/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
I'm pretty consistent in my Libertarian beliefs. Have been for years. And we've had this discussion before Yurt. You're a Libertarian too. Accept your destiny.
Where's the moral outrage?
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i was born in the 70's....
i've told you before i recently became interested in politics....hence....when the other day you linked me to something from the 80's that i asked you for....i said thanks....
the answer to your question, is no.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
we don't need to hear about your sex life nigel.....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
yeah...it was so weak you came up with that really awesome comeback....
So you're sticking with that? OK.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
So you're sticking with that? OK.
your flame has run out....try shell for some fuel buddy.....
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Smaller, less intrusive government at the federal level. Economically it's pretty divided. Most, if not all the laissez faire guys are dead though. At the international level it's more towards isolationism with exception of trade.
apple0154
MEOW
Hypocrite? Let's take a closer look.
You asked why Obama hasn't closed Gitmo. Looks like you forgot all the opposition including those against decent trials. So, we had a trial. The world didn't come to an end but the opposition is still there.
Drones. We wouldn't need drones if there wasn't a war. As I mentioned before the citizens who became "traitors" to their own country by openly supporting the US are now marked people by the rest of the citizens in their country so the US has to provide security for them. Whose fault was that?
Bush had no intention of leaving those countries so the citizens believed they would have constant protection. Now that Obama has stated the troops will come home he has to ensure those "traitors" aren't slaughtered.
See what I mean by the mess Bush/Repubs did? They promised protection to those who turned against their own country/citizens by leading the people to believe the US would be there permanently. How else could he promise protection?
There was a report on TV saying the people being trained as Police in Afghanistan are mostly illiterate. Basically, thugs being trained in Police tactics and some are extorting food/money from the citizens.
The Repub goal was to take over Afghanistan and Iraq and install puppet governments. Simple as that. Then train citizens as Police to uphold US type laws/customs.
Now that the US will be leaving those trained will uphold their own laws/customs and because those countries were already divided it's a set-up for civil war.
That's what happens when people screw around with other countries. Those are the consequences and the Repubs knew they couldn't change their society in a few years. The Repubs knew they would have to stay there, probably for generations. Who wouldn't understand that? Does anyone think a country's culture can be changed in a few years?
The Repub plan was to create a situation where the US couldn't leave and they did that by disrupting the entire country. That's the mess Obama has to deal with.
It's not that difficult to figure out.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Couldn't agree more however your last sentence is too accepting of some people's abilities to comprehend what you are saying.
apple0154
MEOW
I always hear about less intrusive government but isn't what Nigel Tufnel wrote more accurate?
For example, HCR and the mandatory purchase of medical insurance. By everyone purchasing insurance the cost will go down similar to the way universal plans work in other countries. The goal is to ensure everyone has medical coverage.
One argument I frequently hear against universal coverage (single payer) is people have to be content with what the government plan offers and they do not have choice but that isn't correct. There is always supplemental insurance. For example, Blue Cross operates in Canada and Canada has a universal plan.
My point is the complaint of "intrusion" is almost always in regards to helping as opposed to anything else. Wanting "limited government" translates into wanting the government limited as to it's ability to help others which seems to fit what Nigel wrote.
And the remainder of your crap is just too absolutely full of bullshit and lies it isn't worth the trouble of replying to...Not even idiots like evince and Onceler and the other pinheads are likely to even agree with such far-fetched nonsense...
You've moved from being a far left wing parrot and apologist and all around nitwit, to just outright fuckin' lying, making up your own facts, and just spouting insane conclusions that even US hating fanatics wouldn't buy......
Until your profound ideas and wisdom can turn your own country around, then come back and cast your pearls of wisdom upon us.
Until then you creep, STFU and STFD.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
I noticed you forgot a couple other words in my sentence. Perhaps they were too small. The words you forgot were:
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
Meaning that if a certain state (Like Hawaii) wanted to pass it's own type of health care system, and it was permitted by their states constitution, they can go fucking nuts. So no, Nigel is not more correct. Apple the government is not the solution to every problem.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I disagree. Bravo is more like the right-wing midcan. He posts much of his own stuff, and is passionate about his thoughts. Bravo is admired by most of his right-wing counterparts, because he is an articulate and well-spoken advocate of conservatism, and we can relate to what he says. Can you honestly say the same for apple? Have you read some of that idiots ramblings? You're telling me, this apple is someone you look up to and admire? His expressed views are in agreement with your views? You better check your apples before you bite on that one, that's all I have to say.