SSNeoman posted:

b-buh!? B-b-b-but! NO! That's not at all how poo poo works!
wow i just got looking glass'd

Guavanaut posted:

They know that. They must know 'killing life' isn't objectionable in itself unless they're a vegan who never uses antibiotics or cleaning products or chlorinated water, and I don't know how many Patriot Posters fit into that category. They're just being obtuse.

V-Men posted:

That's just how incompetent the Obama administration is.

Guavanaut posted:

It's because everywhere in the UK is a Muslim no-go zone, so they'd go there to be treated like a foreigner.

SSNeoman posted:

???
The gently caress is this

Defenestration posted:

I commented on the UK flag because DDOG and co are supposed to be Red Blooded Americans Who III% Fought The Oppressive British (tm)

SSNeoman posted:

gently caress me you can't even hide it for just one macro

JVNO posted:

DeusExMachinima posted:

Anyone who says dumb poo poo like this should be strapped down and forced to look through a wormhole, forever, into a timeline where SCOTUS ruled the way Thomas wanted on Raich v. Gonzalez.

DeusExMachinima posted:

Anyone who says dumb poo poo like this should be strapped down and forced to look through a wormhole, forever, into a timeline where SCOTUS ruled the way Thomas wanted on Raich v. Gonzalez.

Polybius91 posted:

You're not thinking it through hard enough.

What's the last thing Scalia's done?

Guavanaut posted:

They know that. They must know 'killing life' isn't objectionable in itself unless they're a vegan who never uses antibiotics or cleaning products or chlorinated water, and I don't know how many Patriot Posters fit into that category. They're just being obtuse.

Defenestration posted:

SSNeoman posted:

???
The gently caress is this

DeusExMachinima posted:

Anyone who says dumb poo poo like this should be strapped down and forced to look through a wormhole, forever, into a timeline where SCOTUS ruled the way Thomas wanted on Raich v. Gonzalez.

Inspector Hound posted:

Holy poo poo, i had no idea what this decision was, it sounds like Thomas almost legalized loving marijuana right there

Inspector Hound posted:

Holy poo poo, i had no idea what this decision was, it sounds like Thomas almost legalized loving marijuana right there

gradenko_2000 posted:

Does anyone have that chart of GOP senators' speeches versus their voting record and it shows that Rand Paul just talks a good game? I need it for reasons.

SSNeoman posted:

???
The gently caress is this

EwokEntourage posted:

It is just your bog standard anti commerce clause decision.

DeusExMachinima posted:

I don't see how. The defendants weren't selling their pot at all, thus not engaging in commerce (which is where the feds have jurisdiction), and were also complying with California's MMJ laws that are allowed under their state-level police powers. That was the whole point their defense rested on and precedent was in their favor.

The social conservative anti-weed sentiment on the court was strong enough for the majority to rule that not engaging in commerce is also commerce, thus creating new precedent. Their logic was that by not buying, you're still affecting a drug dealer's bottom line just like a normal buyer except now it's a negative effect.

quote:

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

. . .

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

here you go, and it's the same for dear old dad as well as sheltered white boy randy

quote:

The reason I don't use [I'm a conservative] as a universal statement is because there are a lot of things I don't agree with the Republican party on.

You DO realize I'm a libertarian, right?

quote:

Well well well, something resembling a substantive post for once. Let's see...

Libertarians are against Obamacare (or most any Federal mandates), so I check out there. It should also be noted that, while I think the ACA is a poor law on the economic front (you know, that thing I have a masters' degree in?) because it doesn't address the structural problems of the system and the health care industry that cause prices to rise, I'm only abjectly against the Individual Mandate - which, in case you've forgotten, SENATOR Obama, running for President at the time, was also against (as a point of contrast between himself and then also running Senator Clinton.)

