START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
label:  
  Government & Politics
| track thread
« Back to topics
Colorado Shooting over in 80 Seconds because of School Resource Officer
8 months ago
| Government & Politics

You heard it right, gun grabbers. The recent shooting in Colorado at Arapahoe High School happened to have a Deputy Sheriff on school grounds who was working as a school resource officer, according to a CNN report. He was in the vicinity of the shooter when the rampage began and was able to end the violence in 80 seconds. The initial reports were stating that the police took 14 minutes to arrive on the scene, but we are now learning that wasn’t what ended the shooting.

The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said.

Once he learned of the threat, he ran — accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators — from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. “It’s a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly.”

The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. “We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life.”

He praised the deputy’s response as “a critical element to the shooter’s decision” to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. “He went to the thunder,” he said. “He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe.”

Not even 24 hours ago, we posted an article discussing what we’ve learned since Sandy Hook and what we’re doing about it. Well, this is a perfect example of something we should be doing across the country.

While you’re here, this is a perfect opportunity to revisit The Illusion of the Gun Free Zone, as it fits like a perfectly matched puzzle piece.

http://www.concealednation.org/2013/12/colorado-shooting-over-in-80-seconds-because-of-armed-staff-member/

..

7 months ago

I wonder how many would have died or been maimed if this deranged individual had a full 14 minutes?  

.

Note that none of the legislation that's passed would have stopped this from happening.   The kid allso had a machette and molotov's.  

Those that wonder what would have happened at Sandy Hook if someone at the school had been armed instead of being in a rich target~~guarenteed; "gun free zone" should take heed.....but won't.   Political dogma of the State having a disarmed and helpless population will not allow Statists to view this issue with dispassion.  

7 months ago

But Libertarians don't want to pay for public officers to work at public schools. I have no problem with an armed & trained police officer at a high schools. Austin has about 100 schools and we currently have about 1600 officers. So what would we need? 150 more officers? Fine with me.

7 months ago

In Colorado,taxpayers aren't paying for marijuana arrests,thus resources are used to fight violent crimes

7 months ago

Its a non-sequitor and not th epoint of the article, but I don't disagree. Anything to fight the prison industrial complex is a good thing.

7 months ago

As they investigate the latest school shooting in the United States – Friday at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colo. – one thing is clear to law enforcement officials there: The presence of an armed deputy sheriff on regular duty at the school was the key factor in preventing more deaths and injuries.

As soon as he heard the first of five gunshots, that officer and the two school administrators he was talking to raced toward the commotion shouting their presence and ordering students and staff to follow the school’s lock-down protocol.

As a result, Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson said at a briefing Saturday afternoon, the heavily-armed shooter realized he was about to be confronted by an armed officer, and he took his own life.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/1214/Colorado-school-shooting-Armed-guards-the-answer

7 months ago

Any person trained in fire arms would have led to the same result in saving lives.  In fact, if gun free zones were abolished, there would  be less of these attacks.  Note that in this case, it was not an active duty police officer.  In most "gun free school zones" this would be  illegal.  

.

Some want more police with more guns.  I want citizens to retain their human right of self defense.  Some want the State to have a monopoly on force.  I don't.  Some  want to expand the States power and hire more police.  I don't.  Some  want to force others to pay for a  political ideology that leads to a more powerful State.  I reject that.  

.

The police are not everywhere now......" perhaps there should be more police", some will say.  The populace must be "protected" and "helped" by the State.  The people cannot be responsible for themsleves.  "Self defense is not a right", they will say.  Police should be in move theatres, malls, parking lots, in fact, any public gatherings.  

.

Of course there will always be those that want "more".  And David is correct.   There will be calls to use this expansion to enforce their beliefs on others.  In the name of "morality", "justice", "public safety" or whatever.  Some will use expansion to legislate "morality" by threats as there are more enforcers.  So.....more laws.  More restrictions on liberty.  More prisons.  The Prison Industrial Complex will be delighted.  Corporate America will be thrilled.  

