Subsidizing someone’s crap life choices results in more crap life choices. Was a time when women didn’t bang everything that looked pleasing to them because of how difficult life could get. Now? We subsidize everything when someone complains even in the slightest about anything.

You ever consider what trajectory for society you are advocating for?

Abortion will be the law of the land until there is SUBSTANTIAL and expensive welfare reform that makes it possible to raise a million more poor babies per year.

No that is just how you want it. How Vic dreams isn't the way it works.

Abortion becomes illegal simply if the Supreme Court strikes it down. Where do you get the notion that thievery by the government has to be involved?

I may address your other retarded points you tried to make at another time. It was some stupid shit you said.

They hate welfare more than they love babies,

You love thieves stealing more than you like babies. IN fact in your post here you said you don't give a shit about them anymore. I'm thinking you never did you being pretty much a democrat.

If those Catholics ever got off their asses they could end abortion. But those democrat appointed Catholics can't seem to get their heads out of their asses and end the murders.

I know it makes you feel good to rage about it, and it certainly empowers the Republicans to keep duped rubes like you in the ranks, actually believing you're accomplishing something. You're accomplishing nothing, other than empowering a bunch of rich guys to concentrate money in their pockets, while dangling a pro-life carrot in front of your face to keep you walking forward pulling their cart.

You really are a retard aren't you!

You really are a retard aren't you!

There should be a question mark not an exclamation point at the end.

Retardo.

You ever consider what trajectory for society you are advocating for?

I have, and I do.

I don't seem to be able to penetrate the stubborn unrealism of Republicans. By going down into the fuhrerbunker and fighting to the bitter end, the Republicans and simply ensuring a bitter end that need not happen.

But I've been over this ground so many times before, I'm all out of energy to do it again.

You really are a retard aren't you!

No. I'm a very intelligent man who is telling you the truth, and trying to save you people from yourselves. But you're in the fuhrerbunker, headed towards the bitter end.

You needn't be. But you are.

I guess you are going to have a difficult time trying to change my mind because I understand human nature much better than you. I know for a fact, that if you create favorable conditions for individuals to thrive while living immorally, you will get more immorality.

Look. I really dgaf about anothers life choices, just don’t ask me to work my ass off so your bad choices don’t inconvenience YOU. (not you specifically...)

You may as well be advocating for the taxpayers to buy all the heroin or whatever junkies want. The policy of doing that is completely consistent with the concern fagging over the other issue you use to justify taking productive peoples money.

Look, I truly believe you’re a very decent human, I just wish you would understand tough love is the only thing that works in the long run on the macro level, and is the best for this society overall.

You REALLY want to stick it to the 1%? Channel your energies into denying them cheap labor and increased costs for housing, energy, schools, roads, blah blah blah.

You fix that, and 90% of this country’s issues become ever more manageable. Don’t be one of the saps who help create the problem, and then ‘fix’ it. It’s crap like that, that leads society down the drain ever faster. This kind of issue can’t be taxed away, doing so will insure that it will always need to be fed more and more.

Rather, I desire to maintain the world hegemony we already have: it keeps the peace. THAT requires the vast military and intelligence network and foreign aid system we have. If we cut IT, we cut our own power, and our weakness is a provocation to every ne'er do well on the planet. It's expensive, and I'd love to slough off that load, just as I'd like to flop down exhausted and slough off the burden of protecting a family in a complicated and challenging world. But the latter is not an option, and neither is the former - not unless I want war. When we stepped away from the world in the 1920s and 1930s, we got World War II as repayment. We learned, and understood we had to fight the Cold War. That's over. Now, we're fighting a global war on Islamism. And winning it, but as that fade, China is rising as an aggressive power.

Now, each of these fresh wars we fight, ends up leaving behind fewer enemies. Nations that used to be adversaries become neutral or friendly. We are WINNING, but ah slowly, and with a perpetual, large drain on our resources. It is painful. But if we drop the load now, we will pay more dearly in the future. If we stay the course, this very course likely will end in a peaceful world whose security issues we can manage at considerable expense and without war.

In short, it's worth it. But that means a permanent security apparatus that costs a lot of money in perpetuity. We cannot borrow money in perpetuity without eventually breaking our economy. We need to balance the budget, and we cannot do that by substantially cutting the military or intelligence infrastructure. We need to raise more taxes, and the top 1% is undertaxed relative to the rest of the society. Therefore, they must be taxed.

