If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politicker)   Who would have thought that the man who banned large cups of soda would have a knee jerk reaction to the Boston bombers and want to re-interpret the Constitution?   (politicker.com) divider line 177
    More: Scary, organizations, Boston, emotional reaction, Michael Bloomberg, judicial interpretation  
•       •       •

12140 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2013 at 9:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-23 03:52:17 PM
Bloomberg hates freedom and America.

Silverstaff: BojanglesPaladin: "Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

Yeah Bloomberg. People like YOU.

I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than a couple of random Chechens who decided to have a DIY jihad.

I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than some random Taliban fighter off in Afghanistan fighting because his family needs to be fed and it was the only job he could find.

I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than a ten thousand DPRK soldiers who would run out of food, fuel and ammo within a day if they tried to attack.


Going to have to agree with you there.

Blloomberg hates America an the principals it was founded on.

I would also add the Banksters who created more damage to this country than even Bin Laden.
 
2013-04-23 03:54:28 PM

id10ts: I say again: FARK Bloomberg!


repeat
 
2013-04-23 04:12:24 PM
This sad little man really has a problem with freedom.
 
2013-04-23 04:39:45 PM

Smackledorfer: Take the security blanket comment he makes: if I read it as written, then anyone who supports a criminal law system is a baby needing a blanket.


He did not mention the criminal justice system and he is NOT calling for a removal of the criminal law system, like you seem to be arguing against. So you aren't taking issue with what was written, you are taking issue with what you thihnk is meant, and clearly you aren;t doing a great job of that as many people have clarified and corrected that no one is advocating against any government authority or a lawless society.

Smackledorfer: If people would stop using language that states it, I would stop accusing them of making those points.


Again, neither Benjamin Franklin's quote nor those of most other posters here are calling for an absolutist dichotomy between anarchy and oppression. I think most everyone here understands that there is a balance between liberty and safety, you seem to be the only one insisting that other people don't understand the distinction. So insisting that they are wrong to suggest what they aren't saying is... well I don't know.. pointless?

But you know what? Feel free. Forget I said anything at all. You can say I'm just dead wrong, and maybe I am. You can ignore me completely with my blessing. No hard feelings, I just don't care enough about your interaction with other posters to keep getting drug into it.

So I won't say anything about what you post to someone else on this thread, and you can stop posting to me and bob's yer uncle and we all ride off into the sunset on rainbow farting unicorns.

And that is always fun.
 
2013-04-23 04:46:21 PM
I think the question is not, "Is Bloomberg mentally ill", but "What variety(ies) of mental illness does Bloomberg have?"
 
2013-04-23 05:04:31 PM

Smackledorfer: Bravo Two: How plain must I be?

I accept that you made errors in language with your initial ben franklin misquote and your later post, to repeat the same poor phrasing a third time is the opposite of plain.  At this point you are deliberately stating things poorly.

Bravo Two: i think he's confusing agreed-upon behavioral restrictions by way of agreeing certain behaviors are off limits with rights restrictions based upon allowing governmental entities the authority to knowingly violate the spirit of said rights in the name of sniffing for criminals and terrorists.

No, the confusion is yours.

What I am saying is that the 'agreed-upon behavioral restrictions' ARE an infringement on liberty.  I don't see how anyone could think they aren't.  And with them being one, I am insisting that we stop playing the silly game of typing generic and meaningless platitudes, as well as stupidly written insults like  Bravo Two:I liken those who argue we must accept limitations on freedom for "Security" to a child given a security blanket by a parent and told it keeps out all the bad things.
 What you seem to want is to have it both ways: you want to be able to repeatedly, not once, not twice, but thrice, say that we don't have to give up liberties to be secure, and yet we obviously do.
 Bravo Two: The point I keep trying to get through to you, which you either accidentally or willfully ignore, is that the types of reasonable restrictions and exceptions we conceived of do not equate to preemptively limiting the extent to which people enjoy freedoms.  In general, we basically say do what you please so long as it does not harm others, and does not involve certain things that we agree are evil.
Which would be fine if you stopped repeatedly making stupidly inaccurate statements that run contrary to that. I guess we may have to agree to disagree, but to me it is both inaccurate and misleading to type things like "liberty" and "freedom" and then simply redefine the words as you need to af ...