.

It always begins with such, but when things begin by forcing others to pay and restricting the human rights of others, there is only one conclusion: this is tyranny.

.

Some will never learn the lessons of history.  

7 months ago

Why should tax payers pay for MORE militarization of public schools?  That's crazy!  Someone doesn't have to be a effing 'cop' to carry and use a gun responsibly!  We already pay out the ass for admins in these prisons called 'schools' - how about train their fat lazy well paid asses to protect their charges? 

7 months ago

Gawd, it makes me want to throw up when people AUTOMATICALLY run to the "government" to save him from everything!! What pussies.

7 months ago

"Oh, mastah government, please allow me to defend myself and my children! Pretty pleeeeeeeease? No? Then could you  PLEASE allow us to give you MORE MONEY to place 100 cops in every school!  It's FOR THE CHILDREN!"

.

Yeah, makes ya want to vomit.

7 months ago

Well,

Here david is making the argument that a police officer stopped a school shooting. Jim and you are not trying to imply that anyone that has any gun training could have done the same thing. THere is no basis for that argument, what individual, let alone someone overworked like a teacher, has the time or ability to go through the same training as a police officer does.
- How to evaluate a situation

- How to diffuse a situation

- When to shoot, etc.

--

So what is it? Cops good or bad in schools? I have no problem with a cop in a school. Its one of the few places that I think they could do some good.

7 months ago

Further, a police officer in a school is hardly militarization.

-

Other options exist, such as licensing gun owners, like we do with drivers. What a terrible idea. Ensuring that mental illness isn't a concern with the gun owner, like we make sure that a driver can actually see the road...

Big bad government! Doing so much evil! Its tyrrany! Driver's licenses are Tyrrany!!! FREEDOM!

7 months ago

I made the argument that someone armed prevented this tragedy from being worse. Whether it was a police officer or not is irrelevant. The fact that it was a police officer is because they don't have to waste time on stuff like busting marijuana smokers.

I lived in Colorado..Chile, you wouldn't like Colorado's attitude about guns. Just recently 2 legislators were recalled,(one a Democrat in a predominently Democratic district) for voting for anti gun measures. This was done without NRA assistance,but rather by citizens of those districts.

7 months ago

David: "I made the argument that someone armed prevented this tragedy from being worse. Whether it was a police officer or not is irrelevant.Whether it was a police officer or not is irrelevant. "

.

Exactly.  

.

Chile: "I have no problem with an armed & trained police officer at a high schools. Austin has about 100 schools and we currently have about 1600 officers. So what would we need? 150 more officers? Fine with me."

Notice there was not even an attempt here to using the CURRENT police force for this function.  Chile  advocates an EXPANSION of the police .  And, of course, an EXPANSION of the State along with more taxes on the populace.  He doesn't even consider if another way could work.  This is a typical knee jerk reaction by hardened statist.  There is a problem:  Answer is:  "therefore the State" or "expand the govnment".  

.

Not that I agree with having police in the schools.  There is a better way.  Time to chuck the stone aged, murderous and exploitive institution of the State and have humanity move on.  

7 months ago

No. you didn't david. You made no such argument. YOU made an argument that a trained law enforcemnt officer stopped a shooting quickly. To go from a trained officer to another alterntive is a leap of faith not suppoted by anything you have presented.

--

I really don't care where the cops come from and I have no training or basis to assume I know how many Austin needs. I am guessing that you would need at least 1 to 1.5 per school in addition to what is needed. You are assuming austin has too many cops already, based on what? Nothing.

__

so all we have is evidence that a cop in a school might be able quickly stop a shooting, and all three of you have said it was a good thing that it happened. THerefore, you support cops in schools to stop shootings. 


good to know

7 months ago

Don't you love it when someone else tries to tell YOU what YOU said??

7 months ago

Nope.  David clearly stated that is was an armed individual that stopped this. Pierson was NOT on duty as a police officer.  BTW, he announced retirement the day before.  If this had been a couple weeks later and he had been "retired" but still qualified  in firearms, Chile would have been against his involvement because the was not an agent of the State.

