American Swindle

You don't say?

He must have supported Trump when he campaigned on getting out the Middle East eh? The bastard gets in power and cannot pull the trigger in getting the fuck out of the ME, because muh' MIC pressure!!

"They Hate us for our Freedoms"

Bring the troops home, all of them, from everywhere. @jimmyjazz, do you see how your beloved WP and NYT outlets are full of intellectual dishonesty here?

This is a good point. Perhaps a different weapon that is not as lethal? A taser? A gun with those rubber bullets?

Put me in the camp that views Public Education, The Majority of Higher Education and Academia, and the Media as being slanted and comprised of mostly folks that hold a Leftist leaning ideology so of course the chances of posters here starting on the left is much higher (assuming they attend college.) Also in Red States, if they start on the right, you would expect them to veer center or left center after 12-15 years of education from institutions that are liberal/left. Not that the intentions of the Left aren't good, I'm just opposed to the whole idea that they get to use government as a vehicle to force others to conform to their views as opposed to independently compelling others through private means to see it their way and allowing their ideas to win over time. Basically: "Democracy means that the majority gets to piss in the soup of the minority." Unlike the Left, this is the strategy of the small l Ron Paulians and Rothbardians within the libertarian movement. It's as if our real education in life begins after College, when we enter the work force and have kids. Only then, does one realize how hard it is, given the current 1.4 trillion dollar financed swamp, to raise a family or buy a house or pay for college. We argue about who will get elected, what this politician said or did, or what Trump tweeted about in narcissistic fashion, but the real story is that the Swamp is still there, and it's the trillion dollar budget that needs to be choked out and reduced. Trump did no such thing when he signed the omnibus bill. Anyway, That's an interesting study. PEOPLE ARE LITERALLY READY TO KILL EACH OTHER IN THE POLITICAL FORUMS BECAUSE THEIR FOOTBALL PROGRAMS SUCK ASS!!

I'm for questioning everything, but what are your thoughts on the below take? While no one is the absolute “keeper” of others in that we are not responsible for everyone’s safety when we are not present, every man is his brother’s keeper in that we are not to commit violent acts against them or allow others to do so if we can prevent it. This sort of “keeping” is something God rightfully demands of everyone, on the grounds of both justice and love. If this indeed is the correct interpretation, then it would seem the parishioner's actions were consistent with the principles of the Christian faith, namely the notion that "I am my brother's keeper."

You're right, my bad. I'm not entrenched in the board as much as others and mainly hang in the Cloak Room so in all honesty I'm not informed as to the political leanings of everyone on the board that do not post in the CR. It has been my experience that the CR seems to be more progressive than conservative or libertarian based on the most active users. Call it my opinion from my limited experience.

What specifically? Bearing arms in the church or killing the shooter?

You ought to replace the gun with a symbol that represents justice and love.

Okay I got you. My last two sentences in my response were not directed at the poster but more toward political narratives being pushed over the last 3 years from the TDS-Radical Left-Gun Control-MSM blob that try to compel others to support more government limitations on 2A rights. That, and the fact he tried to make it as if Christians somehow were bad because they allowed guns into the place where they worship. It's commonplace and mainstream to criticize Christians and Christianity, but the minute you criticize any other religion, you are woke scolded into oblivion. No offense Surly. I can't tell the victim's loved ones how they should feel but you and I and everyone else on the Surly know, with out a shred of doubt, that if nobody was armed in that church , that instead of 2 victims loved ones being affected, it would have been way more. What tribe am I a part of that spiked the football? The entire Cloak Room is dominated by mainly one ideology. When a tragic event happens like this, the solutions go one way only. Any argument for the 2A is laughed at, especially when you remind those that are for limiting 2A rights that the Founders intended on the populace being armed to be able to fight against a tyrannical government. I just happened to be a little emotionally charged on this one as it really is an example to my point about meeting mass shooters with violent force to thwart the losses. We have to have an honest debate about what the common factors were with these mass violence (stabbings, guns, physical violence leading to death,) situations and just be informed as the violence will always be there; we can only hope to minimize it. But I assure you, banning or limiting guns will not stop humans from being violent to one another. And you can't trust the cops to protect you, a court case already ruled that they have no obligation to protect you. I think we ought to stop looking at the guns and look at the mental factors that lead those to commit mass violence and normalize the idea of law-abiding citizens carrying to protect the defenseless, rather than calling those that are proud to carry and protect "gun nuts". There are cops unwilling to protect you and we are forced to pay them, but law abiding citizens will voluntarily protect you without hesitation. What's wrong with any of that?

Pffftttt. Again.

Pffftttt. Weak ass come back. Address the issues and points or else I’ll just assume you agree with me. Glad we agree on gun rights!

Twitter. The decentralized (supposedly) platform that gives Independent media a voice outside the mainstream controlled narratives. There are liberals that actually don’t suffer from TDS on there, can you believe that? You oughta try it. The WP and NYT are much more intellectually dishonest than what you perceive me to be.

Holy shit, we got Jimmy “gotcha” James and his bro Jimmy “gotcha” Jazz bro-in’ out and tag teaming me with their witty gotcha styles. The spectacle of it all!! You guys really got me!!! /goodfellas laffing .gif

Haha ok, you really got me. Try to address points more rather than the emotional rhetoric surrounding substantive issues within a post.