So what do you want me to say? I honestly do think that inside of the ground rules, anyone who willingly subjects themselves to invasive behavior by your "protectors" to feel safe is akin to a child demanding a security blanket to protect you from the big bad scary monsters.

Don't get me wrong, monsters exist, and there exists a barrier between them and you. But when that security blanket is pierced, rather than recognize that the blanket is imperfect and living with it, we keep begging uncle sugar to do more to stop the bad guys, to the point that we then turn on each other because things scare us.

Now, can you point out exactly what I've said that's stupidly inaccurate? I quoted a Ben Franklin quote as it came up on google. Shame on me for not getting the exact quote, and instead a paraphrased one.  But you keep insisting on this like somehow the criminal justice system breaks into your home, reads your mail, and forces the citizen to jump through hoops in order to live and exercise their rights. They don't, They exist and only bother us or get involved when you step out of the bounds of the law.

If you feel that what I've said means I am talking in absolutes, I'm not. All I want to convey is that the government gets to patrol the outside world, and what I do on my own time in my own life in my own home is mine and mine alone to govern, and I have specifically enumerated rights (and responsibilities) that I am granted when I'm in public.  I fully recognize and admit that there are some laws that must exist that are balanced against my liberty -- robbery, rape and murder laws, for example. However, i see a basic and distinct difference between agreeing on punishments for certain behaviors (we don't go out of our way to prevent these behaviors from happening, otherwise we'd have to confine everyone and keep everyone away from everyone else) on the honor system that you don't do it, and you won't get punished.

Up until the patriot act, we had no laws that abridged the rights of citizens to the degree that we actively allowed the government to exercise powers against private citizens without a warrant or due cause.

I don't know how else I can explain myself and not be making "stupidly inaccurate statements" because I keep saying the goddamn same things and you keep reading it differently. I GET THAT WE HAVE SOME INFRINGEMENT NECESSARY AS A SOCIETY SINCE WE CANNOT GO OUT AND LITERALLY DO EVERYTHING WE WANT. HOWEVER, WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS, PEOPLE RESPECTED THE FACT THAT UNLESS WE WERE HURTING SOMEONE ELSE, A PERSON COULD PRETTY MUCH DO WHATEVER THE fark THEY WANTED TO WITHOUT SOME SNOOPING BUSYBODY GETTING HER PANTIES IN A WAD AND DEMANDING ACTION. NOW, YOU LEAVE ME ALONE TO DO WHAT I DO AND I'LL LEAVE YOU ALONE TO DO THE SAME, AND LONG AS WE DON'T HURT EACH OTHER, THEN I WON'T GIVE A FLYING shiat WHAT YOU DO, WHO YOU fark, OR WHAT YOU SAY TO ANYONE IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR E-MAIL, PHONE, OR MAIL.
 
2013-04-23 06:09:38 PM
What is it with people who want to give up MY rights?

/pussies
 
2013-04-23 07:48:20 PM

Burr: jaybeezey: will still vote him in the next elections

Question for NYC farkers.  Has he done any good while elected?  Like, improved schools, cleaned up the city?


He increased the debt by about $55 billion if that counts for anything.
 
2013-04-23 08:28:40 PM

swangoatman: like unlawful search and seizure. WARNING video not for the faint of heart or liberals in denial.
however: WE got ya covered:


reminds me of what another group did to their citizens in the late 30s to early 40s when searching for undesirables.
 
2013-04-23 09:00:57 PM

HotWingConspiracy: propasaurus: So, how is what Bloomberg said any different from what Lindsay graham said?

Exactly, and we're talking Senator vs. Mayor.

Also, when did we start pretending that conservatives give a shiat about constitutional protections? I'm thinking Jan 2009.


Are you kidding? That's the main difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want mob rule (a democracy), and Republicans want rule of law (a republic).

I kind of get your point though, the neocons sort of blew that all out of the water. But fark neocons...
 
2013-04-23 09:32:10 PM

life of the sausage party: FTA, he said, ""Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

He should have disappeared in a puff of logic.

/It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife...




Reminds me of this guy.
i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-23 09:35:20 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Smackledorfer: Unless one lives in an anarchistic society with no justice system whatsoever, there will always be an infringement on freedoms in favor of security.