.

"You are assuming austin has too many cops already, based on what? Nothing."  .

Texas has the higest per capita prison rate of any State in the USA (which is the highest in the world).  Austin is in the top 40% of the nation in percapita police/citizen.  Chile believes that there should be even more police, and as he says he has no problem  with expanding the polcie force and taxing others to pay this expansion.  He does not even bother to consider retasking the police./

.

In other words: "expand the state".  

.

 

7 months ago

I love this. David says"Don't you love it when someone else tries to tell YOU what YOU said??"


THen Jim does the exact same thing.

---

But in reality, david, both your articles give evidence to a armed police officer starting the shooting. And that is all they do. Any other conclusions based on these two articles you posted is complete conjecture. From your article:


The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said

_

Sorry Jim, IF someone concedes a point to you and you go on a tirade about it anyway, throwing all kinds of asumptions at that person, It just makes you a pedantic assshole.

_

If you are going to add officers to school, I made a point about how many would likely be needed, that is all. trying to make it a larger issue about what police roll in sosciety is another subject.

_

My feeling on guns is that I have no idea why they can't be licensed/registered like cars/ Drivers licenses. I don't want to take anyone's guns. I do think gun culture is a bit sad though.

7 months ago

Don't Americans already have to pay ransom to the state for their gun license, just like they do for a driver's license?  

.

Is there anything in this country that 'doesn't' have to have a 'paid for' license or permit to get it done ("legally")?  

.

And how did 'CNN' get the basic facts about this event SO wrong?  (Rhetorical question).

7 months ago

Why should we have to "register" our damn cars - or guns - Chile?  Seriously, besides raping car owners for $100'S annually, what is the purpose of a new "tag" on your car every year?  

7 months ago

Gee  Chile,  I quoted David.  He didn't "concide" anything.  Try reading what people write without looking through ideological glasses.  

.

As far as conjecture?  That's what you are doing. The kid didn't end this because it was a police officer. Obviously.  If the officer was unarmed, would the kid have killed himself just because he announced he was a cop?  Nope.  It CLEARLY was because he was confronted with an ARMED INDIVIDUAL.  Your claim that this must be by a agent of the State is preposterous.  Numerous other incidents where there was no announcement Iam a police officer" resulted is the same outcome.   



This post was modified from its original form on 18 Dec, 6:06
7 months ago

"Is there anything in this country that 'doesn't' have to have a 'paid for' license or permit to get it done ("legally")?"
.
Not much. Marriage licenses are an example. We have to pay the State to marry someone. Like we are getting a dog.
.
Then those that want to use the State to foist their beliefs on others, seek to limit who one can marry for examply.  

.

Other permits, licenses etc are used to restrict competition.  That increases corruption, encourages bribes, increases the legal profession, raises prices and restricts products that are available by free choice of individuals.  

.

 

7 months ago

We can't even have a baby without the state's mandatory personalized "identification number," which the parent has the 'privilege' of paying for in the form of the state's "official birth certificate." We already pay out the ass in federally mandated taxation to pay for this 'birthing buraucracy' yet we will pay for the piece of paper the state DEMANDS we possess. If it is lost for whatever reason we get to "pay" for another copy.  Why would we need another copy?  

.

Well, do I really need to list in all the ways we are restricted from our God-given liberty WITHOUT "YOUR PAPERS" ? 

.

What does a state mandated' "Passport" go for these days- what, $120 or so ? before you are PERMITTED to leave/enter your own home?  The mob got busted for far lesser extortions.  Why are you not insisting the same for your "masters," Chile? 

7 months ago

No Jim. I conceded a point. Jesus, WTF is wrong with you? No wonder everyone thinks you are a prickk. Regardless of how hard anyone tries to discuss anything with you, you make it into some grand scheme about being a "statist" or some other bullshyte term...

__

You have no idea why the kid ended it. That is fact. talk about conjecture.


