patrick.net

bob2356 says

You were dumb enough ...

I assume you are including yourself in the "you", right?

The scariest thing to me actually, is that we have put no political safety measures in place between our knee jerk fear based reaction to 9-11 and the next terror attack mad governance that can happen when the next attack comes. We are only now beginning to ratchet down some of the measure we put in place. Imagine starting from where we are now, and creating Patriot Act II.

That really will be a whole different America.

Strategist says

We need more militarization of the police,. And I want my freedoms back.

Huh????

errc says

@Patrick, is there a way to limit the number of user names a single user may have? I find it ridiculous that there are people who go around trolling others by creating similar appearing names and avatars. What useful purpose does it serve? Other than to provide an insight into how obsessive some people are. It's confusing to outsiders and it's designed to be inflammatory to the person being trolled. Can't you at least make it harder for users to have more than one user name?

----------------

Shut the fuck up. Dumb bitch

Wow! Can't say I saw that coming. What's got you so ornery today? Was my post truly that upsetting/threatening to you? Do you at least feel better now? I hate to see anyone harbor so much anger that it comes out inappropriately, making him appear foolish.

Dan8267 says

We all want a third party to overthrow both Democrats and Republicans. The problem is Wolf's dilemma. The only way to solve this problem is by rewriting election laws and greatly changing the way elections and representation is done by our country. Doing so is technically trivial, but requires enormous political will as both parties benefit greatly from the current system doing everything wrong and will oppose any reform with all their might.

I'm so glad I am not the only one that understands what the real problem is.

Strategist says

Huh? You asserted America is no different than Nazi Germany. I implied you were nuts.

I would be nuts if I implied that, but I didn't. You just have really shitty reading comprehension skills.

lostand confused says

Strategist says

We need more militarization of the police,. And I want my freedoms back.

Huh????

I understand your confusion. Those two things aren't contradictory in Bizzaro world.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/IcjSDZNbOs0

This should be Strategist's avatar.

errc says

Shut the fuck up. Dumb bitch

Don't feel like you have to hold back, man.

turtledove says

Was my post truly that upsetting/threatening to you?

Some people think that the more rules you have, the less freedom you have.

komputodo says

Was my post truly that upsetting/threatening to you?

Some people think that the more rules you have, the less freedom you have.

Sadly, you're probably right. I suggested a rule based on my opinion. I'm so relieved that there are people watching out for my freedoms... and they know precisely when to tell me to "shut the fuck up"... if my opinion differs from theirs. He actually saved me from my own thoughts. Thanks jerrc for keeping freedom safe from subversive thoughts. Let freedom ring.

errc says

Shut the fuck up. Dumb bitch

Dead serious: this is a proud moment for this site.

So many men's rights crusaders here, clamoring for an end to sexism and a level playing field. But when a simplistic, holier-than-thou, finger-wagging libertarian in a female wrapper spouts platitudes, most bend over backwards for her, and just ooze 13th-century chivalry. By their sexism, they create the inequality they claim to oppose.

No freakin' way would Turtledove be treated so nicely here if she (or he) manifested as male: would have been called out 10x more often for spouting libertarian dogma.

Looks as if errc ain't playing by the rules. Unlike a lot of posters here, errc isn't sexist.

Turtledove needs to man up and take slanderous, vile ad hominem attacks in stride with that ole Patnet stiff upper lip.

Ceffer says

Turtledove needs to man up

An apt choice of words.

Turtledove is a dude.

Rew says

bob2356 says

You were dumb enough ...

I assume you are including yourself in the "you", right?

The scariest thing to me actually, is that we have put no political safety measures in place between our knee jerk fear based reaction to 9-11 and the next terror attack mad governance that can happen when the next attack comes. We are only now beginning to ratchet down some of the measure we put in place. Imagine starting from where we are now, and creating Patriot Act II.

No I don't include me. I've screamed and yelled about government encroachment on civil liberties (for my own protection of course) in every forum possible since nixon was in office. I've contributed time and money to campaigns of people who say they supported our rights. Sadly many of them find power too intoxicating and are captured by the system once in office. Unfortunately people like stratetigist who actually believe the government's we are here to help if you just give up your rights bullshit are far too common for people like me to make a difference.

Did anyone even read what she said?

"@Patrick, is there a way to limit the number of user names a single user may have? I find it ridiculous that there are people who go around trolling others by creating similar appearing names and avatars. What useful purpose does it serve? Other than to provide an insight into how obsessive some people are. It's confusing to outsiders and it's designed to be inflammatory to the person being trolled. Can't you at least make it harder for users to have more than one user name?"

---------------

She decided today was the day to say something about it. She finds it ridiculous "that there are people who go around trolling others". I tend to agree,,,,,,but then she grabbed the steering wheel from the passenger seat, and took a hard right turn straight into the ditch " by creating similar appearing names and avatars." wuh??? Welcome to crazy town. Reminiscent of gary the zionist askin patrick to ban the name of a user because they had the same couple letters in their names

The big difference and this should not be underestimated is that we can pontificate these issues openly without fear of disappearance or execution. Gestapo and NVKD would not be so forgiving. The art of the matter is that american government does not care when people discuss its current and historical transgressions. That is a true manifestation of power (while gestapo and NVKD only demonstrated weakness and insecurity regarding adherence to ideology and speech "crimes"). Indeed, a true lion does not have to roar.

We got the freedom to choose our Presidents between the two royal families, Clinton's and Bush's.

FortWayne says

We got the freedom to choose our Presidents between the two royal families, Clinton's and Bush's.

And fine royal stock they are.

The right to bear arms? However temporarily?

Some kind of ugly dust-up between Feds, and unfortunately, otherwise honest, NRA-supporting citizens may be inevitable at this point. I wouldn't be surprised.

What a horrible polarizing event that would be. How would anyone believing that 'truth usually lies in the middle ground' ever get their voice heard after something like that?

Do all democrats now believe that Federal mandates ALWAYS trump the sovereignty of states or families or citizens? Because not all Republicans believe the flip-side - that being that the Federal Government is entirely evil and at odds with the will of the people.

I just don't know where I stand on these issues, yet. One thing I DO know however...and that is that John F. Kennedy was right when he said,
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

BOTH parties thumb their noses at THAT bit of wisdom these days. With the exception of Rand Paul.

And I will NOT be voting for Clinton or Bush, regardless of who is nominated. I guess I'm joining the non-royals party.

thunderlips11 says

Is that the GARY SHANDLING SHOW?