this nations history. I know a lot of you people probably would disagree with me right off the bat but let me explain:

1. I wrote Republican up on the board then ask what people think of when they see this word,

2. Then I put conservatism up on the board, then neo-conservatism, then the definition of conservatism.

So if the word conservatism means tradition then is not the prefix neo in itself a contradiction in terms and wouldn’t it further stand to reason that if there is a new conservatism that there must also be an old, well there is and it’s called paleo conservatism or traditional conservatism which is very different from that which is considered conservatism today.

Then ask what else this word Republican seems to mean. Root word Republic. Then I wrote Republic not empire.

Listen to these following quotes by three of the Founding Fathers:

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington

Thomas Jefferson had this to say about U.S. foreign policy: peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies
.
Jefferson also had this to say on entangling relations:

Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself from the systems of Europe, and establish one of her own. Our circumstances, our pursuits, our interests, are distinct. The principles of our policy should be so also. All entanglements with that quarter of the globe should be avoided if we mean that peace and justice shall be the polar stars of the American societies.

Now listen to this quote by John Quincy Adams:

"America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams

Simply put what this quote goes to show is that a true conservative Republican is for the preservation of the Republic as opposed to interventionalist tendency’s which are in direct contradiction to the principles on which this country was founded.

Now compare Adam’s words to this quote by George W. Bush:

The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. (Applause.) - Bush

This is a very liberal way of thinking in that it espouses that Democracy and liberty should be treated as commodity’s which the U.S. should export in direct contradiction to the views and principles of the Founding Fathers.

Now listen to this quote by a traditional conservative by the name of Pat Buchanan:

The US has unthinkingly embarked upon a neoimperial policy that must involve us in virtually every great war of the coming century-and wars are the death of republics. If we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the weapon of the weak-terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on US soil. But for Bush this war was not, as Clausewitz would have it, an extension of politics, but a moral imperative that transcended politics. Bush holds that the war on terror is between good and evil and it will not end until we eradicate all terror networks of a global reach. Bush holds to a policy of preemptive and preventative war. This is a formula for endless conflict. "


The following is a list of goals from PNAC the (Plan for the New American Century) a leading neo-conservative think tank headed by William Kristol the son of the Irving Kristol who is considered to be the godfather of the neo-conservative movement:
:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Now does this policy of interventionalism coincide with a conservative philosophy in the tradition of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson?

Absolutely not this is a liberal policy in the traditions of Woodrow Wilsons 14 points and the policy‘s of FDR.

It is not just the issue of U.S. interventionalism that is a deciding factor in the differences between Paleo-cons there are also large fissures in the economic policies of the two philosophy’s.

Let me first begin by saying that I believe in the powers of free trade and open markets, I am a proponent of creating trading blocks based on laiz en faire economics and that capitalism is in fact the harbinger of Democracy, however, these are truly neo-liberalist policies as opposed to conservative ones:

Alexander Hamilton had this to say on free trade: 'Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation...ought to endeavor to posses within itself all the essentials of a national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense.

Basically what Hamilton was saying is that the U.S. should be independent and self sustaining which is in direct contradiction to the neo-liberalist policies and creations of organizations such as NAFTA and CAFTA.

The following line is point three of Wilson’s very liberal 14 points proposition:


III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.


Buchanan had this to say on free trade:

Rather than making “global free trade” a golden calf which we all bow down to, and worship, all trade deals should be judged by whether:
1. they maintain US sovereignty;
2. they protect vital economic interests; and
3. they ensure a rising standard of living for all our workers.

Now compare that to what George W. Bush had to say:


There’s a vital link between freedom of people and freedom of commerce. Democratic freedoms cannot flourish unless our hemisphere also builds a prosperity whose benefits are widely shared. And open trade is an essential foundation for that prosperity and that possibility.
Open trade fuels the engines of economic growth that creates new jobs and new income. It applies the power of markets to the needs of the poor. It spurs the process of economic and legal reform. It helps dismantle protectionist bureaucracies that stifle incentive and invite corruption. And open trade reinforces the habits of liberty that sustain democracy over the long term.

These are obviously not the words of a conservative in the traditional sense of the word.

I am of the opinion that neo-conservatism isn’t really conservatism at all but rather it is liberalism wrapped in Republican clothing.

All this being said one must also realize that one of the main staples of the traditional-conservative movement which became a hallmark during the elections of the WW2 era is the belief that politics stops at the waters edge.

