Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Another school shooting

I think "most" Republicans is an exaggeration.

The idea of a FICA and "opt out" option, in which people who chose to could have FICA withholdings directed to an investment account with pretty conservative investment restrictions, rather than into the general fund has been floated around, but hasn't had much traction.

Then you apparently aren't really a Libertarian:


http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Social_Security.htm


Ex-candidate Gary Johnson's position on Medicare-aid & health insurance:

"As for Medicare, Johnson told 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft, “We’re not looking to eliminate Medicare. We do believe in a safety net.” But, he said to The Washington Examiner, “Medicaid and Medicare both need to be devolved to the states.”

~snip~

"Johnson would like to get rid of health insurance as we know it. Instead, Americans would buy health insurance only for catastrophic events and illness. He believes a free-market system would lead to more affordable health care with price transparency and open competition. This system, Johnson told Rogan, “would probably cost about one-fifth of what it currently costs. We would have Gallbladders ‘R’ Us. We’d have gallbladder surgery for thousands of dollars as opposed to tens of thousands of dollars. We’d have Stitches ‘R’ Us, we’d have X-Rays ‘R’ Us. We’d have the radiologists next to X-Rays ‘R’ Us to read those X-rays.”




uh-huh...


"Critics of the proposal to let people buy health insurance across state lines — such as Frank Lalli, author of Your Best Health Care Now — say that it would likely lead health insurers to simply sell policies nationwide from the state allowing the worst policies. Lalli says they'd be “Swiss cheese plans full of holes.”


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextav...social-security-and-health-care/#3413edf9515b


Just like credit card companies who moved their HQ to the regulations-friendly rural South Dakota.
 
Last edited:

I've never been a Libertarian.

I haven't been with any party for almost 20 years.

My ideology has generally been fairly libertarian, although as time has gone by I've become pragmatically more of a centrist, both fiscally and socially.

That said, what you linked to really doesn't have anything to do with Republicans.

The Libertarian Party isn't very important, except for it gives people a chance to vote without voting for either major party, which is worth something I guess.

I don't believe anyone has ever been elected to the Congress running on the Libertarian ticket.

Republican Congressmen Ron Paul and Bob Barr have both run for president at different times on the Libertarian ticket. I don't know if either registered as a Libertarian to do so or not.
 
Last edited:
so the federalist papers say nothing about our rights to own guns. do they say anything about the us not having those rights? any mention of curbs on those rights. do they say anything about banning citizens from wlowning specific types of weapons then or in the future? No, so your point about the federalist papers does nothing to support your position. thanks for yet another meaningless rant.

here's an article that summarizes why just about everything you say in these two posts is either stupid or a lie or both.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27236/kimmel-media-say-nra-buys-politicians-heres-why-ben-shapiro

Ben Shapiro is a lying, dishonest, piece of shit. What self respecting Harvard law grad would go around doing what he does instead of actually practicing law?

anyway, why does he compare NRA lobbying dollars to Union lobbying dollars? Unions aren't lobbying for gun control... neither is Planned Parenthood.

of course, because as the links I pointed show, NRA spending ALONE swamps all gun control groups spending practically each (maybe all?) and every fucking election cycle.

this is more of his "brilliant legal mind" in action:

is the NRA actually even ?buying? anyone? The answer here is obviously no.​

OBVIOUSLY! Wait... how so?

They pick the candidates who support their agenda and support them. They don?t go around offering cash in briefcases in order to convince those who disagree to go along with their agenda.​

That... wow.

That's the extent of his argument here, comparing NRA lobbying dollars to unions and Planned Parenthood spending (misleading and dishonest), and then claiming they don't "buy" people since they only give money to people who just happen to agree with them (and of course vote for the legistlation they want...)

If you ever find yourself as momentarily stupid as spartamack, and daydreaming about giving Ben shapiro a handjob for being "Harvard educated" yet willing to go around pandering to college Republican types by saying things like ?Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.? ... read this expos?e on Ben Shapiro from last December. They wrote it in response to the NYT's ("lib media!") attempt to mainstream this racist, lying twerp of a human.

fuck Ben Shapiro
 
I've never been a Libertarian.

I haven't been with any party for almost 20 years.

My ideology has generally been fairly libertarian, although as time has gone by I've become pragmatically more of a centrist, both fiscally and socially.

That said, what you linked to really doesn't have anything to do with Republicans.

