Napoléon Wrote:

Rhythm Wrote:Good god, why are -these- the issues that divide?  I mean really....starve out the lazy and stop bitching darkie.  If you don;t agree with those things bam - liberal?  If you do, you can't be a liberal?

These are the issues that divide because what the left don't realise is it's pussy leftist policies over the last 20 years that have led to an entire generation of working class having utter stagnation in their standard of living, if not decline. This is a broad comment and can apply to many things ofcourse but it's a sentiment that resonates with a silent majority of people. It's a sentiment that had a massive influence on the Brexit vote and it's also the reason why Donald Trump is going to be your next president, whether you like it or not.

Yet, Republicans have their fingerprints all over the country's steering wheel....particularly when we drove into an epic recession. And somehow that's 'because leftist policies', not starting an unnecessary and expensive war and continually priming the economic pump when the economy was already running hot?

Imaginaryfriendless Wrote:

abaris Wrote:Yeah, I'm starting to feel you too. And here I was thinking, you'd turn out to be a reasonable person. OK, I'm outta here before I lose my lunch.

This opinion of mine is based on 8 years of observation and continual contact with these people while in law enforcement- in a city of over 1 million. I've also spent 50 years living and observing, and whether it makes you lose your lunch or not- and it nauseates me, believe me- it is TRUE for a significant number of blacks in this country. They play the victim/entitlement card. I have dealt with it first hand. So where do you get your opposing data?

Well, no one gets exposed to a more evenly distributed sample of all demographics in neutral circumstances than police, so who is more qualified to generalize about millions of people based on anecdotal evidence than a police officer?

Imaginaryfriendless Wrote:

Quote:

---

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:New Zealand.  I await your arrival with torpid disinterest.

Boru

Figures. Brave man.

He's being brave because he's not interested in meeting you? Why would that take courage?

Or is he being 'brave' because he cleverly lives in New Zealand where he won't have to face you?

Imaginaryfriendless Wrote:

---

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:*chuckle*  Not particularly brave.  I'd be just as likely to call you a racist shitstain to your face.  I've done it for others, and I'm willing to extend you the same courtesy.

Boru

I would really like you to do that too. More than you know.

Because then you'll kick his ass, right? Maybe stomp on him a little once you've got him on the ground?

I used to be a Republican. I voted for Bob Dole. I thought Bush Senior got a raw deal from a biased media that leaned against him when he ran for reelection. And back then I wasn't quite there yet on the atheist thing, I thought of myself as more of an agnostic at that point and didn't identify as atheist until 1996.

During the Clinton years I became more of a centrist/moderate libertarian. I didn't like waking up find out who we were bombing that day, and I didn't like the circus the Republicans threw over a blowjob. I still thought Republicans were better than Democrats when it came to not starting wars. When Clinton was up for re-election, I voted for the Libertarian candidate (Harry Browne), but it was as much a protest vote as anything.

Then along came Bush II, who incidentally campaigned on not getting us into nation building. I saw how he ginned up public support to invade Iraq, a country that never attacked us, with media complicity. When he was up for re-election I voted for Browne again. When it was McCain vs. Obama, I voted Barr, but it was just a protest vote, if he actually had a chance to win, I wouldn't have wanted him to. I was kind of pleased when Obama won, because he struck me as a good, intelligent man even though I thought he was too hawkish.

That's when the congressional Republicans seemed to lose their minds. There had been signs earlier, that I attributed to general polarization in politics, but this was naked hatred unjustified by his actions and policies. Now, I often jokingly referred to myself as a 'liberaltarian'. I wasn't happy with all the drone strikes, but I was considering voting for Obama's re-election, especially if the Libertarians ran Bob Barr again. I was considering leaving the LP, the SC LP definitely listed to the right, where I was very slightly left of center. But they put up Gary Johnson, and I like Gary Johnson, his selection renewed my faith in the national LP, and that's who I voted for. But I voted for mostly Democrats down ticket.

In November, I am going to vote for Johnson again. But if I were in a swing state, I would vote for Clinton, because despite all the times I've said there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, I can't really say that anymore. The Democrats haven't changed much, but the Republicans were basically taken over by the Tea Party and this time, it really will be disastrous for America if we let the greater of two evils win.

I'm against throwing our military weight around except under dire threat. I'm against persecuting people because of their religion no matter what 0.1% of them have done. I'm for fiscal responsibility and reducing the national debt. I'm not happy with our complex and sometimes counterproductive welfare system, but I don't believe in yanking away people's benefits. I think raising the minimum wage has undesirable side-effect that at least should be taken into consideration and compensated for, and I think a guaranteed no-strings basic income for every adult American not on Social Security is more efficient than both welfare and minimum wage hikes, and I've been convinced by data that the economic consequences, like people avoiding work, have been overestimated, while the benefits (kids staying in school longer and having lower crime rates) have been underestimated. I don't think medical care should drive people into bankruptcy. I don't think corporations should be able to weigh in on their employee's reproductive choices.

I'm not sure what that makes me politically, but though I've drifted left since becoming an atheist, it's not as far as the GOP has drifted 'right' towards greater authoritarianism, culture war absolutism, and corporate cronyism.

(July 29, 2016 at 10:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Evidence?

I dunno, Thatcher said it.

(July 29, 2016 at 4:48 pm)Napoléon Wrote: I dunno, Thatcher said it.

Must be true, then.

(July 29, 2016 at 4:48 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(July 29, 2016 at 10:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Evidence?

I dunno, Thatcher said it.

Senile old cunt.  Much like Reagan in that respect.

I think people have a hard time applying the same scepticism to government that they apply to religion. Same kind of indoctrination. In my opinion a true sceptical dissection of government naturally coverts one at least as far as libertarianism as hopefully to full Anarcho-Capitalism. Just my view of course.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

(July 29, 2016 at 6:35 pm)SavageJak Wrote: In my opinion a true sceptical dissection of government naturally coverts one at least as far as libertarianism as hopefully to full Anarcho-Capitalism.  Just my view of course.

Bold mine. Hopefully so is my short answer.

Are you serious? Anarcho capitalism? Have you actually thought that through? Everyhing in the hands of a select few, since what we observe now is already more and more the parody of a free market. At least in certain market segments there are only two, maybe three competitors.

Now let's take that a step further. The road you're driving or walking on. You'd had to pay for that. No taxes anymore in anarcho capitalism, remember? So, company X owns that road and since they're paying for it's upkeep you'd have to pay for that if you're setting foot or wheel on it. Whatever they charge, if it's the only road leading to your desired target. Maybe there's another road and that's owned by company Y. Maybe they're competing, maybe they're in league and charge the exact same amount. Maybe the second road is longer and costs you additional time and fuel. Oh, fuel by the way, is no longer subsidised by the state, since it's, remember, anarcho capitalism. So the fuel companies charge whatever they see fit. Landlines, tough luck again. Your house is in a certain region and that region is owned by company Z. So, as long as you're not moving, you'd have to pay whatever they're charging. Maybe there's a breakin or home invasion. Call the police, maybe? Well that will cost you, since the police is owned by yet another company and they will check if it's worth the effort. Have you bought your platinum package already?

Hell, yes, anarcho capitalism would make for paradise on earth.