Politics Honest, Fess up?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Amazing thing we see here.

People in S2 do not want the administration to enforce federal law?

I do find that surprising. I Know it is selective and for the moment it is just the MJ law.
But I never thought people could be this shallow.
 
MarAzul said:
Amazing thing we see here.

People in S2 do not want the administration to enforce federal law?

I do find that surprising. I Know it is selective and for the moment it is just the MJ law.
But I never thought people could be this shallow.
Click to expand...
Cuck much?
 
MarAzul said:
Laws tend to do it. Especially when you find yourself on the wrong side.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true cuck!

Seems like you would’ve been a loyalist 250 years ago.

Don’t find yourself on the wrong side.
 
Nate said:
Spoken like a true cuck!

Seems like you would’ve been a loyalist 250 years ago.

Don’t find yourself on the wrong side.
Click to expand...

No. Actually I can not imagine what the fuck you guys are getting worked about!
The laws are on the books. The Constitution charges the President with seeing that the laws are faithful enforced. If you want to make it a States choice, then get your congressman and Senators to get the fucking law off the books. That will make it a State choice right there. Bitching about a law on the books being enforced is mindless.
 
MarAzul said:
No. Actually I can not imagine what the fuck you guys are getting worked about!
The laws are on the books. The Constitution charges the President with seeing that the laws are faithful enforced. If you want to make it a States choice, then get your congressman and Senators to get the fucking law off the books. That will make it a State choice right there. Bitching about a law on the books being enforced is mindless.
Click to expand...
Again, spoken like a true cuck.

What a good little follower you are.
 
Out of respect for Further.

I'm perfectly satisfied with the Libertarian positions on all things.

I'm pro choice in all things. Abortion is a medical decision, and between the woman and her doctor. It's her body, and I don't need to see any of her reasoning for making the choice. Pro choice for education. Pro choice for where people can live. Pro choice for whether to buy products and/or services - or not. Pro choice for what to do with one's own body (assisted suicide, drugs, driving without a seatbelt or riding without a helmet, etc.).

I'm completely satisfied with not interfering with other governments and their societies. Our interactions should be based upon trade. We should (and do) set an example of how great our way of life is or can be for others - and that's more than enough.

In all things the government wants to do, you should ask if there's a truly compelling social interest in enacting those things. Almost all things government does would fail that test. Not all, but most.

We're not opposed to having government. We just want barely enough and only as much as we really need. No more than that. Government should be so weak that it isn't worth bribing a politician for anything.

I believe in people. Everyone has value and will thrive if not interfered with. Social policies keep people from succeeding far too much. Without any civil rights laws beyond the 14th amendment, people of all colors thrived where government protected the citizens and their property

The only thing the government is good at is writing checks. The only thing.

I believe in separation of government and economy. The government has no compelling interest in knowing about every check you write or deposit. The bust/boom economic cycles are always directly traceable to government interference.

I believe in open borders. Fully open. Let all the people come who want to, and let our people go wherever they want to. Just no free government shit for anyone who comes here. Only when they contribute their fair share (pay taxes, obey the laws, etc.) should non citizens be able to access our social services.

I believe government should be good stewards of the taxpayers' money and should not be a reckless overspender. Deficits are acceptable - borrowing to build a bridge or some other public work makes sense, and the government issues bonds to pay for those things. And pays them off. Government shouldn't be borrowing to pay its payroll (among too numerous other things), which is what it's doing now. In accounting or business terms, you borrow for capital improvements and own an asset in the process.

The Constitution is the by-laws by which our government operates. It's not some set of guidelines to be changed or ignored by whim. It spells out a weak federal system, not one where unelected appointees and committees of unelected appointees rule our daily lives.

The by-laws call for unprecedented and immutable right to privacy. The government is so evil at this point that it must control us and spy on us to accomplish that objective.

I have no issues with the Libertarian policies. I am extremely liberal, perhaps the most liberal person you will run into. Liberal doesn't mean progressive, it means empowering the individual and not regulating the shit out of everyone and everything. The reason I'm not a Republican is that they are nowhere near liberal enough on the social issues (fuck Jeff Sessions). The reason I'm not a Democrat is that they are all about Statism, directly and diametrically opposed to everything I believe in.

Go Blazers!
 
crandc said:
So, jonnyboy, you know better than the woman? You know better than her doctor? Her family? The clergyperson she prayed with? You are going to force a woman who learns the fetus has no brain, or no joints, or no heart valves, that she must go through pregnancy and labor with attendant risk to give birth to a child who either will not live or will live in total pain and dysfunction? You will force a woman to give birth to a Tay-Sachs child who will die in agony before age 2? If you are not carrying the pregnancy it is not your fucking business. You don't now what the fuck you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You invented a very rare circumstance and proceeded to say I was against it. I said NOTHING regarding any complications or extenuating circumstances. You are a shitty debater who uses strawman arguments to make your point. Who is this woman? Who is her doctor? What in the actual fuck are you talking about?

Millions of babies get aborted and only a tiny fraction of them are the result of rape or a medical complication.

Next time the woman, the doctor and the clergyman walk into a bar, ask them about the other 99% of healthy fetuses that end up in medical waste containers.
 
I'm intrigued by the dichotomy that seems espoused by Planned Parenthood adherents and others:

If a 32-y/o man has sex with a 14-y/o girl (I think I saw this in a thread recently), then it's pedophilia and statutory rape and illegal b/c there's no way that a 14y/o can give even give consent to have sex with his/her body.
If, for whatever reason, that 14 y/o girl becomes pregnant as a result of said encounter, she has complete control and autonomy over her body and needs no one's permission or consent to remove a set of cells/fetus/baby/whatever from her body. She's the ultimate arbiter of what happens with her body. She (and only she) can give consent on what happens or doesn't happen with her body.

:dunno:
 
BrianFromWA said:
I'm intrigued by the dichotomy that seems espoused by Planned Parenthood adherents and others:

If a 32-y/o man has sex with a 14-y/o girl (I think I saw this in a thread recently), then it's pedophilia and statutory rape and illegal b/c there's no way that a 14y/o can give even give consent to have sex with his/her body.
If, for whatever reason, that 14 y/o girl becomes pregnant as a result of said encounter, she has complete control and autonomy over her body and needs no one's permission or consent to remove a set of cells/fetus/baby/whatever from her body. She's the ultimate arbiter of what happens with her body. She (and only she) can give consent on what happens or doesn't happen with her body.

:dunno:
Click to expand...
They just don't admit when feelings overrule logic. Logically you're absolutely correct about that. I feel like a 32 year old man with a 14 year old girl is disgusting. If I were a 14 year old boy sleeping with a cute 32 year old women it would have been awesome. The 14 year old girl might even want a 32 year old guy. Don't care, it should be illegal.

I literally wish I'd had a group of hot 20 and 30 and 40 year old women taking advantage of me when I was 14. If I had a son and found out, I'd be jealous of him. If it were my 14 year old daughter I'd go to prison.

I think I rambled on a bit daydreaming about my 14 year old self getting to do that. I hope I made my point.
 
MarAzul said:
Spoken like a true dumb fuck.
Click to expand...
If you’re ok with the government controlling every aspect of your life, even your chance to make an honest living because of a plant that has thousands of uses -

Well, like I said, you speak like a true cuck.

Keep suckin the (Federal) guvments dick old cuck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top