June 9, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, paco said: I’m surprised you beat @Toastrel to the scoop. He seems to have disappeared since you busted his stereotype about the age of the would be assassin.
June 9, 20223 yr 12 hours ago, Mike030270 said: Haven't been in here since page 10. Have they found the leak? They will be releasing that just after the Epstein client list.
June 9, 20223 yr 5 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Like I said, this may very well be a major flashpoint on the road to civil war. Lock&load
June 9, 20223 yr On 5/27/2022 at 3:23 PM, TEW said: Libertarianism is not synonymous with democracy. I stand by that, and anyone who disagrees doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Plenty of libertarian thought leaders are explicitly against democracy. I personally do not believe in universal suffrage. As I’ve stated numerous times over many years on here, I believe voting privileges should be contingent on being a net tax payer, with the possible exception of active duty military service. Why? Because I believe in incentive structures. If you are getting more than you contribute to the government, your incentive is to vote for more things for yourself, enriching yourself at someone else’s expense against their will. Which is exactly what has happened over the last ~100 years. If you pay in more than you receive, your incentive is to make sure that the money is well spent. Simple. Now, why the exception of active duty military? Because though they will receive more money from the government than they contribute, they are putting their lives on the line for the country, and so their "liability” to the government (potentially sacrificing their life) is significant enough to warrant voting privileges. You could even "value” their life in monetary terms if you want to get into the weeds, but I think we all get the logic on this. So yes, in short, I’ll triple down on democracy not being synonymous with libertarianism. I’ll triple down on being against universal suffrage. And I’ll triple down on having net tax payer as a requirement to vote. You'd just be creating a more perverted incentive structure by concentrating all political power in the hands of those who currently "only" possess all the economic power. There would be a regulatory capture like effect where those elected would be incentivized to preserve the status of the economically (and now politically) powerful from the people. The government would have no incentive to be responsive to the 'commoners' and upward mobility would be viewed as a threat. There would be a revolution within a generation.
June 9, 20223 yr Author 13 hours ago, lynched1 said: Read a very interesting article on the subject just yesterday. The intensity of the issue is one thing, but there's a lot more wrapped up in this than just abortion. There is such a confluence of factors here, but mostly, I see it as a rallying cry for far-right religious extremists, neofascists, and white supremacists pitted against secular, democratic culture. I think Republicans see this as some kind of game and find the outrage on the left amusing, but I think they're severely underestimating the level of chaos that will ensue. People don't like when their rights are taken away. This is really a powder keg moment.
June 9, 20223 yr 21 hours ago, Toastrel said: Armed California man arrested by Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's Maryland home https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-justice-kavanaugh-home-armed-man-arrested A 20 year old liberal from CA with a gun? How not shocking. sounds like a mentally ill person. he even wound up calling the cops on himself. glad he did that before doing something violent.
June 9, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: sounds like a mentally ill person. he even wound up calling the cops on himself. glad he did that before doing something violent. ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION!!!!
June 9, 20223 yr 15 minutes ago, Toastrel said: ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION!!!! Step 1 - Make a point, just not the one you were trying to make Step 2- Because you stepped on a rake, downplay the article you posted Step 3 - Profit, I assume
June 9, 20223 yr i believe i asked this before, and while i know it's a wild and crazy idea, one that most think is impossible considering the technology that is available today, but couldn't people take steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy ? just asking questions.
June 9, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said: i believe i asked this before, and while i know it's a wild and crazy idea, one that most think is impossible considering the technology that is available today, but couldn't people take steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy ? just asking questions. anal?
June 9, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: anal? exactly, or an old fashion ! see people, there are ways to avoid this issue until we evolve enough technologically, to invent things that will help us out.
June 9, 20223 yr 13 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said: i believe i asked this before, and while i know it's a wild and crazy idea, one that most think is impossible considering the technology that is available today, but couldn't people take steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy ? just asking questions. Yet another libtard advocating for banging trannys
June 9, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, paco said: Yet another libtard advocating for banging trannys stop shaming me dammit.
June 10, 20223 yr 15 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: The intensity of the issue is one thing, but there's a lot more wrapped up in this than just abortion. There is such a confluence of factors here, but mostly, I see it as a rallying cry for far-right religious extremists, neofascists, and white supremacists pitted against secular, democratic culture. I think Republicans see this as some kind of game and find the outrage on the left amusing, but I think they're severely underestimating the level of chaos that will ensue. People don't like when their rights are taken away. This is really a powder keg moment. Yeah it's all on the right side. 👌 Tool "Aenima" Some say the end is near. Some say we'll see Armageddon soon. Certainly hope we will. I sure could use a vacation from this Bull****, Three Ring, Circus, Side Show........
June 10, 20223 yr Author 11 hours ago, lynched1 said: Yeah it's all on the right side. 👌 Tool "Aenima" Some say the end is near. Some say we'll see Armageddon soon. Certainly hope we will. I sure could use a vacation from this Bull****, Three Ring, Circus, Side Show........ One side are fascists, that's for sure. Props on quoting Tool, though. Ænima might be my favorite album by them, and "Ænima" is a great track, too.
June 10, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: One side are fascists, that's for sure. Just like disagreeing with a black man is racist. 🤣
June 10, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Props on quoting Tool, though. Ænima might be my favorite album by them, and "Ænima" is a great track, too. I like the "A Perfect Circle" project too.
