patrick.net

HydroCabron says

Could it be that "libertarians" show a special respect for the views of Christianist fanatics because they secretly identify with them?

No. But because right-wing or religious fanatics always have been proponents of small government. You can't put up a big government apparatschik with the religious rednecks, never worked and it will never work. That's were they identify with each other. The left however cannot have a big enough government steering every last bit of an individual's life. Racist or gendrist thoughts? Let the government help you with your thought crime. God is too much of a variable in the equation of the leftist big government system. That's the main reason for libertarians for feeling closer to the religious right.

mell says

But because right-wing or religious fanatics always have been proponents of small government.

To those looking to purchase cold beer in Oklahoma, buy a car on Sunday in Colorado, or have an abortion in Jesusland, this statement is bizarre.

thunderlips11 says

Interesting...

It's very bad for Hillary. Who has the 33,000 personal emails?

Yes - this will blow this election wide open.

Once the Bernie supporters, much closer to Trump ideologically than to Clinton, catch wind of this, Trump will be swept to victory!

And then Trump, whose heirs swear to us that he thinks of the working man daily, will do great works on our behalf.

Trump will destroy ISIS while ending overseas wars!

Fuck Cruz, he is the kind of asshole I'm talking about.

The rules of chess have not changed in many hundreds of years. The constitution is 240 years old and has needed to change many times. If it was so great then why does it need to change?

It puts a huge amount of power in the presidency. When new countries form a constitution they usually pattern themselves after the English form of government.

By the perspective of the framers a congressman should not represent more than a 30,000 or 40,000 which would mean that congress today would have to have 10,000 members. So not very workable.

It the framers favor the senators were originally appointed by the states, this is important because it forms more of a republic and counters the tyranny of the majority (now Lips will say that no senator has been taken back by the state since the 17 amendment was passed, which somehow in his mind negates the importance of appointed senators)

States should be allowed to secede in order to keep the central authority from becoming too powerful. Barring this at the very least states should nullify fed mandates or executive orders.

The bottom line is that the individual should have liberty and rights, not to be encumbered by the government and to able to pursue his goals. As it is the individual is squashed by a centralized government, that does not even recognize him at all.

thunderlips11 says

She was also supposed to turn over the all her work-related emails for record keeping (period, end of story, regardless of where kept) prior to leaving office.

No the federal records act and the national archive act didn't have a time frame specified until the amendment of 2014. Which should have been called the hillary clinton amendment. The lack of the statute detailing a specific time frame is what made hillary technically in compliance with the law. She was still reviewing her emails 5 years later fully intending to get them out to the state department on the twelve of never.

mell says

But because right-wing or religious fanatics always have been proponents of small government.

Then why does the government grow so much when right wing fanatics are in power? Seems they are only proponents when seeking office, not after gaining office.

bob2356 says

No the federal records act and the national archive act didn't have a time frame specified until the amendment of 2014. Which should have been called the hillary clinton amendment. The lack of the statute detailing a specific time frame is what made hillary technically in compliance with the law. She was still reviewing her emails 5 years later fully intending to get them out to the state department on the twelve of never.

That explains some things... Doesn't make it right, but it explains how 2+2=lamp in this situation.

HydroCabron says

If that were true, "libertarians" wouldn't argue with those who believe in expanding the power of the Federal Reserve, or banning gold ownership outright; both of these views are protected by the First Amendment.

How do figure those are religions?

bob2356 says

Then why does the government grow so much when right wing fanatics are in power?

Not that Republicans are anything to brag about, got some data to that end?

indigenous says

How do figure those are religions?

Those views are protected by the First Amendment, which does not explicitly restrict free-speech protection to religious matters.

(I made the mistake of taking you seriously once in 2013 or so. I think I'm beginning to remember how much a regretted doing so at that time.)

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Then why does the government grow so much when right wing fanatics are in power?

Not that Republicans are anything to brag about, got some data to that end?

The federal budget. Go look it up.

HydroCabron says

I made the mistake of taking you seriously once in 2013 or so.

Back at ya

bob2356 says

Then why does the government grow so much when right wing fanatics are in power?

Then why does the government grow so much when left wing fanatics are in power? LBJ, FDR, Carter, Obummer, Wilson

HydroCabron says

Once the Bernie supporters, much closer to Trump ideologically than to Clinton, catch wind of this, Trump will be swept to victory!

I think between the "How can we use Bernie's Jew Yorker-Atheism against him" and the nomination of TPP and Wall St. friendly Tim Kaine, not to mention the defeat of the Superdelegate Amendment, to thinking that a nasty screed by Jennifer "Warpig" Rubin in the WaPo will hurt Trump, Bernie Fanboys are just champing at the bit to vote for Hillary.

Kaine, that's a name the Marketing Campaign can have fun with. Plus the association. It was who with Abel?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-democrats-rigged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Then why does the government grow so much when right wing fanatics are in power?