Clearly you have bever encountered complex concepts like "rational middle ground". Neither Ben Franklin nor (presumably) the poster was presupposing absolutes. Your comments are themselves pointless unless either the quote or its usage implies a choice between absolute insecurity or absolute lack of freedom, which it does not.


I don't notice being any safer in the last 15 years. Where is all this safety I'm supposed to be getting? I'm not seeing it.
 
2013-04-23 10:45:11 PM

fartacus: Are you kidding? That's the main difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want mob rule (a democracy), and Republicans want rule of law (a republic).


Say what?

Democrats want a government that helps and is for the benefit of the American people as a whole.  A little misguided at times, like on gun control, but the idea is for government to help society as a whole.

Republicans want a government that is run by and for the benefit of corporations and affluent white, heterosexual Christian males.  Everybody else can DIAF as far as they are concerned.
 
2013-04-23 10:50:18 PM
floppingaces.net
 
BBH
2013-04-23 11:03:52 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.


Because he has armed guards.
 
2013-04-24 12:22:33 AM
*KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH* *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*  *KRONCH*
 
2013-04-24 11:51:13 AM

Bravo Two: DarkSoulNoHope: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

Done in one.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

That is the correct quote.


Still awesome from Franklin. I wish we had politicians of his courage these days.
 
2013-04-24 12:53:25 PM

StoPPeRmobile: I don't notice being any safer in the last 15 years. Where is all this safety I'm supposed to be getting? I'm not seeing it


I have No idea. Nor do I have any idea why you are asking me - I don't have it :)
 
2013-04-24 01:21:40 PM

Silverstaff: fartacus: Are you kidding? That's the main difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want mob rule (a democracy), and Republicans want rule of law (a republic).

Say what?

Democrats want a government that helps and is for the benefit of the American people as a whole.  A little misguided at times, like on gun control, but the idea is for government to help society as a whole.

Republicans want a government that is run by and for the benefit of corporations and affluent white, heterosexual Christian males.  Everybody else can DIAF as far as they are concerned.


And there you go, showing your ignorant liberal bias.

Democrats want a large and constantly expanding government that intrudes upon every aspect of private life. Republicans want a small government, with function limited to protecting individual liberty, defending the country from outside threats, and doing only those few things that cannot reasonably be taken care of by private enterprise; limited, of course, to those powers enumerated by the constitution.

Democrats believe that what's yours is mine, and that excessive taxation is patriotic. Republicans believe that taxation is a necessary evil, and that excessive taxation is a form of tyranny.
 
2013-04-24 01:37:16 PM

fartacus: Silverstaff: fartacus: Are you kidding? That's the main difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want mob rule (a democracy), and Republicans want rule of law (a republic).

Say what?

Democrats want a government that helps and is for the benefit of the American people as a whole.  A little misguided at times, like on gun control, but the idea is for government to help society as a whole.

Republicans want a government that is run by and for the benefit of corporations and affluent white, heterosexual Christian males.  Everybody else can DIAF as far as they are concerned.

And there you go, showing your ignorant liberal bias.

Democrats want a large and constantly expanding government that intrudes upon every aspect of private life. Republicans want a small government, (1) with function limited to protecting individual liberty (2), defending the country from outside threats (3), and doing only those few things that cannot reasonably be taken care of by private enterprise (4); limited, of course, to those powers enumerated by the constitution.

Democrats believe that what's yours is mine, and that excessive taxation is patriotic. Republicans believe that taxation is a necessary evil, and that excessive taxation is a form of tyranny.


I dont necessarily disagree with you about the left, but...

1. Record deficit under last few republican administrations.

2. War on drugs, homosexuals and women.

3. War in Iraq.

4. Charter schools, wanting private police and fire services, wanting to do things like disband the FDA...
 
2013-04-24 01:44:04 PM

fartacus: Democrats want a large and constantly expanding government that intrudes upon every aspect of private life. Republicans want a small government, with function limited to protecting individual liberty, defending the country from outside threats, and doing only those few things that cannot reasonably be taken care of by private enterprise; limited, of course, to those powers enumerated by the constitution.


Republicans want government so small it can fit into your uterus, and your bedroom.

They want to regulate who you can marry and what kind of gynecological procedures you can get, all kinds of things.

They only talk about "small government" when it means deregulating the economy so corporations can get more power.  They want a government with dictatorial control of the lives of everyday people, for "morality" and "family values".