All we know is an armed cop ran down the hall screaming that he was a cop and the kid killed himself. You and your GF hear, are ones that talk about how the government power corrupts and controls people. The annoucement of an authority figure, like a cop, could as easily been more threatening. It isn't even clear he saw the cop with the gun.

-

We license things to ensure a level of compentancy. Yes, I want it to be illegal for a psychotic to buy a shotgun. I want it to be illegal for a 10 yr old to drive a truck. I want the ability to have some enforcement of those laws.

7 months ago

"The annoucement of an authority figure, like a cop, could as easily been more threatening. It isn't even clear he saw the cop with the gun." .......... I see. The kid was so intimidated that he killed himself........ LOL. He would have done that even if he had known the cop wasn't armed? Really?

.

Another key difference here is a world view. David see the off duty cop as an individual taking action. As do I. Chile does not. We see that it doesn't have to be a cop, just an individual.


" everyone thinks you are a prickk."

.

Translation: Chile thinks that and Chile is "everyone".....LOL
.
As far as grand scheme? I'm not the one that is advocating a increase in the police, forcing others to pay for my ideology.

.

Tell me Chile: Exactly when have I advocated forcing you to pay for what I believe Chile. Or give up anything against your will?

.

On the other hand..........



This post was modified from its original form on 18 Dec, 12:56
7 months ago

Chile, I think you just can't stand it that Jim has been right about everything all along as you see with your own eyes your country crumbling under the weight of the boot you have advocated and voted for all along.  I think your cognitive disodence is getting the better of you.  

.

There is still time to save face to the world tho, for ALL of us who have been voting L vs. R (read- American vs. American) the past twenty or so years.  We can do this  by accepting the reality that Americans were "Hegelian Dialected," and by rejecting this completely ridiculous false-paradigm of Dem. vs. Rep. because that is the biggest lie of all.  What IS true is:  It is us vs. them.  And "us" better stop squabbling over bullshit that would never be an issue had the Constitution remained in Force, and get our Constitution back.

7 months ago

LOL.

_

No Jim. lots of people think you are a prickk. You are as pedantic and inuslting as much or more as christian ever was to you or David. Not surprising that you all can't see that as you are so convincened in the DOgma of your Libertarian religion.

_

You can see what you want to see in this situation. You do that in everything you argue about, there is no objectivity, no consideration of what actually happened, just how to filter into your world view. ALl three of you are as bad as fox news republicans.

_

All that is known is a kid killed himself in a school when a cop started yelling that he was a cop and coming to get him. You don't know if that was a factor. IF it was an armed teacher, you don't know if he would have fought a gun battle or what he would have done. You can pretend it was because it was an armed "individual." You can see it however you want, you alwasy do. BUt there is NOTHING to support that view.

-

Next

7 months ago

"Lots of people" means "lots of progressives" who hate the truth AND the messenger. Cuz thems so dagnabit smart they cant wipe their ass without the state telling what kind of pot they can take a dump in..But, ironically, if Jim were a talking head for CNN or MSNBC, saying the same things with "lights camera action!" on TEEVEE, his statist audience would hang on every word because, well because its CNN! America's source for Cable Non News.

7 months ago

THe TRUTH! What is the truth? "the State"? You speak talking points like any good follower of a particular ideology. You go on and on about the right and the left and the statists" while doingt he exact same thing in your own ideology. ITs pathetic. How blind you are too it is even more so.

7 months ago

You seek to judge us by what you do Chile. The BIG difference is we are not trying to impose our "ideology", beliefs etc on you Chile. WE are not trying to limit your liberty, restrict your choices or control you. YOU are the aggressor. Your side are the exploiters. You support a corrupt system of special interests that is becoming more intrusive, despotic and repressive.

.

We are merely resisting.



This post was modified from its original form on 19 Dec, 6:55
7 months ago

If some think I'm a prick for refusing to accept aggression and point our those that advocate and support aggression on others for doing this...... then, I'm a prick.......
.
That's a pretty funny definition though. I would think that those that seek to impose their will on others using government as a tool to exploit their fellow human beings would better fit that term.

