A Democratic House means a more frugal government

[Wooden Indian]

While I agree that as parties, The Rs and the Ds are two flavors of the same turd, it is the individuals within the party that make the difference.

I can't find a Dem that I agree with on more than one issue, and even then, their motivation will be wholly different than mine... simply a broken clock.

Then, when I combine that fact with how I LOATHE the LGBTQ9AP$ "movement", modern Feminism, and the Socialists like Cortez... I have to agree that yeah Republicans are slightly better at this point in history.

[Swordsmyth]

You know people can just click on that little icon and see that quote in context, right?

It doesn't help:

I'd rather take a page from the playbook of the War on Tobacco and outlaw political advertising.

I remember when it was illegal for Big Pharma to advertise their wares. Seems to me repealing that law led to nothing but trouble.

Certainly campaign advertising budgets give the media one hell of an incentive to promote the candidate who got the most bribes campaign contributions.

Tell us more about the wonderful "libertarian" war on big tobacco and the wonders of allowing the government to say who can advertise medicine (notice they allow big pharma to advertise but not natural medicine and even when they didn't big pharma had the advantage)

[acptulsa]

And still the quote you provided proves I was talking about only limiting the contributions of money (which you call "speech" like a good little swamp RINO) to the campaigns of politicians.

Which proves you knew you were hijacking this thread with baldfaced lies.

[Swordsmyth]

And still the quote you provided proves I was talking about only limiting the contributions of money (which you call "speech" like a good little swamp RINO) to the campaigns of politicians.

Which proves you knew you were posting lies.

No it doesn't, you called for a ban on ads, like the bans you point to on tobacco and medicine.

Do you really think we are so dumb that you can claim the exact opposite of the truth while your own words are posted for everyone to look at?

[angelatc]

Let's face it. Trolls make money for websites. A lot of libertarians are just cucks. They would invite the opposition to their closed door meetings in the name of their half assed notions. A lot of them would watch someone $#@! their wives.

It's funny you should mention that - someone in another state was telling me that their local LP was toying with the idea of having the GOP candidate address their membership. He had to explain to them why that was a terrible idea.

I personally know two people who left the site specifically because they were tired of getting irritated by the ZipstreamOfConsciousness.

[angelatc]

Thomas Payne printed Common Sense using contributions from Raytheon and Merck, Zippy?

This is not a freedom position.

People don't lose their right to speak freely just because they decide to join a group. All 7 justices agreed that's what the Constiution means. The liberals wanted to take that right away from the bench.

[Swordsmyth]

This is not a freedom position.

People don't lose their right to speak freely just because they decide to join a group. All 7 justices agreed that's what the Constiution means. The liberals wanted to take that right away from the bench.

You must spread some reputation around.....

[acptulsa]

This is not a freedom position.

People don't lose their right to speak freely just because they decide to join a group. All 7 justices agreed that's what the Constiution means. The liberals wanted to take that right away from the bench.

And politicians should have more right to speak than civilians? And corporations should have more right to amplify the speech of politicians than civilians do? Because all lies about what I said aside, that was the issue I was addressing (as you'd see if you went to the thread and read it, instead of requiring I clarify in this hijacked thread). So that's what you're arguing in favor of, as if it was a "freedom position".

[Swordsmyth]

And politicians should have more right to speak than civilians? And corporations should have more right to amplify the speech of politicians than civilians do? Because all lies about what I said aside, that was the issue I was addressing (as you'd see if you went to the thread and read it, instead of requiring I clarify in this hijacked thread). So that's what you're arguing in favor of, as if it was a "freedom position".

It's simple, the answer is less government and you are calling for more, I encourage everyone to go to the original thread.

P.S. Nobody said politicians should have more right to speak than civilians and corporations should have more right to amplify the speech of politicians than civilians do, that isn't the case. You are making a communist argument for enforced "equality" because you don't like it that some people have more money than other people, the irony is that what you propose will only give the powerful more power while silencing the weak entirely.

[acptulsa]

It's simple, the answer is less government and you are calling for more...

Muting candidate campaigns--including incumbents--leads to more government? That's funny, Zippy.

I encourage everyone to go to the original thread.

By hijacking this one instead of bumping that one?

