TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 I think he's got you dead on, Mr. The South was fighting for freedom! The South was fighting for State's Rights, which serve to protect freedom as a check on federal over-reach. No one here has ever argued that slavery was good, or that it didn't diminish cries of "fighting for freedom" during that snap-shot in history because of the blatant hypocrisies present in claiming you love freedom while owning slaves. The argument is, and has always been, that the existence of institutional slavery two centuries ago does not invalidate, or even begin to paint, the concept of empowered small local government as anti-freedom.
GG Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 no, i truly get it: liberty is good when it results in personal advantages for me, reqardless of the harm it might do to others liberty. the whole movement, as represented ad nauseam here, can be described in one word: selfish. Define selfish
DC Tom Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 no, i truly get it: liberty is good when it results in personal advantages for me, reqardless of the harm it might do to others liberty. the whole movement, as represented ad nauseam here, can be described in one word: selfish. Yes, I'm selfish for wanting gays to be able to get married, and for wanting Christians to not be required to bake wedding cakes for them.
Magox Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 Define selfish Why bother? He's so ideologically imprisoned with his beliefs that he is incapable of seeing anything outside of his tiny world view. Don't get me wrong, there are others here and pretty much everywhere that live within the confines of their ideology as well, but BD's view is so dismissive and makes the most inane arguments to attempt to support his views that he ends up turning more people off than helping people see the sake's of his beliefs.
IDBillzFan Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 Don't get me wrong, there are others here and pretty much everywhere that live within the confines of their ideology as well, but BD's view is so dismissive and makes the most inane arguments to attempt to support his views that he ends up turning more people off than helping people see the sake's of his beliefs. It's not that he's wrong. It's that you haven't read enough Steinbeck.
Gary M Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 Is this a sign that Hillary is in real trouble? gore is thinking about throwing his hat in the ring! http://www.ijreview.com/2015/08/392746-familiar-face-beginning-make-noise-potential-2016-run-democratic-nomination/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Politics
birdog1960 Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) People such as yourself do more harm for the causes you support than good. the incorrect assumption being that your conversion from the dark side is my objective. gave up on that long ago. it's about the fight. It's not that he's wrong. It's that you haven't read enough Steinbeck. that's pretty funny, if not totally accurate Edited August 14, 2015 by birdog1960
Magox Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 the incorrect assumption being that your conversion from the dark side is my object. gave up on that long ago. it's about the fight.ive that's pretty funny, if not totally accurate Whatever you want to call it, you represent your "side" poorly.
/dev/null Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 Is this a sign that Hillary is in real trouble? gore is thinking about throwing his hat in the ring! http://www.ijreview.com/2015/08/392746-familiar-face-beginning-make-noise-potential-2016-run-democratic-nomination/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Politics
truth on hold Posted August 15, 2015 Posted August 15, 2015 really? we're down to physical attractiveness as a qualification? i'm guessing abe lincoln wouldn't have earned yall's vote. otoh, it does explain reagan's the popularity among cons. who ever said cons were superficial?
IDBillzFan Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 I loved Hillary's joke this weekend that she loves Snapchat because it automatically deletes all your emails. I'm certain that's just the kind of line that brings great confidence to her supporters. Can you feel the Bern?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 Oh yes, please, baby Jesus. PLEASE LET AL GORE RUN
IDBillzFan Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 Number of classified emails up to 300. Any more Snapchat jokes, Shrillery?
Doc Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 And she's still the leader among Dems. Proving that Dems are batshit crazy.
IDBillzFan Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 This is brutal. I'm starting to wonder if Hillary will really be able to get over all this. It's time to feel the Bern!
4merper4mer Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 And she's still the leader among Dems. Proving that Dems are batshit crazy. I don't understand that phrase. All animals poop. Why are bats the only ones deemed crazy like that?
....lybob Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 Emails released on July 31 by the U.S. State Department reveal more about the origins of energy reform efforts in Mexico. The State Department released them as part of the once-a-month rolling release schedule for emails generated by former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now a Democratic presidential candidate. Originally stored on a private server, with Clinton and her closest advisors using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton’s State Department helped to break state-owned company Pemex‘s (Petroleos Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton, now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped create. The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clinton_state_department_emails_mexico_energy_reform_20150813 This is one of the reasons the rich and corporations should pay more taxes because they get government services the average guy doesn't get.
IDBillzFan Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clinton_state_department_emails_mexico_energy_reform_20150813 This is one of the reasons the rich and corporations should pay more taxes because they get government services the average guy doesn't get. So you want to increase taxes on ALL rich people and ALL corporations because the Clintons are making a bunch of people very rich with back door deals? How much more should we tax them all? I only ask because they'll want to know...so when they cut the next Clinton-special back door deal, they increase their fees enough to cover the additional taxes. I swear it's like Romper Room with some of you progs. At some point you need to realize that "tax everyone more" is not the solution to every single problem your party creates.
B-Man Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 ACTUAL CNN HEADLINE: HILLARY CLINTON REVIVED AMERICAS REPUTATION IN WORLD. Yet another reminder that as in 2008, the Democratic operatives with bylines at Time-Warner-CNN-HBO will be going all-in to get their partys boss over the finish line http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/212722/
Recommended Posts