 

[teacher]

Listen to these following quotes by three of the Founding Fathers:

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington

Thomas Jefferson had this to say about U.S. foreign policy: peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies
.
Jefferson also had this to say on entangling relations:

Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself from the systems of Europe, and establish one of her own. Our circumstances, our pursuits, our interests, are distinct. The principles of our policy should be so also. All entanglements with that quarter of the globe should be avoided if we mean that peace and justice shall be the polar stars of the American societies.

But that was back when we were fairly equal in power and months, not hours, seperated us from the world.

The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. (Applause.) - Bush

I agree.

Now listen to this quote by a traditional conservative by the name of Pat Buchanan:

The US has unthinkingly embarked upon a neoimperial policy that must involve us in virtually every great war of the coming century-and wars are the death of republics. If we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the weapon of the weak-terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on US soil. But for Bush this war was not, as Clausewitz would have it, an extension of politics, but a moral imperative that transcended politics. Bush holds that the war on terror is between good and evil and it will not end until we eradicate all terror networks of a global reach. Bush holds to a policy of preemptive and preventative war. This is a formula for endless conflict. "

Good againt evil. Yes it is that cut and dry to me. Not endless. When all peoples are free it will end.

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

I agree.

Now does this policy of interventionalism coincide with a conservative philosophy in the tradition of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson?

No, they owned slaves and couldn't go there without looking like dicks. They were human after all and sought to justify their actions. At least they wern't hypocrites in this matter.

Absolutely not this is a liberal policy in the traditions of Woodrow Wilsons 14 points and the policy‘s of FDR.

Call it Liberal, call it a cheese sandwich, I call it decent, good, compassionate, christian. Black and white. Right and wrong. good and evil. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. Billo and monkeys.

Let me first begin by saying that I believe in the powers of free trade and open markets, I am a proponent of creating trading blocks based on laiz en faire economics and that capitalism is in fact the harbinger of Democracy, however, these are truly neo-liberalist policies as opposed to conservative ones:

What's that mean. Is that French? Capitalism run amok is greed and needs to be kept in check. It's about time for the reapearence of fair and logical unions. We steadily to a nation of have and have nots.

Alexander Hamilton had this to say on free trade: 'Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation...ought to endeavor to posses within itself all the essentials of a national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense.

Basically what Hamilton was saying is that the U.S. should be independent and self sustaining which is in direct contradiction to the neo-liberalist policies and creations of organizations such as NAFTA and CAFTA.

We could be self sufficient if we had to be. We got the food remember? But we want more. If we voted that way then so be it. Untill then the point is moot.

The following line is point three of Wilson’s very liberal 14 points proposition:


III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

We don't do that. The Japs fu*k us pretty well there. Try selling our rice there. Term limits fixes that.

Buchanan had this to say on free trade:

Rather than making “global free trade” a golden calf which we all bow down to, and worship, all trade deals should be judged by whether:
1. they maintain US sovereignty;
2. they protect vital economic interests; and
3. they ensure a rising standard of living for all our workers.

I agree. I agree with him on a lot. Isolationism is not one of them.

Now compare that to what George W. Bush had to say:


There’s a vital link between freedom of people and freedom of commerce. Democratic freedoms cannot flourish unless our hemisphere also builds a prosperity whose benefits are widely shared. And open trade is an essential foundation for that prosperity and that possibility.
Open trade fuels the engines of economic growth that creates new jobs and new income. It applies the power of markets to the needs of the poor. It spurs the process of economic and legal reform. It helps dismantle protectionist bureaucracies that stifle incentive and invite corruption. And open trade reinforces the habits of liberty that sustain democracy over the long term.

We are America. Some sacrafice on our part to help other countries will help us and the globe in the long run. Imagine how far the human race can advance if every nation was productive and contributing to the scientific and living standard advancement. Every one could have their own monkey and a rocket ship with adjustable cup holders. No poverty, pollution or fat Canadians in speedo at Miami beach. People Like Ayran could be given a shot a birth and healed. Canuck could be cloned and every web site could have their own Canuck.

Or Africans can just keep staving. Not our problem.

I am of the opinion that neo-conservatism isn’t really conservatism at all but rather it is liberalism wrapped in Republican clothing.

Which they must do now to stay in power. The Republicans learned from Clinton. Make the least amount of people mad.