The Libertarian Party isn't very important, except for it gives people a chance to vote without voting for either major party, which is worth something I guess.

I don't believe anyone has ever been elected to the Congress running on the Libertarian ticket.

Republican Congressmen Ron Paul and Bob Barr have both run for president at different times on the Libertarian ticket. I don't know if either registered as a Libertarian to do so or not.


Well maybe you aren't but then you make posts like this:

http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showpost.php?p=814146&postcount=22

That kinda makes it hard to take you seriously if you are gonna flip flop.
 
Well maybe you aren't but then you make posts like this:

http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showpost.php?p=814146&postcount=22

That kinda makes it hard to take you seriously if you are gonna flip flop.

Not really incostent, I posted I'd been ideologically libertarian but been moving more centrist. Doesn't mean I'm not more libertarian than either conservative or liberal - just more centrist both fiscally and socially than I used to be.

I've been both a Democrat and a Republican. I've never been Libertarian.

Libertarian and libertarian are not the same.

I don't even take myself seriously - I certainly don't care who else also doesn't.
 
Not really incostent, I posted I'd been ideologically libertarian but been moving more centrist. Doesn't mean I'm not more libertarian than either conservative or liberal - just more centrist both fiscally and socially than I used to be.

I've been both a Democrat and a Republican. I've never been Libertarian.

Libertarian and libertarian are not the same.

I don't even take myself seriously - I certainly don't care who else also doesn't.

Sometimes people describe themselves as "small L" or "small c" Liberals or Conservatives respectively to describe their political beliefs generally, but clarify they're not registered members of either party, and don't go along with the hypocritical points of each party, for example the "Capital C" position of Conservatives of claiming to support "small government" yet gleefully paying more money to support a huge military that intervenes wherever it wants, including putting its own finger on the scale of domestic elections behind the scenes.

Or in the "Liberal" case, of paying lip service to siding with the citizenry against big banks' predatory lending and mortgage practices, then taking boatloads of money from those same banks and declaring they are "too big to prosecute," and authorizing a massive police response when some citizens finally start to take direct protest action against the status quo. (funny how the Big L's or Big C's both end up on the same side...)

but anyway, I've never heard anyone call themselves a "small l libertarian"... I think that's really just a libertine. Kinda the same, but very different.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
it was never real. and where's his retraction?

I don't want to speak for jwl, but he doesn't appear to be calling the AP fake news, the content yes. and champ came here as fast as he could because it fit his agenda - again, never acknowledging the error, probably in the hopes others will continue to believe it. saying it was real at the time is a bullshit excuse.

So the Republic of Florida white supremacist guy lied that Cruz was a member of their hate group, but the other reporting, regarding Cruz' white supremacist postings, and support for Trump was apparently true, and Buzzfeed reported that directly.

I guess they should've known better than to take a white supremacist at his word (these sort of people aren't known for being exactly very consistent with "facts" or they wouldn't be white supremacists).

BUt then again... why would you doubt a claim like that? How often does a group openly claim a mass murdering psychopath as a member? Most normal people try to downplay that sort of thing.
 
There are a ton of teens that are lying down in front of the White House to protest. Really a powerful thing to see the younger generation do.
 
Sometimes people describe themselves as "small L" or "small c" Liberals or Conservatives respectively to describe their political beliefs generally, but clarify they're not registered members of either party, and don't go along with the hypocritical points of each party, for example the "Capital C" position of Conservatives of claiming to support "small government" yet gleefully paying more money to support a huge military that intervenes wherever it wants, including putting its own finger on the scale of domestic elections behind the scenes.

Or in the "Liberal" case, of paying lip service to siding with the citizenry against big banks' p boardsm from those same banks and declaring they are "too big to prosecute," and authorizing a massive police response when some citizens finally start to take direct protest action against the status quo. (funny how the Big L's or Big C's both end up on the same side...)

but anyway, I've never heard anyone call themselves a "small l libertarian"... I think that's really just a libertine. Kinda the same, but very different.

Sorry, but when I have posted on other political websites and forums which permit using the Disqus app, (some are or have switched to Facebook only, which is a lazy and cheap means of avoiding employing live thread moderation) members who claim to be libertarian or independent seem to believe that those labels somehow grant them immunity from criticism, while permitting them the freedom to criticize other members' posts with impunity.