In a similar vein, we cannot abolish Social Security, or Public Schools, or Medicare or public financing of roads, ports, railroads and airports. Those are necessary parts of our infrastructure, all of them. I know that you will never be reconciled to that reality, and this is the Achilles' Heel of the Republican Party. You're STILL trying to turn back the New Deal, STILL arguing hackeneyed beliefs that didn't work back then (which is why we made the changes we made), won't work now, and aren't going to be tried. By holding the line against reality, you permanently limit yourselves to a minority of the electorate (and give low birth rates and immigration, a dwindling minority). Once again, we have to pay for all of these things, and that mighty military, and we can't do that with perpetual debt. We need to raise more taxes, and the least taxed element of the society is the wealth of the wealthy (the MOST taxed thing is wages of workers).

Democrats make a virtue of the taxation - their objective is the taxation ITSELF, the knocking down of the rich. I think that sort of thinking is pathological.

But the thinking that we can be a prosperous and stable modern society without a heavy government footprint, or have world peace without the American Imperium, is wrongheaded in its own right. We do.

Which means we need more revenue.

We have to tax something. We ALREADY tax working and middle class wages at a high rate. We ALREADY tax middle class property (land, houses and vehicles) at a moderate rate. We ALREADY tax middle class investment returns (dividends, interest, employee stock options) at a moderate rate. And we don't tax upper class wealth at all. We tax the upper class to the extent they are attached to the middle class economy (their houses and cars), but we DON'T tax their wealth. There are special tax loopholes - indeed the whole structure of the tax code itself - allows most upper class wealth to grow untaxed. This is a huge advantage to them, and is the reason they have accumulated a greater and greater percentage of the total American national wealth.

The Democrats are obsessed with that. I am not. I am focused on the fact that we need more revenue to pay for all of the necessary services, and everybody else is tapped out. All of that upperclass wealth that has heretofore escaped taxation needs to be subject to it, at the same rate that the middle and working classes already pay. I do not advocate screwing the rich. I advocate that they pay THE SAME portion of their wealth as taxes that the middle class does. As things stand, they pay far, far less, and we cannot sustain our government on the revenues currently coming in. What we need costs more than what we raise. We need to raise more, and the wealthy are the one untapped part of the economy that should be paying for it.

THAT is primarily where I come from. I RECOGNIZE that an already elitist party is by its nature limited in numbers. And I recognize that it can only be marginalized further if it takes a "Let them eat cake" mentality, it will not be able to hold the line on important things, like national security (which the Democrats would cut).

We need Democrats to be reasonable on national security, and Republicans to be reasonable on social welfare. Neither are. So we need Independents to keep dragging the lunatic fringes back to the center.

I have no desire to "stick it" to the 1%.

Do you want to make a bet that I can't find you saying that you want to stick it to the rich? I think I can find multiple posts of yours that say that you do want to stick it to the rich.

www.globalresearch.ca/hid...e-first-world-war/5600090

The popular narrative is of course bullshit.

The rest of the word salad can be summed up by your tell about my opinions forever being in the minority due to demographics is pretty solid. I recognize people who’s opinions that are close to mine will have no voice soon. Ya, it’s true. We will see more and more Ilhan Omar’s, more AOCs, more Maxine Waters’ etc. making laws and appointing judges.

You seem to want to roll over and give them the inch already, not seeing how it will end for you and yours. Leftists are quick to scream demographics are destiny, and are not quite bright enough to see exactly where it WILL lead.

I wish your family luck. I’m sure if you think the left will give you the same treatment that Tolstoy received , well, good luck with that as well.

Do you want to make a bet that I can't find you saying that you want to stick it to the rich? I think I can find multiple posts of yours that say that you do want to stick it to the rich.

So? If I were to go sorting through your comments and words over the last 20 years of your life, and string them together, you'd sound like a poop-slinging monkey. I don't do that, because it accomplishes nothing. I'd spare myself the effort, if I were you. Because, you know, INTERNET and hyperbole go together like apple pie and cheese.

You seem to want to roll over and give them the inch already, not seeing how it will end for you and yours.

I don't advocate rolling over for anybody. On the things I want to see them a advance on, I want to see that advance because they're right.

Rather, it was a planned provocation against the German people by by by very powerful banking interests.

The Germans were aggressive barbarians who attacked their neighbors, and lost. Unable to learn from their mistakes, they did it again, harder, and lost again, much harder.

They learned after the second time around.