All this being said one must also realize that one of the main staples of the traditional-conservative movement which became a hallmark during the elections of the WW2 era is the belief that politics stops at the waters edge.

Those days are gone. We can pull out of the entire world and build a wall around our nation. But eventually the Islamic extremists will come calling. Their Koran tells them to.

My views pretty much puts me in my own little world, don't they?

I fill a niche here. Many don't like it. Some do. At least I can say I don't march lock step with either party.

Liberals are meddlesome, appeasing, guilt ridden pansies.

Conservatives are socially uptight, self righteous, theocratic Nazi's.

That should pizz just about everyone off.

Thanks for putting me back on course Trojan.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

But that was back when we were fairly equal in power and months, not hours, seperated us from the world.


I agree.

Me too, allthough my point is that these are not conservative values but rather neo-liberalist ones and that allthough it is in our national interests to have free and open societys throughout the world, the use of force is not the only means to that end, the Soviet Union fell without a shot being fired, at least not in direct conflict between the two Super Powers, now my other point is that the use of force is necessary when these Un-Democratic nations harbor our enemies.

Now listen to this quote by a traditional conservative by the name of Pat Buchanan:

The US has unthinkingly embarked upon a neoimperial policy that must involve us in virtually every great war of the coming century-and wars are the death of republics. If we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the weapon of the weak-terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on US soil. But for Bush this war was not, as Clausewitz would have it, an extension of politics, but a moral imperative that transcended politics. Bush holds that the war on terror is between good and evil and it will not end until we eradicate all terror networks of a global reach. Bush holds to a policy of preemptive and preventative war. This is a formula for endless conflict. "

Good againt evil. Yes it is that cut and dry to me. Not endless. When all peoples are free it will end.






I agree.


No, they owned slaves and couldn't go there without looking like dicks. They were human after all and sought to justify their actions. At least they wern't hypocrites in this matter.

Actually Washington hated slavery:

The benevolence of your heart my Dr. Marqs. is so conspicuous upon all occasions, that I never wonder at any fresh proofs of it; but your late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view of emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it. Some petitions were presented to the Assembly, at its last Session, for the abolition of slavery, but they could scarcely obtain a reading. To set them afloat at once would, I really believe, be productive of much inconvenience and mischief; but by degrees it certainly might, and assuredly ought to be effected; and that too by Legislative authority. To Lafayette May 10, 1786



Call it Liberal, call it a cheese sandwich, I call it decent, good, compassionate, christian. Black and white. Right and wrong. good and evil. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. Billo and monkeys.



What's that mean. Is that French? Capitalism run amok is greed and needs to be kept in check. It's about time for the reapearence of fair and logical unions. We steadily to a nation of have and have nots.


We could be self sufficient if we had to be. We got the food remember? But we want more. If we voted that way then so be it. Untill then the point is moot.



We don't do that. The Japs fu*k us pretty well there. Try selling our rice there. Term limits fixes that.


I agree. I agree with him on a lot. Isolationism is not one of them.

Actually Isolationism would entail the end to globalization which is not something I agree with I think free trade and open markets are a priority and in our national interests in that they are the harbingers of Democracy.

We are America. Some sacrafice on our part to help other countries will help us and the globe in the long run. Imagine how far the human race can advance if every nation was productive and contributing to the scientific and living standard advancement. Every one could have their own monkey and a rocket ship with adjustable cup holders. No poverty, pollution or fat Canadians in speedo at Miami beach. People Like Ayran could be given a shot a birth and healed. Canuck could be cloned and every web site could have their own Canuck.

Or Africans can just keep staving. Not our problem.



Which they must do now to stay in power. The Republicans learned from Clinton. Make the least amount of people mad.



Those days are gone. We can pull out of the entire world and build a wall around our nation. But eventually the Islamic extremists will come calling. Their Koran tells them to.

My views pretty much puts me in my own little world, don't they?

I fill a niche here. Many don't like it. Some do. At least I can say I don't march lock step with either party.

Liberals are meddlesome, appeasing, guilt ridden pansies.

Conservatives are socially uptight, self righteous, theocratic Nazi's.

That should pizz just about everyone off.

Thanks for putting me back on course Trojan.

No problem . . . . . . . .

 

[The Real McCoy]

I vote for this thread getting another jump start and back to the initial topic. This is my second vote for teacher.