Jimmy “gotcha” Jazz ignoring every other point in my post but this, how surprising. The comment was directed at the overall commentary from the gun control crowd that I’ve seen on the inter webs, not a particular post or poster on this board. Good Day Sir.

I don't think I'll ever be able to understand why many seem to replace any positive religion , with say, the religion of politics or the state. Boil the issue down a bit more, is it okay for a church to have members that are strapped to defend it? Even more disturbing is we live in a nation of pansy ass soy boys that don't understand that the founders of our country thought the second amendment was as important as the 1st amendment. Also, I like how you frame your point around "OK because you might need to kill someone," instead of defending the defenseless or the property and people of the church. The bottom line is bringing a weapon to worship is totally fine as one might need to protect the church and drastically limit the amount of mass shooter casualties that would have occurred if zero members of the congregation were unarmed. Furthermore, the fact is mass shooter casualties drastically reduces when the shooter is met with violent force. Casualties also reduce the quicker that violent force is executed. It's almost as if the radical gun control advocates hate that the parishioner successfully disarmed and ended the violence so quickly. I feel sad for you, I really do.

You made the argument that big corporations are wasteful too and that because one corporation invests in marketing to "squash" the competition that is somehow bad. My question to you is why is free market competition bad? "HELLO, ANYBODY HOME NDAWG?/Biff" The reason libertarians regard government waste as outrageous as opposed to private entities wasting money is because the government waste is done with............................................................................wait for it............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................OUR FUCKING TAX DOLLARS.....!! If a private company mismanages, then the risk is on the capital investors who invested money (that they likely saved over time or took a loan out for), not the damn tax payer. They go bankrupt or go out of business. Yes, it's that fucking simple. Don't create a business with value to voluntary consumers? Go out of fucking business. But create a monopoly on education, police, the court systems, airport security, letter sending, student loan guarantees to lenders, banking bailout ability and stay in business because you and I foot the bill no matter how bad the results or services are. Of course the world isn't that simple, but I'm sure you'll agree that literally *ANY SANE PERSON IN THE WORLD THAT UNDERSTANDS LOGIC* would agree that it's not right to steal from others or use violence against a peaceful person or their property. This is the root of the Non-Aggression principle, or NAP for short, that all libertarians believe and talk about. Not a bad flaw to have in my opinion...ya know...believing and trying to live by an arguably universal, unifying principle. Also central is economic liberty and sound money. The more the government spends, the more they strip away the taxpayer's economic liberties. And lastly, How many of you have voluntary given ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY money? It's so easy to virtue signal that taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society, but how many of you have actually paid more to the government because you thought it was a good thing? I'll wait.

How did the new Deal help the poor exactly? The New Deal was atrocious as it prolonged the depression with major government interventions into the economy. The NiRC of 1933, the smoot-holly tariff, the government destroying surpluses of cotton and pigs because they thought shrinking the abundance of supplies would lead to an increase in pricing(yes the government,) wage hiking (which led to more unemployment,) and many other interventions all prolonged the depression and had devastating impacts on the economy. Many think FDRs policies got us out of the depression, but in reality Herbert Hoover’s laissez fair approach to the market was was already leading to the market correcting itself. If you genuinely want to learn more listen: https://tomwoods.com/ep-1353-the-disastrous-new-deal/ As noted in the podcast, historians are abandoning the claim that FDRs New Deal policies helped get us out of the depression. So how does pricing out less valuable labor as a result of all that govt intervention into the economy help the poor?

Sure it does, but the argument has been made that we’ve went way beyond the founder’s original intent on this clause and it’s led to extremely wasteful programs that has led to unintended consequences at the detriment of those that said programs were intended to help. Federal reserve act of 1913, the New Deal, minimum wage law, NDAA Patriot act, social security act (ponzi scheme,) war on drug policy. These are just off the top of my head

Yeah we’ll you’re argument is pretty weak. Mismanagement in the free market leads to loss of jobs and risks of loss for capital investors for corporations. Multiple corporations doing the same thing? Pffft...you mean like businesses competing to meet the demands of a complex society of consumers to give them the most valuable product at the most competitive price? Yeah sounds real shitty. The irony is you are the consumer and these competitors only exist to fill meet your demands. What other system other than free market capitalism would give us so many options at a low price?

Agreed, the bigger it gets the more moral hazard is perpetuated by the corrupt actors within it. Thus, the only solution is to reduce it so much that the moral hazard has less effect imo.

Not necessarily what I want, but what the Constitution warrants as necessary to protect inalienable rights, property rights and economic liberty.

Like Somalia? Haha. Nah I agree with you for the most part, that constitutionalism and government minarchism is the pragmatic approach given our current system. That still doesn’t mean that taxation isn’t theft or extortion. As in, you can support the pragmatic approach to small government funding of enforcement for protection of property rights while also philosophically maintaining that taxation is theft or extortion . And for those that are knocking the libertarian platform, rooted within in it is an adherence to the NAP, which is the non-aggression principle. This holds that one cannot use aggression against another person or their property. Does this sound like a horrible idea? I mean, we literally live by this principle every working day, unless you hit others to get what you want or steal for a living, so why is it such a bad principle to incorporate politically?