7 months ago

Here is a TRUTH, Chile... You are dumber than a fence post if you believe individual liberty to be an "ideology," or dumber yet, a "religeon.  OMG

7 months ago

"I would think that those that seek to impose their will on others using government as a tool to exploit their fellow human beings would better fit that term." ~Jim

.

Oh, it does.

.

prick, noun; 1. a penis; 2. derogatory term used to sum up the existence of a worthless asshole.

7 months ago

Talking piints, Chile?  Example?

7 months ago

Chile, 

.

Wednesday, 3:55 AM 

Why should we have to "register" our damn cars - or guns - Chile?  Seriously, besides raping car owners for $100'S annually, what is the purpose of a new "tag" on your car every year?"

.

Can you answer the question? That wasn't a rhetorical question.

7 months ago

I don't care if you register a car. I do  care that there is some standard of compentency to operate it, as I am on the road with you. That is called a license. YEs we make laws to operate on these roads by mutual consent, as we realize that some standardization to driving makes us all better off. IF you don't agree, try driving in Manilla. 

--

Yes there will always be some in government that continually push for more control and revenue, that should be pushed back on. But there is a balance. You are advocating for Somalia.

__

I seek to judge YOU? Both of you are the ones that have to define everyone you come in contact with by some ideological preconceived notion of what box they fit in. That's what you both have done now to me in the last 10-12 posts. not to mention every thread in the last couple years.

---

Talking points - "freedom" "liberty" "Statist" "Individualism" "free market" To name a few.

-
Jim, you are a prickk because you seek to define everyone else, instead of trying to talk about why your ideology is correct. Katii is just batshyte.

--

7 months ago

LOL. Somalia collapsed because of TOO MUCH government. An increasingly totalitarian socialist regime. The resultant erosion of the traditional checks and balances by the Barre regime left chaos in it's wake. A Western version is underway in the USA and Europe. If you are truly interested in political theory, you might want to read Franz Oppenheimer, AJ Nock or H L Mencken. Yes. This is on The State.
.
try driving in Manilla..... Most third world countries have high accident rates. Many of them have very strict regulation on driving. The Philippines driving license procedure is patterned on the USA.
.
We seek to define you and others? Heck, every human being does that in one way or another. So what?
.
As far as using terms (what you call "talking points"? You do the same. So what? We don't harp on you doing that.
.
You just can't get around the fact that we do not support or advocate the use of force against you. We do not seek to limit your liberty. We do not seek to use government to pay for what we believe in.
.
BTW. Your use of "everyone" is silly. Obviously not.
.
As far as my "ideology". I simply state that is wrong to impose one will on another by force.

7 months ago

Just asking that folks refrain from name calling

7 months ago

Chile, what have I said here that's "batshyte"? Example?

.

The reason I asked about registrations is because you said you wanted them.  I have never met ANY person of any 'political' stripe who doesn't agree everyone should be taught gun safety if they have a gun. But, do you believe we should have to shell out MORE money to the state for this "proof" of respinsible-gun-ownership?  If so, why? Do you believe that a group of jackasses of mediocre intelligence (at best), should be dictating to everyone else, many many who are far wiser  what commercial guns they can or can not own?  Do you believe we should be "restricted" from instruments of self defense equal to the state's instruments of offense, according to what the GOVERNMENT desires?  If so, why?

.

Also, using 'words', even adjectives, to communicate a point is hardly "talking points."  I can only presume that it has gone over your little head that THE POINT, IS, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.  You have some real audacity to call anyone a prickk, or batshyte, when you can't carry on a discussion without resorting to adolescent antics. 

7 months ago

Chile, in what way has Jim, or antone here, defined you that isn't accurate?

7 months ago

I am glad we agree that the 3rd world has high accident rates due to lack of regulations on driving, or at a minimum lack of enforcement of those regulations.