 

[Axismaster]

I vote for this thread getting another jump start and back to the initial topic. This is my second vote for teacher.

What are you voting for him on?

BTW, did anyone notice that this has become a gathering of libertarians, perhaps our intellect driving us towards smaller government and more liberty is scaring away the commies. Now McCarthy couldn't have done it that way.

 

[The Real McCoy]

What are you voting for him on?

BTW, did anyone notice that this has become a gathering of libertarians, perhaps our intellect driving us towards smaller government and more liberty is scaring away the commies. Now McCarthy couldn't have done it that way.

You mean you don't know about the election?

 

[teacher]

You know, the little abortion train wreck in the basement, cnredd's making the comment that he gets called a liberal now and again (so do I) and points out that jerks like ptsdkid call him that because he doesn't follow lock step 100% down party lines, and the fact that I was wondering where galenrox has ran off to, (probably his midget boyfriend Carlos got deported back to Cuba and he's mounting some sort of gay rescue mission), where was I? Oh yea, galenrox usually goes along with these thoughts, got me to thinking.

What's up with the death thing? Abortion and capitol punishment.

Look at the stupid liberals:

They can't put some friggin proven monster to death. Not fair or inhuman or some such shi*t. Yet it's just damn fine to suck the brains out of some innocent baby in a partial birth abortion. It's not a viable life form or some such shi*t.

So the left is willing to kill an innocent yet protect the guilty.

Does anyone not see the disparity in this? The lack of logic? The contradiction?

And then you have the bible thumping Nazi's. All for killing a criminal yet life is too sacred to allow abortion.

Seems to me the logical way this death issue should be split is just the opposite.

One camp should be all for life. No death penalty, no abortions.

The other camp for death. Abortions and capitol punishment. Kill em all.

I mean, what the fuc*k people? This tells me you freaks aren't thinking for yourselves. You are all marching lockstep with whatever your chosen parties talking points are. Like the basement parasite debate.

You have the uptight right unable to admit that by defintion a fetus exhibits some of the same behavior as a parasite. The fetus (parasite), feeds off the mother (host). It's like if the Nazi's admit this then they lose the whole abortion debate. Bullshit. You just look stupid for not facing reality.

Then you got the bedwetting left claiming a fetus is a parasite. It's a baby you freaks. Does calling it a parasite make you feel better about allowing a baby that could survive in an incubator to have it's skull sucked dry? Like admitting a baby is not a parasite loses you the whole abortion debate. Bullshit. You just look stupid not facing reality.

Both sides lie, obfuscate, refuse to answer direct questions, ignore facts, just to try and win a debate. Both sides have their heads so firmly planted up their azzes that I can barely debate them because they wont face reality.

Both parties play you all against each other. Just as the ruling rich Arabs deflect the poor Arab masses away from their true oppressors to us, the great Satan. So too do the two parties of this nation deflect the blame to the other side from where it truly lies. Incumbent, lifelong politicians.

Bunch of stupid fuc*king sheep. You should spend less time pointing fingers at the other side and clean your own house. You bastards should forget about polls, impeachment and recalls and put some energy into term limits.

I guess you get what you deserve, but you dumb fuc*ks are dragging me down with you.

 

[George_Washington]

Topic #1. Taxes.


Pro Conservative: I don't think anyone should pay a higher percentage of income tax than any other.

Pro Liberal: The rich can afford to pay more, after all, they have more.

Answer: Consumption tax. Food is exempt. First 10k or 20k is rebateable. You are only taxed on what you spend. The rich spend WAY more. No don't bring all the usual arguments here, stick with the topic. I, teacher, of the massive brain, want to learn.

Why doesn't the libs or cons want this? Takes away the power over the taxpayer.

Think about it people. Even if you make your money on the side, you still have to buy stuff.

The problem is, if we totally eliminate the income tax for a consumption tax, there just probably wouldn't be enough money in there for pay for services, not to mention military funds in war time. I believe reducing taxes is a noteworthy goal but if you mean to eliminate all other kinds of taxes, I think we would run into problems.

No offense, teacher, but in my opinion the libertarian viewpoint is good in the academic books and in the theoretical world but when applied to life, it just wouldn't work. I realize that libertarians take viewpoints from both sides but pure libertarianism has no chance of working in the real world. My biggest objection to the libertarian viewpoint is their stance on social programs for the poor. I think we probably do share many views in common, but I simply cannot see the libertarian theory that we shouldn't have a welfare state. I think history has shown that we need at least some kind of government aid for the poor, especially the disabled. Not to mention that I also think we do need some regulations in place for industry, you know, which is why I'm a moderate I think in my views. In my view, libertarianism just fails to realize the value of government.