I am pro-life as an ideological position, but I'm iffy on where the law should come down on the issue. While I believe that third trimester abortions should not be legal, even back as far as about 20 weeks, this is the viability argument that is shared by even most pro-choice indiviuals. I believe that more education and availability of contraceptives would be a good start to reduce abortions, and while I personally oppose even first term abortions, I do not believe they should be illegal. This puts me firmly in agreement with the majority of the American public, and largely with libertarians (who either believe what I do or believe it should be a states' rights issue where the individual states make the rules for abortions within their borders.)

I'm against the Iran deal because similar deals have failed (North Korea) and because Iran is a belligerent nation to the US. Their release last week of picture and video of the Sailor they CAPTURED (what they did is NOT rendering aid) was bad enough, that they even did a live REENACTMENT of the event for Revolution Day like it was some great war battle or major victory was insulting to us and shows their true motivations. Additionally, Iran is the most able nation to single-handedly destroy any sense of stability the Middle-East still has and start a nuclear arms race in a region dominated by near fanatical governments and entirely fanatical radical groups. They are also, by President Obama's own admission, still supporters of terrorism and supporters of regional radical groups that attack Americans (civilian and military) as well as other innocent peoples.

I'm not opposed to all action against climate change - something you'd know if you didn't have the extremist, Sith position of "if you're not with me you're my enemy". I'm a HUGE supporter of alternative energies that actually are viable in terms of generating enough power for our society like nuclear. I'm also a big supporter of solar and even wind, though I don't believe they should get overmuch funding from the government, I do actually support continued subsidies for wind and solar power (indeed, I'd like to see every parking lot with car covers lined with solar panels if we could find a way to afford it.) I like the idea of hybrid cars (the reason I didn't buy one largely being...well, because they look like poo poo, honestly. Why can't they build a hybrid Mustang or something? The Prius is just...ugh...not to mention the aesthetics aside, they have such a limited cargo capacity. I like being able to pack up all my things in my car and move between duty stations, something I can do in my car.)

I'm against carbon credits because that's a stupid idea based on wealthy redistribution and not actually capping carbon emissions (it allows companies to continue over polluting as long as they're willing to "buy" credits from other companies - generally from third world countries - that aren't using up to their limit). Oh, and it's also generally true that the people heavily invested in potential carbon trading are large proponents of the programs, like a number of members of the IPCC and Al Gore, I believe...

I oppose the not-science of it, as well - the doom and gloom, it's all over predictions. If you read my other posts you'd know this, too, from when me and REDACTED talk about it.

I DO believe we can have a cleaner environment, and I would like us to have clearer atmosphere (my uncle and dad both tell me that they remember 40 years ago flying airplanes with my grandfather and being able to see Dallas from their little airport 90 miles east of DFW.) So change has happened and not all for the good, and I'd like us to take CONTROLLED, SENSIBLE, and MANAGEABLE steps to correct this.

Carbon credits/trading, carbon taxes, President Obama's "war on coal" are none of those things. Electric cars that only go 60 miles (as opposed to hybrids that can effectively maintain the range of regular combustion engine cars but have much lower emissions for short drives) are another. All of the "catastrophe hype" and "global warming alarmism" I also oppose.

This is ENTIRELY different than saying I'm oppose to all these other things that I'm not opposed to.

(It should be noted this is one area I DIFFER from libertarians from - they oppose all government funding of alternative energy, or government subsidies in general.)

I have "certain beliefs" about President Obama's birth and background? What might those be? I believe he was born in Hawaii, though I believe that the birth certificate we were shown is likely not the real one. I'm not sure why they won't show the real one, though.

As to his background - my "belief" of that is his own statements on the matter. It's well documented he grew up in Indonesia, going to a Muslim madrassah. Do you contest this? It's also well known that he has described various things from Islamic culture - sometimes intentionally like when he said that at evening hearing the Muslim call to prayer was one of the most beautiful things he could think of, sometimes unintentionally when he mentioned traveling to 57 out of the 58 states (he meant the United States but instead mentioned the numbers for Muslim states.)

So if by "certain beliefs" you mean "the facts", then yes, I have "the facts" about President Obama's background rather well, and unless you are suggesting he WASN'T born in Hawaii...?