Don't pretend the Republican Party wants individual liberty.  They've gone far out of their way over the last decade or so to strip liberty apart, either in the name of "family values" or in the name of "fighting terrorism".  They don't want liberty, they want The Christian States of America, Incorporated.

Yeah, sure, Republicans only want things that are explicitly in the Constitution.  That's why a Republican administration gave us the Department of Homeland Security.

They want public services stripped down, gutted and turned into for-profit machines that exist to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.  It's how we ended up with the disgrace of for-profit prisons in this country (and the "cash for kids" scandal in Pennsylvania, with a corrupt Judge taking kickbacks from a prison company to send as many kids as possible to prison, because of the profit motive to incarcerate as many as possible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal)

No, Republicans don't care about deficits or "small government" when they are in power, they never have, EVER.  That's when they spend like no tomorrow and create new bureaucracies to increase state power.  Then when they are the minority party they start to harp on about how they are defenders of individual liberty and freedom.
 
2013-04-24 02:32:02 PM

Cyno01: fartacus: Silverstaff: fartacus: Are you kidding? That's the main difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want mob rule (a democracy), and Republicans want rule of law (a republic).

Say what?

Democrats want a government that helps and is for the benefit of the American people as a whole.  A little misguided at times, like on gun control, but the idea is for government to help society as a whole.

Republicans want a government that is run by and for the benefit of corporations and affluent white, heterosexual Christian males.  Everybody else can DIAF as far as they are concerned.

And there you go, showing your ignorant liberal bias.

Democrats want a large and constantly expanding government that intrudes upon every aspect of private life. Republicans want a small government, (1) with function limited to protecting individual liberty (2), defending the country from outside threats (3), and doing only those few things that cannot reasonably be taken care of by private enterprise (4); limited, of course, to those powers enumerated by the constitution.

Democrats believe that what's yours is mine, and that excessive taxation is patriotic. Republicans believe that taxation is a necessary evil, and that excessive taxation is a form of tyranny.

I dont necessarily disagree with you about the left, but...

1. Record deficit under last few republican administrations.

2. War on drugs, homosexuals and women.

3. War in Iraq.

4. Charter schools, wanting private police and fire services, wanting to do things like disband the FDA...


As I pointed out earlier, I'm no fan of neocons, and the Republicans have drifted pretty far from their roots, but:
1. The executive branch doesn't control the purse strings
2. There is no war on homosexuals and women, any more than there is a war on the family or on Christianity.
3. It was a stupid war, but national defense is a legitimate function of government
4. I see nothing wrong with that. The FDA certainly needs reforming. Schools and fire services are/should be a state/local concern anyway, not a national one.
 
2013-04-24 03:11:29 PM

Silverstaff: fartacus: Democrats want a large and constantly expanding government that intrudes upon every aspect of private life. Republicans want a small government, with function limited to protecting individual liberty, defending the country from outside threats, and doing only those few things that cannot reasonably be taken care of by private enterprise; limited, of course, to those powers enumerated by the constitution.

Republicans want government so small it can fit into your uterus, and your bedroom.


No, they just don't want abortion to be a protected right. I'm pro-choice, but anti Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers do have a legitimate argument, even if I don't agree with them. And abortions certainly shouldn't be subsidized using taxes.

They want to regulate who you can marry and what kind of gynecological procedures you can get, all kinds of things.

No, they just don't want marriage redefined. Many Republicans are fine with gay marriage, including all the federal benefits of marriage. But marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is between two people of the same sex.

They only talk about "small government" when it means deregulating the economy so corporations can get more power.  They want a government with dictatorial control of the lives of everyday people, for "morality" and "family values".

Wow, it's amazing how you can read minds. I can too... Democrats want a tyranny of the majority, where minorities just have to go along with the mob, with no individual liberty.

Don't pretend the Republican Party wants individual liberty.  They've gone far out of their way over the last decade or so to strip liberty apart, either in the name of "family values" or in the name of "fighting terrorism".  They don't want liberty, they want The Christian States of America, Incorporated.

Bullshiat. The Democrats are doing an equally fine job of trying to strip individual liberty in the name of safety and income equality. The Democrats want the Democratic Socialist States of America, where all is owned by the state, and individual rights no longer exist.

Yeah, sure, Republicans only want things that are explicitly in the Constitution.  That's why a Republican administration gave us the Department of Homeland Security.