 

[teacher]

The problem is, if we totally eliminate the income tax for a consumption tax, there just probably wouldn't be enough money in there for pay for services, not to mention military funds in war time. I believe reducing taxes is a noteworthy goal but if you mean to eliminate all other kinds of taxes, I think we would run into problems.

No offense, teacher, but in my opinion the libertarian viewpoint is good in the academic books and in the theoretical world but when applied to life, it just wouldn't work. I realize that libertarians take viewpoints from both sides but pure libertarianism has no chance of working in the real world. My biggest objection to the libertarian viewpoint is their stance on social programs for the poor. I think we probably do share many views in common, but I simply cannot see the libertarian theory that we shouldn't have a welfare state. I think history has shown that we need at least some kind of government aid for the poor, especially the disabled. Not to mention that I also think we do need some regulations in place for industry, you know, which is why I'm a moderate I think in my views. In my view, libertarianism just fails to realize the value of government.

Well George, then it's time for school. You see, there is more than one Libertarian faction.

You got your Hippie faction. These are the guys that are for everything. Legal Heroin, dogs and cats living in sin, you name it. Not very practical.

Then you have the isolationist Libertarians. Like Trojan here. Shut down the borders, if it don't affect me right now then leave it alone.

Both these factions are kind of anarchist. No government, police, military or have them privately controlled at least.

And then there is my faction. You see George, I am the standard by which perfect Libertarianism is set. The be all and end all of common sense and logic. I take the good from either party and throw out the rest. And it's kind of nice because I have twice as many people to annoy than most others here. And I'm happy to teach. For one I've seen the numbers. The consumption tax runs around 20%. Replaces the income tax just fine, no shortfalls. Here's a point I didn't make earlier in this thread. Erasing the income and corporate tax essentially turns the US into a tax free haven for business. Businesses will still pay a consumption tax for the goods they buy to produce what they produce, but that's it. Just think of all the businesses that would return to our shores and how many foreign businesses would relocate here to cut their overhead. So outsourcing becomes a thing of the past. I'm saying as a Libertarian with sense we keep our government and entitlements. But we collect it's revenue differently. I hope that clears it up a little for you. When I started this thread a while back it got no play. Or not the kind of play I hoped for. This place has grown some so I figured I'd give it another go. There is a Libertarian test running around this site somewhere. I got a 73. Therefore 73 is a perfect score. The Real McCoy also scored 73. Go find that test and thread and you'll see what I'm talking about the different factions.

Ah, found it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=176607&postcount=1

Check this thread out George.

 

[George_Washington]

Check this thread out George.

Hey, interesting test. I got a 36.

I just object to the more extreme things that were on that test, like privatizing the police, wtf, that sounds crazy to me. I'm not even sure how that would work.

 

[Kelzie]

You know, the little abortion train wreck in the basement, cnredd's making the comment that he gets called a liberal now and again (so do I) and points out that jerks like ptsdkid call him that because he doesn't follow lock step 100% down party lines, and the fact that I was wondering where galenrox has ran off to, (probably his midget boyfriend Carlos got deported back to Cuba and he's mounting some sort of gay rescue mission), where was I? Oh yea, galenrox usually goes along with these thoughts, got me to thinking.

What's up with the death thing? Abortion and capitol punishment.

Look at the stupid liberals:

They can't put some friggin proven monster to death. Not fair or inhuman or some such shi*t. Yet it's just damn fine to suck the brains out of some innocent baby in a partial birth abortion. It's not a viable life form or some such shi*t.

So the left is willing to kill an innocent yet protect the guilty.

Does anyone not see the disparity in this? The lack of logic? The contradiction?

And then you have the bible thumping Nazi's. All for killing a criminal yet life is too sacred to allow abortion.

Seems to me the logical way this death issue should be split is just the opposite.

One camp should be all for life. No death penalty, no abortions.

The other camp for death. Abortions and capitol punishment. Kill em all.

I mean, what the fuc*k people? This tells me you freaks aren't thinking for yourselves. You are all marching lockstep with whatever your chosen parties talking points are. Like the basement parasite debate.