-

I don't seek to define your political beliefs and I never have. I define you becasue you are a ***** and you need to try to paint everyone else in a box to try to make your arguments work. That is all you do.

-

I don't use talking points. And you do try to define everyone.

-

Force? oh boy.. Yeah, when we in society decide to work together for common good, you call it force. Is there abuse? Absolutely. Would there be abuse of the commons in your ideal society (which is figment of imagination, like communism)? Absolutely

--

Statist:

The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

-

I don't advocate for that. I do think that the government created by people has the right to limit activities if they infringe on anothers rights.

-

Back to the original point. David posted two articles arguing for more police in schools. The only information we have is that a police officer identifying himself as such stopped a school shooting. We are not even sure that the kid saw him and new he was armed.

-

Katii, I don't think we should have a standing army, per the constitution. I think we should have a right to own guns, but I do think there is an inherent limit. I think honestand thoughtful people can have that discussion on where that limit is. Congress just renewed the ban on non-detectable guns. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.

But where is the limit? The extreme case - Although the Koch brothers could probably afford a few tomahawk missles, we should probably not let that happen. Or am i restricting their liberty? bazooks, RPG's? jeep mounted 50-cal? What is the limit? CHemical weapons? Biological? Is there a limit?


If your argument is that we are going to fight the US military by rising up, I find that very foolish and naive.

Yes a licensing program that costs a few dollars to ensure that you are competent to own a gun, like a car, is something I support.

try again
7 months ago

Since WHEN have "we in society" EVER "come together" about anything federal 'governance' wise since the Revolution?  In my entire life not one elected person has EVER asked me my concerns nor have they ever honored their oath of office.  The is no "coming together" of society and federal government.  To say otherwise is foolish and naive.  To say the threat of violence ("force") is not used to take my money without my APPROVAL and CONSENT is as well.

7 months ago

Chili said, "David posted two articles arguing for more police in schools."

Um, nope. Neither article states that.

The argument is the articles show proof that an armed person, sheriff or otherwise, stops the continued carnage and could even be a known deterrent to school shootings.

.

Chili said, "All that is known is a kid killed himself in a school when a cop started yelling that he was a cop and coming to get him. You don't know if that was a factor. IF it was an armed teacher, you don't know if he would have fought a gun battle or what he would have done. You can pretend it was because it was an armed 'individual.' You can see it however you want, you alwasy do. BUt there is NOTHING to support that view."

A law abiding concealed to carry (trained) person with an equalizer, ie the gun, statistically has a good chance at stopping school shooters with a gun. Common sense supports that view.

.

And, Chili said, "I don't seek to define your political beliefs and I never have."

But, further up you said, "But Libertarians don't want to pay for public officers to work at public schools."

It seems to me that you are always trying to tell Libertarians what they do or do not want or what they do or do not believe.

.

Libertarians believe in a small non-militarized police force.

And, even then, it's to have them follow the Golden Rule or the non-aggression principle, and violence is only used in self defense.

7 months ago
700 public school teachers receive concealed carry firearms training

.

http://www.naturalnews.com/039964_firearms_concealed_carry_school_teachers.html

7 months ago

Chili disparaging teachers, "...what individual, let alone someone overworked like a teacher, has the time or ability to go through the same training..."

7 months ago

Too bad cops dont get the same high quality training individuals are required to have.

7 months ago

Chile smartassedly posted above a link to a video of a man in court explaining the law to a judge, as if the judge needing to have the law explained to her was not the thing to be scorned here but rather a man who was fishing for food who rightly so took offense to a couple of agents of the state assaulting him for having the AUDACITY to fish for food without first paying ransom to the state for PERMISSION to forage for food! 

.

Just wow

7 months ago

Rebecca, don't forget Chile's attempt to "define" Jim as a "prickk" and myself as "batshyt"  

7 months ago

This is the "coming together" of society and government Chile Speaks of but knows not:  http://realnewsaustralia.com/2013/08/09/the-hegelian-dialectic-and-its-use-in-controlling-modern-society/

7 months ago

Chile:"I am glad we agree that the 3rd world has high accident rates due to lack of regulations on driving, or at a minimum lack of enforcement of those regulations".