Nobody said politicians should have more right to speak than civilians and corporations should have more right to amplify the speech of politicians than civilians do, that isn't the case.

Your beloved Bush RINOs did. Why are you ignoring that civilian campaign contributions are limited, while those of businesses (even 100% foreign owned) are not?

You are making a communist argument for enforced "equality" because you don't like it that some people have more money than other people, the irony is that what you propose will only give the powerful more power while silencing the weak entirely.

The whole Bill of Rights is about limiting the power of federal politicians. Is it "communist"? And why would you repeat your silly claim that prohibiting campaigns from airing commercials concentrate power in the hands of politicians in this thread, when you completely failed to make that $#@! stick in the relevant thread?

Why are you repeating this whole conversation in half a dozen completely unrelated threads? I didn't drag that debate into this thread. What the hell is this obsession? Were you raised in a barn?

But, of course, everyone knows why you're hijacking this thread. You're trying to distract people from the fact that the modern GOP is so far removed from conservatism that gridlock leads to more fiscal responsibility than GOP control of Congress and the presidency does.

[Swordsmyth]

Muting candidate campaigns--including incumbents--leads to more government? That's funny, Zippy.

Yes it does, the incumbents will be interviewed in the news and they tend to get reelected anyway, meanwhile you gave government the power to silence the opposition.

By hijacking this one instead of bumping that one?

The fact that you are not a libertarian was relevant in this thread.

Your beloved Bush RINOs did. Why are you ignoring that civilian campaign contributions are limited, while those of businesses (even 100% foreign owned) are not?

That is an outright lie, contributions are still limited and ANYONE can form a group and buy ads or pay for them on their own if they can afford it.
The court ruling struck down a law that limited how much political speech anyone who wasn't an MSM CORPORATION could have.

The whole Bill of Rights is about limiting the power of federal politicians. Is it "communist"?

No, and you want to give them power over political speech in direct defiance of the 1stA, that is communist.

And why would you repeat your silly claim that prohibiting campaigns from airing commercials concentrate power in the hands of politicians in this thread, when you completely failed to make that $#@! stick in the relevant thread?

You wanted to ban ALL political ads but even just a ban on campaigns buying ads concentrates power in the hands of incumbents who get free publicity.

Why are you repeating this whole conversation in half a dozen completely unrelated threads? I didn't drag that debate into this thread. What the hell is this obsession? Were you raised in a barn?

As I said above, I am exposing you as not a libertarian and a closet Demoncrat, you were promoting Demoncrats again in this thread and then you had the gall to claim you were a libertarian.

[RJ Liberty]

I can't find a Dem that I agree with on more than one issue

That's weird. Many Democrats want:

* Legalize marijuana (and maybe the drug wars altogether)
* End police brutality
* Avoid government-regulated morality
* Separation of church and state
* Tolerance of others' peaceful choices
* People should marry whomever they want
* End corporate welfare

...You don't want these things?

[Swordsmyth]

That's weird. Many Democrats want:

* Legalize marijuana (and maybe the drug wars altogether)
* End police brutality
* Avoid government-regulated morality
* Separation of church and state
* Tolerance of others' peaceful choices
* People should marry whomever they want
* End corporate welfare

...You don't want these things?

It's how they want to implement most of those ideas that is the problem.

[RJ Liberty]

It's how they want to implement most of those ideas that is the problem.

How would Democrats implement legalizing marijuana, curtailing police brutality, and end corporate welfare in a way that would harm you?

You like to demonize the Democrats so much that you call them Demoncrats. But you'd never do so to your precious Repubs, because you don't understand that they are the just different sides of the same coin. The same political party that destroyed Ron Paul's campaign in 2007 is the same party that sabotaged Bernie Sanders' campaign in 2016: the Republicrats.

[Swordsmyth]

How would Democrats implement legalizing marijuana, curtailing police brutality, and end corporate welfare in a way that would harm you?

Drugs aren't a problem but they call letting criminals have free rein part of "curtailing police brutality" and jacking taxes through the roof part of "ending corporate welfare".

You like to demonize the Democrats so much that you call them Demoncrats. But you'd never do so to your precious Repubs, because you don't understand that they are the just different sides of the same coin. The same political party that destroyed Ron Paul's campaign in 2007 is the same party that sabotaged Bernie Sanders' campaign in 2016: the Republicrats.