Once you’ve bitten from the apple of the government being the arbiter of who gets what, rather than being a government that secures the liberty of the people, well, you’re just the other side of the coin in a crime spree.

I see zero difference between you and those you have disdain for.

Again, the real problems are caused by things you don’t address, like population replacement and growth, and not the dog and pony of the so called left/right. (The parameters of acceptable discourse, wherein everyone has agreed to just put lipstick on a dying pig.)

I see you didn’t read the link. The First World War was a travesty, and not at all started by the Germans.

No link can change the fact that the Germans invaded Belgium and France in 1914, starting the world war, not the reverse. Neither France nor Belgium invaded Germany. Germany invaded them, starting the war, and killing and crippling millions of Frenchmen and Belgians in the process.

What happened in the East, between Serbia and Austria, Germany and Russia, were the problem for those Eastern countries. When the Germans lunged WESTWARDS, because their own war plans were rigid and didn't allow for any other contingency, they elected to start a world war. Later, they elected to attack shipping, including neutral American shipping, with their submarines, causing great loss of life, and bringing the Americans into the war, thereby sealing their own fate.

Nothing in your link can change the well-known reality of the past 100 years, and nobody can bring back all of those innocent French and Belgians who died due to naked German military imperialism. The Germans started both World Wars, and the Allies ended them.

Had the Germans been intelligent, their military planners should have seen that they could not possibly beat the Allies in either war, and they should have come to a negotiated settlement they would not have liked very much (because the weaker party is never happy with the outcome of negotiations with the strong). Instead, they were hotheads, went to war, and were ultimately destroyed.

World War I was Germany's fault, because Germany made it a war by unilaterially attacking Belgium and France.

From the American perspective, in both wars with Germany, the Germans initiated war by sinking American ships. In the second war, Germany outright declared war first, and immediately went after American ships.

Government always has been the final arbiter of disputes, because individuals do not have the right to resort to violence to get their way, and the courts belong to the government. This was as true 400 years ago as it is today.

the courts belong to the government

What is government of the people, by the people, for the people; and how does that fit into the context of the difference between the Rule of Law, and the Rule of Men?

What is government of the people, by the people, for the people; and how does that fit into the context of the difference between the Rule of Law, and the Rule of Men?

It is a line in a speech from Abraham Lincoln, specifically, the Gettysburg Address.

As far as legal force in that line: there is none. It was a rhetorical device in a speech by a President who died 154 years ago.

As far as a descriptor of what America is, it's pretty good. We have a government "OF the people", meaning that it is manned, top to bottom, by citizens. It is a government "BY the people" both because the initial establishment of the government was through a popular revolution, and because the people selected to be the rulers are selected by the people in elections. It is a government "FOR the people", because the government's purpose is to better the life of the people in various ways - by 'establishing justice, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty with each new generation'.

The government has done a pretty good - not perfect, but pretty good - job of doing that (at least compared to other governments in the world.

As are as "Rule of Law" versus "Rule of Men" goes, that is simply a matter of the distinction between law and prerogative. Absolute onarchies and their republican homologues: distatorships, both vest absolute power in a man, who then delegates his power to subordinates he selects. This government appartus of ruler and satraps then has discretionary control over everything. They decide what the law will be, case by case, as an emanation of their own will and opinion. A just ruler will have just laws, and an unjust ruler, unjust laws. The law itself is the personal opinion of a man or a small cabal of men.

Rule of Law, by contrast, means that laws, established through normal and predictable processes, governs the behavior of ALL men, including the rulers, and the rulers can be held accountable to the law.

The concepts fit together with democratic republican government, because the legislators are chosen by the people, as are executives and, either directly or indirectly, judges - they're all subject to the laws they pass, and imposing or changing law requires process.

As far as legal force in that line: there is none.

Oh, well, what about a moral force?

The law itself is the personal opinion of a man or a small cabal of men.

Organized Criminal predators certainly seem to act like it is -- Especially when securing the inalienable rights of the prey contradicts the feeding of the predatory, self-worshiping, cabal.

chosen by the people

Not chosen by the cabal (or the vanguard elite), are you sure?

Not chosen by the cabal (or the vanguard elite), are you sure?

Given that TRUMP won the election, and BOTH sides have been tearing their hair out and bleeding out the eyeballs ever since, yeah, pretty sure.

Given that TRUMP won the election

You mean "Our Boy".

What was FBI informant Felix Sater (sometimes Satter) doing in the Trump organization anyhow?

What was FBI informant Felix Sater (sometimes Satter) doing in the Trump organization anyhow?