Then why does the government grow so much when left wing fanatics are in power? LBJ, FDR, Carter, Obummer, Wilson

Reality doesn't really impinge on your thinking much does it? Funny that the government grew more under champions of smaller government like Reagan and Shrub than under left wing fanatics like Obummer, LBJ, Carter or Clinton. The point, which you fail to comprehend, was the right wing is always saying they want smaller government, until they get in power. Then there is a roman orgy of defence spending and corporate welfare without cutting anything else except taxes for the wealthy. What is even funnier is the mindless sheeple worshipping at the alter of conservatism, like you, actually believe the right wing fanatics cut the size government. The modern conservative movement exists only to enrich the 1% who are laughing all the way to the bank about sucking in the rubes with "fair and balanced" fear mongering about god, guns, anyone non white, and "big" government. Big being defined as any money not spent making the 1% wealthier.

DNC donor kills horses for insurance money:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578

DNC is upset that their "allies" didn't send in protestors so they sent out interns.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366

bob2356 says

Reality doesn't really impinge on your thinking much does it?

Back at ya. I'm against the defense spending as well. But the real problem is in the legacy of the left wing jackasses. Things like medicare, social security, obummer care, the federal department of homeland security, energy, education, epa, etc etc etc.

That is where government grows exponentially

indigenous says

Back at ya. I'm against the defense spending as well. But the real problem is in the legacy of the left wing jackasses. Things like medicare, social security, obummer care, the federal department of homeland security, energy, education, epa, etc etc etc.

Whatever dude. Pull your head out of the mises asshole. Left or right they all spend and spend. The only difference is the right wing sheeple have been indoctrinated by the people pocketing the money while laughing their asses off to believe the "real problem" is spending by the left. Spending by the right isn't "real" government spending. You prove my point time and time again. baa,baa,baa.

bob2356 says

Whatever dude. Pull your head out of the mises asshole.

Pull your head out of your asshole.

The reason for the entitlement crisis is only because of what I have pointed out. Americans are experiencing compound government growth because of the democrat legacy, not to mention that the major wars have been started by democrats save one which was started by Bush who was really another democrat.

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/presidential-spending-expenditures-by-year/

TD, welcome back to 2010. It's pretty nice here, huh? You should definitely buy some CA real estate and stocks. I mean, seriously. Take a fucking loan or something. Whatever it takes.

indigenous says

one which was started by Bush who was really another democrat.

There are so few Scotsmen these days.

Just to make the point more clear to the dimbulbs: Obama inherited a huge government deficit with an expense to GDP ratio in the low 40s. The expense to GDP ratio is now back down to 34%.

If Trump is elected, it's going way the fuck up. He's planning on tricking as many investors as possible before defaulting.

TD's chart indicates the spending is quite similiar.

But entitlements were all brought to you by democrats. Nothing better to a politician to commit to spending that will not come due on his watch. Obama is on the short list for doing that.

All but one of the wars were started by democrats.

YesYNot says

TD, welcome back to 2010. It's pretty nice here, huh?

Fair enough. I just liked the visual. It's easy to understand. I wish I could find one like this that runs all the way out to 2016. But I think it actually proves your point even though it doesn't go to 2016. So, you're welcome. It shows that spending increases, period.

So, why don't you stop assuming that I'm incapable to looking at information objectively and crafting all your responses around the premise that my position MUST be the opposite of what you were trying to say. And I will try to find a simple, easy to understand graph that goes further out than 2010. K? Also, I think the breakdown of types of spending are interesting... but overall it goes up.

It's so terribly unfair how the voters rigged the election by giving Clinton more votes.

It's a conspiracy.

indigenous says

TD's chart indicates the spending is quite similiar.

Exactly. You'd think Yes would have appreciate that level of objectivity. It's like you cannot get credit for anything... even when you are stipulating to parts of their very own arguments. Rs & Ls are just so evil, we must be up to something. And yes, the breakdown IS very interesting.

DNC HAS COLLUDED WITH THE MEDIA

turtledove says

So, why don't you stop assuming that I'm incapable to looking at information objectively

Fair enough.

You posted a chart with no commentary. The chart highlights that Obama has the highest expense to GDP ratio, so I figured that was one of the points that the chart creator was making. If you want to use the chart to make some other point, you should probably post some commentary, or I am going to misinterpret your point.

As far as the last 4 years go, if you don't know that the deficit has gone down and the expense to GDP ratio has gone down, please read up on Obama's economic accomplishments. I didn't know off-hand what the expense to GDP ratio has done, but I do know that he cut the deficit in half, which means that the GDP (base for taxes) has been growing more than spending. It was very quick to look up the expense to GDP ratio to quantify things.

They are mostly in an echo chamber looking to be patted on the head for saying the right things to demonstrate their loyalty.

@ChapulinColorado that is pretty damning evidence!

YesYNot says

You posted a chart with no commentary.

I thought Logan issued an edict that that's the way it must be done going forward. My bad ;)