The Swmapublicans are bad (yes I have called them that before) but they are much better than the Demoncrats.

[RJ Liberty]

Drugs aren't a problem but they call letting criminals have free rein part of "curtailing police brutality" and jacking taxes through the roof part of "ending corporate welfare".

Well, at least that's an honest answer. Not one I agree with (because it's too simple), but honestly stated.

The Swmapublicans are bad (yes I have called them that before) but they are much better than the Demoncrats.

How was the Republicans' sabotage of Ron Paul's 2007 campaign much better than the Democrats' sabotage of Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign? Which parts of the voter suppression, intimidation, and open violence were more constitutional? Why would anyone on RPF support candidates in a party who endorsed and profited from this kind of thuggery?

What part of Trump's unconstitutional endless overseas wars and regime changes are more constitutional than Obama's or Bush's unconstitutional endless overseas wars and regime changes? Don't tell me there's less of it: we're in the same number of countries we were when Bush and Obama were in office.

If you want regime change, endless toppling of overseas governments, a continuation on the War on Drugs, corporate welfare, government in the bedroom, continued growing of the surveillance state, tax funding of faith-based groups, the Repubs are the party to support.

[Swordsmyth]

How was the Republicans' sabotage of Ron Paul's 2007 campaign much better than the Democrats' sabotage of Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign? Which parts of the voter suppression, intimidation, and open violence were more constitutional? Why would anyone on RPF support candidates in a party who endorsed and profited from this kind of thuggery?

None of those are the better parts.

What part of Trump's unconstitutional endless overseas wars and regime changes are more constitutional than Obama's or Bush's unconstitutional endless overseas wars and regime changes? Don't tell me there's less of it: we're in the same number of countries we were when Bush and Obama were in office.

Again, that isn't what has been good about him so far.

If you want regime change, endless toppling of overseas governments, a continuation on the War on Drugs, corporate welfare, government in the bedroom, continued growing of the surveillance state, tax funding of faith-based groups, the Repubs are the party to support.

Most of those apply to the Dems and I could add an arms length list of things that are as bad or worse about them, the Repubs still support a few of our basic rights and don't want to take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his need.

[RJ Liberty]

None of those are the better parts.

Most of those apply to the Dems and I could add an arms length list of things that are as bad or worse about them

You make a list and post it here. I'll make a longer list. I have been voting since the early 1990s, and have witnessed three decades of political atrocities from the Grand Old Party.

[Swordsmyth]

You make a list and post it here. I'll make a longer list. I have been voting since the early 1990s, and have witnessed three decades of political atrocities from the Grand Old Party.

I don't see any reason for us to waste our time since it is obvious neither of us will change the other's mind.

If you can't see how the Demoncrats have turned into outright communists hell bent on destroying western civilization or if you think the problems with the Swampublicans are equivalent then there isn't anything I can say that will do any good.

[acptulsa]

I don't see any reason for us to waste our time since it is obvious neither of us will change the other's mind.

If you can't see how the Demoncrats have turned into outright communists hell bent on destroying western civilization or if you think the problems with the Swampublicans are equivalent then there isn't anything I can say that will do any good.

Oh, I see. Someone wants to make a list which would quantitatively demonstrate both major parties are equally full of $#@!, and you're capable of agreeing to disagree and shutting up. See a chance to mischaracterize and libel someone and you're hijacking threads for weeks on end.

I still don't know what to say about someone who is so passionate about defending a bunch of Bush RINOs ruling that the First Amendment gives candidate campaigns--politicians--more rights than civilian citizens.

[angelatc]

And politicians should have more right to speak than civilians? And corporations should have more right to amplify the speech of politicians than civilians do?

We all have the same rights. Are you conflating rights with resources?

[acptulsa]

We all have the same rights. Are you conflating rights with resources?

Oh? So politicians can't arm their bodyguards in gun control jurisdictions?

Did you ever compare the speed of the presidential motorcade to that speed limit sign at the side if the road?