June 10, 20223 yr On 5/27/2022 at 3:23 PM, TEW said: Libertarianism is not synonymous with democracy. I stand by that, and anyone who disagrees doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Plenty of libertarian thought leaders are explicitly against democracy. I personally do not believe in universal suffrage. As I’ve stated numerous times over many years on here, I believe voting privileges should be contingent on being a net tax payer, with the possible exception of active duty military service. Why? Because I believe in incentive structures. If you are getting more than you contribute to the government, your incentive is to vote for more things for yourself, enriching yourself at someone else’s expense against their will. Which is exactly what has happened over the last ~100 years. If you pay in more than you receive, your incentive is to make sure that the money is well spent. Simple. Now, why the exception of active duty military? Because though they will receive more money from the government than they contribute, they are putting their lives on the line for the country, and so their "liability” to the government (potentially sacrificing their life) is significant enough to warrant voting privileges. You could even "value” their life in monetary terms if you want to get into the weeds, but I think we all get the logic on this. So yes, in short, I’ll triple down on democracy not being synonymous with libertarianism. I’ll triple down on being against universal suffrage. And I’ll triple down on having net tax payer as a requirement to vote. On 6/9/2022 at 6:37 AM, JohnSnowsHair said: You'd just be creating a more perverted incentive structure by concentrating all political power in the hands of those who currently "only" possess all the economic power. There would be a regulatory capture like effect where those elected would be incentivized to preserve the status of the economically (and now politically) powerful from the people. The government would have no incentive to be responsive to the 'commoners' and upward mobility would be viewed as a threat. There would be a revolution within a generation. "There would be a revolution within a generation." You're right. That's why people thought up the idea of 'natural law,' based upon law of the jungle and social contracts. Basically, the law of the jungle is the" real law," but smart people realized that this doesn't work out for anyone really. When people realize this, they surrender some rights to a common entity (government) in return for agreeing not to just steal from and rape each other. The process of surrendering rights may entail voting, but doesn't need to include voting. It's entirely possible that the surrendering of rights may be the result of weaker people realizing that they are outgunned, and the stronger people realizing that even though they could try to threaten to kill the weaker people, it would be more cost effective to secure voluntary cooperation from the weaker people. (Threats and violence being costly/expensive in most cases.) "Libertarianism is not synonymous with democracy." Democracy isn't synonymous with democracy, if you think about it. If we all decide that we're going to vote on what the laws are, what law is it that says that, first? Did we vote on that first law? Can we vote to undo a law we previously voted on? If so, then the first democracy has failed. Would it be possible to vote for a system that is not democracy? No matter what you do, you can always arrive at a situation where some democrat complains that we should have a vote, and the reasons given can be anything: I wasn't alive when the vote happened. Since the time we had the vote, 10 people died and the vote would be different now. We changed our minds anyway...its stupid
June 10, 20223 yr On 5/25/2022 at 6:15 PM, PoconoDon said: In the end, none of us know what the Constitution says until the SCOTUS tells us, but just for fun, to me, the Constitution is all about powers and not about rights. It would be impossible to list all of a person's rights now and in the future. the founders figured that out and dealt with powers instead of rights. Under the US Constitution, all powers rest and originate with the people. The people then delegate certain powers to their States through State Constitutions. The States then delegate certain powers to the Federal Government via the US Constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments make it clear where powers not given to the federal government or the States rest, with the people. In this model, which is upside down from almost every other government model, the national government (Federal) is the most subservient level of government we have. It serves both the States and the people. It doesn't rule them. How do we know this to be true? It only takes 38 States to instantly eliminate the federal government completely through a Convention of States. Personally, I love that. It presents a stark reminder that our elected officials are our servants, not our rulers, as it should be. This is absurd and its a fallacy that has unfortunately infected to many people's minds.
June 10, 20223 yr On 6/9/2022 at 3:37 AM, JohnSnowsHair said: You'd just be creating a more perverted incentive structure by concentrating all political power in the hands of those who currently "only" possess all the economic power. There would be a regulatory capture like effect where those elected would be incentivized to preserve the status of the economically (and now politically) powerful from the people. The government would have no incentive to be responsive to the 'commoners' and upward mobility would be viewed as a threat. There would be a revolution within a generation. The incentive to respond to the commoners is guns and guillotines. Upwards mobility is a threat how? That makes no sense. Generally, people don’t care where you come from. They care what you can do. Bottom line: stop being a societal leach and you get to vote. Non leaches will create a better society .
June 11, 20223 yr On 6/9/2022 at 6:37 AM, JohnSnowsHair said: You'd just be creating a more perverted incentive structure by concentrating all political power in the hands of those who currently "only" possess all the economic power. There would be a regulatory capture like effect where those elected would be incentivized to preserve the status of the economically (and now politically) powerful from the people. The government would have no incentive to be responsive to the 'commoners' and upward mobility would be viewed as a threat. There would be a revolution within a generation. If that were true we would have had three revolutions by now people dont care or dont understand
June 11, 20223 yr 10 hours ago, ToastJenkins said: If that were true we would have had three revolutions by now people dont care or dont understand We've already seen what happens when an entire class of people are restricted from government representation. It was called Jim Crow. It doesn't matter if we decide to exclude people based on race or economic class, the outcome is the same - one group controls all levers of state power and uses that power to ensure the power structure stays that way generationally.
Create an account or sign in to comment