They want public services stripped down, gutted and turned into for-profit machines that exist to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.  It's how we ended up with the disgrace of for-profit prisons in this country (and the "cash for kids" scandal in Pennsylvania, with a corrupt Judge taking kickbacks from a prison company to send as many kids as possible to prison, because of the profit motive to incarcerate as many as possible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal)

No, Republicans don't care about deficits or "small government" when they are in power, they never have, EVER.  That's when they spend like no tomorrow and create new bureaucraci ...


And now you're totally off the rails...
 
2013-04-24 03:22:12 PM

ginkor: "What variety(ies) of mental illness does Bloomberg have?"


He's delussional.  He thinks he is my mommy.
 
2013-04-24 03:41:22 PM

fartacus: No, they just don't want abortion to be a protected right.


Which is intruding into others' private lives, which you claimed only Democrats wanted to do... Don't forget they also tried to outlaw gay sex, until the Supreme Court set them straight (no pun intended)...

No, they just don't want marriage redefined.

Yeah, just like these guys didn't!

i651.photobucket.com

Bullshiat. The Democrats are doing an equally fine job of trying to strip individual liberty in the name of safety and income equality. The Democrats want the Democratic Socialist States of America, where all is owned by the state, and individual rights no longer exist.

Both sides are bad, so vote Republican?

/I do so wish there were a sane, viable third party choice in America...
//As it is, we all tend to agree both parties do suck, but think one sucks marginally less than the other depending on our leanings on certain things...
 
2013-04-24 04:40:47 PM

RobSeace: fartacus: No, they just don't want abortion to be a protected right.

Which is intruding into others' private lives, which you claimed only Democrats wanted to do... Don't forget they also tried to outlaw gay sex, until the Supreme Court set them straight (no pun intended)...


No, it's not intruding into other's private lives. It's simply acknowledging that abortion is an ugly subject with lots of grey area, that some people have very good reasons for being against it, while others have very good reasons for being pro-choice. It's really something that should be up to states and localities. I.e. abortion should neither be federally abolished nor protected, and it certainly shouldn't be taxpayer subsidized.

No, they just don't want marriage redefined.

Yeah, just like these guys didn't!

[i651.photobucket.com image 850x563]


Actually, those are two entirely different situations. As long as the federal government treats individuals the same regardless of sexual orientation, race, etc., then the federal government's job is done.

Bullshiat. The Democrats are doing an equally fine job of trying to strip individual liberty in the name of safety and income equality. The Democrats want the Democratic Socialist States of America, where all is owned by the state, and individual rights no longer exist.

Both sides are bad, so vote Republican?


Yes, both parties suck. I just prefer conservative ideals to liberal ones.

/I do so wish there were a sane, viable third party choice in America...
//As it is, we all tend to agree both parties do suck, but think one sucks marginally less than the other depending on our leanings on certain things...


We're in agreement; you prefer the giant douche, while I prefer the turd sandwich.
 
2013-04-24 05:18:30 PM

fartacus: No, it's not intruding into other's private lives.


Being personally opposed to abortion is not necessarily intruding in others' private lives, no... But, wanting there to be a law against abortion certainly is! One may think it's a valid intrusion for some reason, but it's certainly intrusion nonetheless...

It's really something that should be up to states and localities.

I would like to agree, in theory... In theory, I'm a fan of the conservative "states rights" rhetoric a lot of the time... But, in practice a lot of the time, that results in oppression of some group or other, which seems utterly unfair... Sure, they could move to different states, I suppose... But, lots of people don't really have that as a practical option...

For something like marijuana laws, I'd agree with the states rights POV... Anyone "oppressed" by such laws aren't really all that truly oppressed... But, for something like abortion, we know for a fact that if it's outlawed somewhere, there will be women dying needlessly due to shoddy illegal procedures, so it just seems horribly wrong to allow that to happen...

As long as the federal government treats individuals the same regardless of sexual orientation, race, etc., then the federal government's job is done.

Yeah, and the problem is they're not currently doing that... That's what the current DOMA SCOTUS case is about! (I'm pretty confident the outcome of that will be that they will be forced to treat them the same, though...)

We're in agreement; you prefer the giant douche, while I prefer the turd sandwich.

Heh. I suppose so...
 
Displayed 27 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report