They are always right and never wrong, and can not be pinned down, because they can agree or disagree with any topic as well as any party and/or ideology. But if you claim to be a Democrat/liberal, then that means that what any other Democratic politician/office holder or liberal/progressive individual or group says or does, means that it/they can be used against you.


Its just a BS cop out, and I tend to block the worst of them.
 
Last edited:
How often does a group openly claim a mass murdering psychopath as a member? Most normal people try to downplay that sort of thing.

I have tended to disavow anyone I have ever known who ended up being a mass murdering psychopath.

I have called the Associated Press and reported this to them on numerous occasions, but so far to my knowledge they have never run the story.
 
Ben Shapiro is a lying, dishonest, piece of shit. What self respecting Harvard law grad would go around doing what he does instead of actually practicing law?

anyway, why does he compare NRA lobbying dollars to Union lobbying dollars? Unions aren't lobbying for gun control... neither is Planned Parenthood.

of course, because as the links I pointed show, NRA spending ALONE swamps all gun control groups spending practically each (maybe all?) and every fucking election cycle.

this is more of his "brilliant legal mind" in action:

is the NRA actually even “buying” anyone? The answer here is obviously no.​

OBVIOUSLY! Wait... how so?

They pick the candidates who support their agenda and support them. They don’t go around offering cash in briefcases in order to convince those who disagree to go along with their agenda.​

That... wow.

That's the extent of his argument here, comparing NRA lobbying dollars to unions and Planned Parenthood spending (misleading and dishonest), and then claiming they don't "buy" people since they only give money to people who just happen to agree with them (and of course vote for the legistlation they want...)

If you ever find yourself as momentarily stupid as spartamack, and daydreaming about giving Ben shapiro a handjob for being "Harvard educated" yet willing to go around pandering to college Republican types by saying things like “Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.” ... read this expos?e on Ben Shapiro from last December. They wrote it in response to the NYT's ("lib media!") attempt to mainstream this racist, lying twerp of a human.

fuck Ben Shapiro

Not surprising that you can't argue facts so instead attack his character - or read articles from leftist idiots at currentaffairs.org who attack and impugn his character. For the record "That...wow" doesn't count as arguing the facts.
I've said it before and i'm sure I'll say it many times again - you are one pathetic loser.
 
Last edited:
Not surprising that you can't argue facts so instead attack his character - or read articles from leftist idiots at currentaffairs.org who attack and impugn his character. For the record "That...wow" doesn't count as arguing the facts.
I've said it before and i'm sure I'll say it many times again - you are one pathetic loser.

you either glossed over or intentionally ignored paragraphs 2, 3, & 4 of my post in which I discussed the merits of his argument.

The fact that he's a racist, lying twerp is just gravy on top.
 
There are a ton of teens that are lying down in front of the White House to protest. Really a powerful thing to see the younger generation do.


I agree it was something to see.. I've always told my kids and anyone who will listen that if the 18-25 year old would unite they could create havoc in elections. I think the last data I looked at was around 30 million people. Not sure but that is a lot of votes .
 
Last edited:
I think this is very reasonable.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/age-limit-buying-ar-15-assault-rifle-table-211001833.html

21 at least? right there with the drinking age.

The MI legislature voted to reduce the legal age to consume alcohol to 18 in 1972, then restored it to 21 in 1979.

I turned 18 in 1974, but my younger brother didn't until 1977. So he could drink legally while ages 18-19, but not when he turned 20, IiIRC, b/c the restored drinking law was not "grandfathered".

If you are old enough to serve, and old enough to be charged as an adult in court, then you are old enough to drink, IMO.
 
Wow, Republican talking heads in the media sure do hate kids when they start to exercise their First Amendment rights.

I can't believe some of insane stuff they're saying.
 
The MI legislature voted to reduce the legal age to consume alcohol to 18 in 1972, then restored it to 21 in 1979.

I turned 18 in 1974, but my younger brother didn't until 1977. So he could drink legally while ages 18-19, but not when he turned 20, IiIRC, b/c the restored drinking law was not "grandfathered".

If you are old enough to serve, and old enough to be charged as an adult in court, then you are old enough to drink, IMO.

I remember as a kid seeing my dad's old yearbooks (he was class of '73 I think), and a picture of a bunch of guys drinking beers, with the caption "The drinking age was lowered to 18 this year, and senior students of age approached it responsibly, drinking only on the weekends and the weeknights."

I didn't get the joke at the time.
 
Back
Top