So liberals...guess the next two years will suck for you and Obama

PACEDOG#1 wrote:So what BOF....I was thinking of one thing and writing of another. Big Deal.....however YOU have shown your true colors here. With your logic, about 99% of the Democratic party is ineligible to vote....including yourself.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I'm not the one that supports controlling people... mostly for some subjective protection. It's cowardly.

Interesting.  It seems that with the existence of any state or governing body, there comes with that at least some level of control.   Would you say that you're an anarcho-capitalist favoring the elimination of the state entirely?

I am an anti-collectivist/progressive/statist/socialist/communist... or whatever you want to call it this week.

There should be one very simple set of rules that apply to everyone equally and limits govt... like a constitution or something.

But should there be any government at all?  That is what I'm asking you.  I swear this isn't a trick question.  Do you support the idea of at least some government?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I'm not the one that supports controlling people... mostly for some subjective protection. It's cowardly.

Interesting.  It seems that with the existence of any state or governing body, there comes with that at least some level of control.   Would you say that you're an anarcho-capitalist favoring the elimination of the state entirely?

I am an anti-collectivist/progressive/statist/socialist/communist... or whatever you want to call it this week.

There should be one very simple set of rules that apply to everyone equally and limits govt... like a constitution or something.

But should there be any government at all?  That is what I'm asking you.  I swear this isn't a trick question. Do you support the idea of at least some government?

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I'm not the one that supports controlling people... mostly for some subjective protection. It's cowardly.

Interesting.  It seems that with the existence of any state or governing body, there comes with that at least some level of control.   Would you say that you're an anarcho-capitalist favoring the elimination of the state entirely?

I am an anti-collectivist/progressive/statist/socialist/communist... or whatever you want to call it this week.

There should be one very simple set of rules that apply to everyone equally and limits govt... like a constitution or something.

But should there be any government at all?  That is what I'm asking you.  I swear this isn't a trick question.  Do you support the idea of at least some government?

How do you get to "no govt" all the way from my support for our inalienable rights and limited govt?  Honest question.

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I'm not the one that supports controlling people... mostly for some subjective protection. It's cowardly.

Interesting.  It seems that with the existence of any state or governing body, there comes with that at least some level of control.   Would you say that you're an anarcho-capitalist favoring the elimination of the state entirely?

I am an anti-collectivist/progressive/statist/socialist/communist... or whatever you want to call it this week.

There should be one very simple set of rules that apply to everyone equally and limits govt... like a constitution or something.

But should there be any government at all?  That is what I'm asking you.  I swear this isn't a trick question.  Do you support the idea of at least some government?

How do you get to "no govt" all the way from my support for our inalienable rights and limited govt?  Honest question.

PkrBum wrote:I'm not the one that supports controlling people... mostly for some subjective protection. It's cowardly.

2seaoat wrote:the crazy T tards were mostly flushed from the party.   Good candidates win.

boards of FL wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:So what BOF....I was thinking of one thing and writing of another. Big Deal.....however YOU have shown your true colors here. With your logic, about 99% of the Democratic party is ineligible to vote....including yourself.

Thank you for standing corrected.

PkrBum wrote:Federally to act as administrator for general welfare... meaning resource for everyone equally. To arbit judicial processes impartially without vested interest.  A military of some readiness that also protects our borders... not a standing army. I also think states should be free to implement any form of govt they choose. Sink or swim. The same for individuals... pursue your happiness fairly. We should accept that people will fail... it's sad and other individuals may assist... but it's really not up to the federal govt to intercede. One in five that rushed for california gold died in the first six months. That's life... act accordingly.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Federally to act as administrator for general welfare... meaning resource for everyone equally. To arbit judicial processes impartially without vested interest.  A military of some readiness that also protects our borders... not a standing army. I also think states should be free to implement any form of govt they choose. Sink or swim. The same for individuals... pursue your happiness fairly. We should accept that people will fail... it's sad and other individuals may assist... but it's really not up to the federal govt to intercede. One in five that rushed for california gold died in the first six months. That's life... act accordingly.

The question was "PkrBum, would you agree that the existence of a government necessarily means that that government exerts some level of control over the governed?"

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:So what BOF....I was thinking of one thing and writing of another. Big Deal.....however YOU have shown your true colors here. With your logic, about 99% of the Democratic party is ineligible to vote....including yourself.

Thank you for standing corrected.

Not corrected....I was thinking of one thing and typing another.

boards of FL wrote:Nothing will change at all.  Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof majority so they couldn't get anything done, and republicans are now in the same situation.  The next two years will look exactly like the last two.

boards of FL wrote:We should really take a hard look at basic aptitude test requirements before voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

boards of FL wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:So what BOF....I was thinking of one thing and writing of another. Big Deal.....however YOU have shown your true colors here. With your logic, about 99% of the Democratic party is ineligible to vote....including yourself.

Thank you for standing corrected.

Not corrected....I was thinking of one thing and typing another.

Sure you were.  Corrected you stand.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Nothing will change at all.  Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof majority so they couldn't get anything done, and republicans are now in the same situation.  The next two years will look exactly like the last two.

Not paying attention AGAIN.  You missed the part where far left Progressive Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid HISTORICALLY changed the rules in the Senate.

I wonder if he'll like being on the other side now?