You mention the Second Amendment, but I'm curious to what end. Libertarians ARE very pro Second Amendment (many would go farther than I have - lest you forget, I've mentioned that there is a certain logic to banning shotguns or handguns OTHER THAN those in use by the military). I'm not sure what made you mention this as a point of contention...

The libertarian position on the Confederate flag is actually that states should be allowed to fly whatever flags they wish. That's their stated position on the matter, which matches my own. So I check out as libertarian there, as well.

I don't "believe" the Laffer curve, I've seen the economic analysis that proves it. Well, in so much as economists are able to decisively "prove" things. The data sets are easily available by looking at different states and countries, and looking at their tax revenues over time based on different tax rates. The Laffer curve is pretty well accepted economic science.

The only question or point of contention is where the peak/max revenue point is. I'm personally in the camp that it varies by culture and dominant ideological values (and I think most economists agree with this, though there are some that believe there is a single optimal tax percentage rate for all cases, I think they're in the minority.)

I'm not sure the Libertarian party has any stated position on the Laffer curve, however, so I'm not sure why you mention it, either. It's settled economic science anyway. Arguing against it is like arguing that the Earth is flat or that supply and demand don't affect prices.

"just today"? I've held the position of building a wall on the southern border for years. Or, baring that, a sizable military presence and more border security...basically, to get back to the OP for a moment, the same thing that was in the Reagan era law (that was just not enforced that strongly over time.)

Flint I'm already on the record on talking with REDACTED and REDACTED. It seems to be a chemistry issue and a lot of problems from the municipal level all the way up to the Governor's office (while the Governor likely isn't directly at fault, as a commander, he's still responsible for what goes on under his domain, just like any ship's CO would be.) As much as the left would like to portray it, it wasn't some concerted decision to try to lead poison a bunch of children. I know, I know...the world's a lot easier to take if you can imagine your opponents as Captain Planet villains, but Humanity and reality generally tend to be a lot more nuanced than that. It's also highly unclear that the decisions made where an attempt to save money - another liberal/Democrat claim - as it makes no sense to not chemically treat the water, and the lead seems to mostly have been a result of the city's piping, not the water sources. Finally, the EPA seems to be largely at fault as well as it failed to give proper warning and advisement of the situation even after they discovered things were amiss.

There is ample blame to be passed around in Flint.

As to your very last line - I have no idea what you even mean by that, either.

You dislike social liberties and personal freedoms? Have a problem with the ACLU, do you? Or FOIA? You love the PATRIOT Act?

Because libertarians tend to be on the right side of a lot of issues.

"talk a good game" my rear end.

My economic views are based on a decent amount of study of the topic as well as research and review of the data. My views on sovereignty are based on history, as are my views on war and world/international positions. My social positions are largely libertarian, which means pro-freedom/liberty in most respects, with the few divergences being on specific matters of life.

...so I guess if by "talk a good game" you mean "am smarter, better informed, and more moderate than (you are)", you'd be right.

gradenko_2000 posted:

An enormous smug diatribe

Glukeose posted:

Why do you have any correspondence with this person. I know that phrase gets thrown around a lot in this thread but really. drat.

baw posted:

i think this would be the best reply

Jurgan posted:

"Can Obama appoint himself"

Fulchrum posted:

Just checking, is there something in the constitution about a person being unable to be in more than one branch?

quote:

No representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Fulchrum posted:

Just checking, is there something in the constitution about a person being unable to be in more than one branch?

quote:

As to his background - my "belief" of that is his own statements on the matter. It's well documented he grew up in Indonesia, going to a Muslim madrassah. Do you contest this? It's also well known that he has described various things from Islamic culture - sometimes intentionally like when he said that at evening hearing the Muslim call to prayer was one of the most beautiful things he could think of, sometimes unintentionally when he mentioned traveling to 57 out of the 58 states (he meant the United States but instead mentioned the numbers for Muslim states.)

Defenestration posted:

No man who has made a Full Metal Jacket Meme has ever grasped that it is an anti-war film

Ron Jeremy posted:

There truly is no such thing as an anti war movie