I don't follow inside baseball. No idea.

BOTH sides

You mean both facades of the two-party dialectic cattle chute that America's founders warned against inflicting on their republic.

You mean both facades of the two-party dialectic cattle chute that America's founders warned against inflicting on their republic.

George Washington warned against parties. The Founders in general eagerly engaged in partisanship as soon as the country started.

Felix Slater nonsense

LOL.  For being such a nobody Ol' Felix sure does get your and ol Tight Shirt Tom Fitton's panties in a bunch.

"It was Andrew Weissmann who, as supervising assistant U.S. attorney, signed the agreement that brought Sater on as a government informant. Federal prosecutors wrote a letter to Sater’s sentencing judge on August 27, 2009, in an effort to get him a lighter sentence: “Sater’s cooperation was of a depth and breadth rarely seen.”

Sater also was reportedly a CIA informant in the mid-2000s for the CIA during his undercover work with Russian military and intelligence officers."
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-doj-for-docs-on-fbi-cia-informant-in-trump-organization/

LOL. For being such a nobody Ol' Felix sure does get your and ol Tight Shirt Tom Fitton's panties in a bunch.

Trump won and will stay in office. Israel is the good guys. You are a douche bag that needs flushed.

You aren't worth debating you are to stupid.

You aren't worth debating you are to stupid.

Israel is the good guys.

Nuthinyahoo, leader of the Sister of Sodom, has been indicted and will be facing judgement soon too.

(see, that's how to and too are used)

Which moral American first principles do you believe Trump and his cult personify most succinctly?

www.atr.org/flashback-blo...g-taxes-poor-people-good- thing

VXH and his Felix Slater nonsense again. The guy is a head case.

Ah yes the pseudo names change but the rhetoric remains the same, that happens quite frequently at the chit chat channels especially the ones that have political content.

And, when it comes to the battle of billionaires, anything Trump can do, Bloomberg can do better. There will be a lot of confidence in Bloomberg from the beginning.

His platform will be the same as it was in New York: I'm a competent manager of money and people and competing interests, obviously. I'll use that skill to run the country better. I'm non-partisan, and I don't like drama.

Bloomberg will win in an landslide, and he'll be a fantastic President. He's got a 12 year public track record and a 40 year private sector career record. He's a humble, practical guy. He will apply his obvious intelligence and leadership to run the country as successfully as he ran New York and Bloomberg enterprises. And he'll do it without drama.

Trump made fun of him for his height today (Bloomberg is 5' 8"). If there were something else to attack Bloomberg on, he would. There isn't. If Bloomberg runs, Trump is toast.

Uh Huh.

Bloomberg is 5'8" when wearing 4" high heels...which I hear he does quite regularly...MUD

I don't think so. Bloomburg actually makes sense at times.

"The First World War was a travesty, and not at all started by the Germans..."

While technically accurate, Germany and Austria were the two most formidable nations on the continent, and my impression of history is that they were spoiling for a fight.

Please correct me if me impression is wrong, DCW...MUD

Bloomburg actually makes sense at times.

At times, perhaps he does. Other times he comes across as a bumbling billionaire idiot. He is but one in a host of idiots we label Democrats.

"...bumbling billionaire idiot."

Amazing ability to insert his foot in his mouth, and I am barely scratching the surface of looking into his political foubles. It appears that decades of autocRATic control of his media empire has left him surrounded by Yes-men and Yes- womyn who do not challenge his ideologies...MUD

Uh Huh.

Tonight's a big test. If Bloomberg comes back from his last debate performance swinging, and re-establishes himself in the race, Super Tuesday could be interesting.

And if he plays the longer game, as long as Bernie does not outright win the majority of delegates, at a brokered convention his money could simply buy him the nomination even if he was not a top vote getter.

I still think that Bloomberg is the most formidable rival Trump could face, and I've very much hoping that Bernie continues to surge, boosted by Republicans voting in the Democrat primary. That's definitely who we want to face in the general.

Bernie should hire Larry David from the SNL skit as his body double. David's impression of Bernie Sanders is actually better than Bernie himself.

Bernie can sit in the backroom and strategize, and Larry David can go win the election for him.

Soon it will be just Bernie versus Trump, and then the fun begins.

I guess I was hoping too much. Biden is the Democratic Establishment's choice, so it'll be him, exploding eyeballs and all.

Larry David can go win the election for him

Maybe Larry could re-enact that scene where he urinates on a picture of Christ...