You seem to be speaking hypothetically. I am not. We need no law or court decision ensuring the right of corporations and limiting the right of citizens to amplify the speech of politicians through money. And we certainly don't need the precedent of the Bill of Rights being used for the purpose, since the original intent if the Bill of Rights us to ensure civilian citizens' rights by limiting the politicians.

[angelatc]

You seem to be speaking hypothetically. I am not. We need no law or court decision ensuring the right of corporations and limiting the right of citizens to amplify the speech of politicians through money. And we certainly don't need the precedent of the Bill of Rights being used for the purpose, since the original intent if the Bill of Rights us to ensure civilian citizens' rights by limiting the politicians.

I am not speaking hypothetically. We all have the same right to speak, either individually or as part of a group. We do not all have the same resources, but calling for the government to level the playing field isn't the freedom position. Nor is it constitutional.

[acptulsa]

I am not speaking hypothetically. We all have the same right to speak, either individually or as part of a group. We do not all have the same resources, but calling for the government to level the playing field isn't the freedom position. Nor is it constitutional.

Half the constitution and the whole of the BoR is about leveling the playing field between the politicians and the people. Don't be dense. What candidate campaigns say is simply not civilian speech.

Are you, too, just trying to distract from the fact that gridlock produces more fiscal responsibility than Republicans do? I've had more than my fill of this threadjack. If you really want to know more, ask in the appropriate thread (where all these questions were already answered two or three times each).

[Swordsmyth]

Oh, I see. Someone wants to make a list which would quantitatively demonstrate both major parties are equally full of $#@!, and you're capable of agreeing to disagree and shutting up. See a chance to mischaracterize and libel someone and you're hijacking threads for weeks on end.

LOL

I still don't know what to say about someone who is so passionate about defending a bunch of Bush RINOs ruling that the First Amendment gives candidate campaigns--politicians--more rights than civilian citizens.

That is a lie, but it is the only way you can try to justify your love of government censorship so you just keep repeating it.

[Swordsmyth]

Half the constitution and the whole of the BoR is about leveling the playing field between the politicians and the people. Don't be dense. What candidate campaigns say is simply not civilian speech.

It is and you called for a ban on ALL political ads.
Even if we just discuss McCain-Feingold it was designed to protect incumbents from challengers and citizen groups, YOU are the one advocating for a position that gives politicians and corporations an advantage over citizens.

Are you, too, just trying to distract from the fact that gridlock produces more fiscal responsibility than Republicans do?

Hooray for taxes!

Since you have TDS you should agree with this:

I don't agree with him either but you TDS victims should:
Peter Schiff Warns A Divided Congress Means Even Bigger Deficits

But since you are really here to promote Demoncrats you will ignore it.

The only things that might limit Spending are the Republican Senate and Trump if he doesn't do what Schiff expects.

[RJ Liberty]

But since you are really here to promote Demoncrats you will ignore it.

Neg repped this.

There is literally no one who has promoted Rand Paul on this forum more than Tulsa. Take a look at threads like this and this. Tulsa didn't join this forum in April 2016 to talk about how great the Orange Cheeto is, in 30 posts per day. Tulsa has spent 11 years on this forum promoting Ron Paul, while your Orange Cheeto called Ron Paul a clown.

[Swordsmyth]

Neg repped this.

There is literally no one who has promoted Rand Paul on this forum more than Tulsa. Take a look at threads like this and this. Tulsa didn't join this forum in April 2016 to talk about how great the Orange Cheeto is, in 30 posts per day. Tulsa has spent 11 years on this forum promoting Ron Paul, while your Orange Cheeto called Ron Paul a clown.

Tulsa's actions speak louder than your words.

I also support Rand over Trump but Tulsa supports Demoncrats over Trump.

[RJ Liberty]

I also support Rand over Trump but Tulsa supports Demoncrats over Trump.

Which Democrats? Nancy Pelosi? Oh wait. That was Trump, the guy who mocks Ron Paul.

Haha. I just got neg repped by Swordsmyth.

[Swordsmyth]

Which Democrats? Nancy Pelosi? Oh wait. That was Trump, the guy who mocks Ron Paul.

Trump is trolling the Dems, Nancy will be a disaster for them and many of them know it, that is why he even offered to get her some R votes to be speaker.

Haha. I just got neg repped by Swordsmyth.

You started it.