You have the uptight right unable to admit that by defintion a fetus exhibits some of the same behavior as a parasite. The fetus (parasite), feeds off the mother (host). It's like if the Nazi's admit this then they lose the whole abortion debate. Bullshit. You just look stupid for not facing reality.

Then you got the bedwetting left claiming a fetus is a parasite. It's a baby you freaks. Does calling it a parasite make you feel better about allowing a baby that could survive in an incubator to have it's skull sucked dry? Like admitting a baby is not a parasite loses you the whole abortion debate. Bullshit. You just look stupid not facing reality.

Both sides lie, obfuscate, refuse to answer direct questions, ignore facts, just to try and win a debate. Both sides have their heads so firmly planted up their azzes that I can barely debate them because they wont face reality.

Both parties play you all against each other. Just as the ruling rich Arabs deflect the poor Arab masses away from their true oppressors to us, the great Satan. So too do the two parties of this nation deflect the blame to the other side from where it truly lies. Incumbent, lifelong politicians.

Bunch of stupid fuc*king sheep. You should spend less time pointing fingers at the other side and clean your own house. You bastards should forget about polls, impeachment and recalls and put some energy into term limits.

I guess you get what you deserve, but you dumb fuc*ks are dragging me down with you.

Here's my take. Can't claim to speak for all the rest of the stupid fuc*king sheep though. I don't believe that a fetus is a human until it reaches viability. Ergo, while certainly not desirable, an abortion is acceptable. A criminal is a human. Not a very nice one, to be sure, but a human nonetheless. I don't like killing humans. Capital punishment is revenge, not justice. And it doesn't make the murder rate any better. So that's why I believe both at the same time.

 

[zymurgy]

Well George, then it's time for school. You see, there is more than one Libertarian faction.

You got your Hippie faction. These are the guys that are for everything. Legal Heroin, dogs and cats living in sin, you name it. Not very practical.

Then you have the isolationist Libertarians. Like Trojan here. Shut down the borders, if it don't affect me right now then leave it alone.

Both these factions are kind of anarchist. No government, police, military or have them privately controlled at least.

And then there is my faction. You see George, I am the standard by which perfect Libertarianism is set. The be all and end all of common sense and logic. I take the good from either party and throw out the rest. And it's kind of nice because I have twice as many people to annoy than most others here. And I'm happy to teach. For one I've seen the numbers. The consumption tax runs around 20%. Replaces the income tax just fine, no shortfalls. Here's a point I didn't make earlier in this thread. Erasing the income and corporate tax essentially turns the US into a tax free haven for business. Businesses will still pay a consumption tax for the goods they buy to produce what they produce, but that's it. Just think of all the businesses that would return to our shores and how many foreign businesses would relocate here to cut their overhead. So outsourcing becomes a thing of the past. I'm saying as a Libertarian with sense we keep our government and entitlements. But we collect it's revenue differently. I hope that clears it up a little for you. When I started this thread a while back it got no play. Or not the kind of play I hoped for. This place has grown some so I figured I'd give it another go. There is a Libertarian test running around this site somewhere. I got a 73. Therefore 73 is a perfect score. The Real McCoy also scored 73. Go find that test and thread and you'll see what I'm talking about the different factions.

Ah, found it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=176607&postcount=1

Check this thread out George.

it's the ego.....Obviously compensating for something.

I stand for libertarian values as well. The obvious difference is I don't shout at the roof tops that my way of thinking is better then everybody else.

I suggest some time on the couch to understand why you are wired in such a fashion. This type of ego, although likely to be schtick, could be a sign of real emotional problems.

As for taxes, they should be as "voluntary" as possible. For this reason I like the idea of Consumption taxes.

 

[teacher]

it's the ego.....Obviously compensating for something.

I stand for libertarian values as well. The obvious difference is I don't shout at the roof tops that my way of thinking is better then everybody else.

I suggest some time on the couch to understand why you are wired in such a fashion. This type of ego, although likely to be schtick, could be a sign of real emotional problems.

....................

 

[Kelzie]

....................

No response to me? What? My position is complete logical? I thought so.

 

[teacher]

I don't believe that a fetus is a human until it reaches viability.

I can change this. But it's not pretty and I don't care to do it.

 

[Kelzie]

I can change this. But it's not pretty and I don't care to do it.

Change what? My opinion? Good luck.

 

[teacher]

Bringing this back up for another worthless attempt.