 I stated, the Philippines has the same regulations as the USA for driving. Somehow in a sadly self deceived mind, Chile somehow views that as agreeing with him. Likewise he sees David as agreeing with him on it being a police officer (ie the glorious State agent) that saved the day instead of the fact that is was an armed individual that ended the event. Chile also equates the third world with the lack of rules and regulations when the fact is that third world countries have even more regulations and bureaucracy that the US. A increase in such historically is an example of DECLINE, not an advance. History is repleate with examples.  Soviets, Nazis, Romans and others that are no more.  

.

Chile: "Yeah, when we in society decide to work together for common good, you call it force."
.
"We" again?? Work together?  LOL.  Working together should be by choice.  Not by force and coercion.  And  like "everyone"  ? .....People should understand that those that are of a similar mentality as Chile see things the same way. Despite people stating in no uncertain terms that the DON'T agree, this bunch continues to make the claim of "consensus". Chile's claim of "society" is laughable. The very term is redefined to mean those that are claimed to accept. Those that don't accept these dictates are marginalized.  Not part of "society".  

.

The manufacture and distortion of the claimed "consent" is clear. Chile would have us pay no attention to those that are behind the curtain in the manipulation of "public opinion". The fabrication of "society" sublimates into the reality of special interest and elite control over government. Behind this is the use of force if all else fails. When confronted with the reality of failure, corruption, nepotism and repression... Chile and others use a combination of the "Shultz defense" (I see nothing, I hear nothing....I know nothing) and the Wimpy defense (we'll fix it later or: "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today") .

.

Regardless, let's face facts: Chile is indeed claiming that a "majority" (false claims of "society") has the right to impose it's will and deprive the minority of it's freedoms, liberty and property. And when the majority changes it's mind? ....... Then we hear: "we can't go back now and lose what we have gained".  All of a sudden "majority" becomes meaningless when it suits.  

.

The idea that 50.00001% gets to impose it's will on the 49.99999% is seriously flawed at it's core. Human rights must trump majority. Else a bare majority would be able to effectively enslave the minority. There have been many who have elaborated on this this theme. The "tyranny of the masses"and "rule by the unjust majority" come to mind. The idea of; "beggar thy neighbor" has no long term merit for a society that is building prosperity for it's citizens. It merely turns the populace against each other as the aggrieved neighbor seeks redress. And that is the goal: create a exploitive class and set the populace against each other. Eventually this leads to collapse as the exploitive class will never be satisfied.



This post was modified from its original form on 22 Dec, 16:01
7 months ago

Excellently said, Jim

7 months ago

Again, No matter what you, Katiit, Rebecaa, or David claim,  there is no evidence that this would have been stopped by an armed individual that was not a police man. As the articles state, the man was running to the seen identifying himself as police officer. He never engaged the kid and it is not clear that the kid even knew he was armed.

You can continue to claim whatever you want, you always do, but these positions are not supported by any evidence in this case. Pure conjecture.


No one is glorifying a state agent, but if you are so deluded in your belief that the identification of oneself as a police officer to a 16-yr old kid who is committing crimes is not going to have a psychological effect in modern American, there isn't much you can be honest about. That is clear.

_

Yeah, Rebecca, somehow I was disparaging teachers in that comment. Got it.

_
Katii, you are batshyte. Your diatribe about taking a dump and wiping your ass, shows how far removed you are from reality. Batshyte, is completely accurate.

__

3rd world has more regulations? Where do you get this crap? we export jobs for two reasons, money and fewer labor and environmental regulations.

_

There you go again, assigning me beliefs that I do not espouse and do not promote. The lack of originality in your posts over the years is telling. Dogmatic, pedantic and pathetic and sad, but social.

There is nothing to be said to you, if you can't understand that your freedom and liberty ends when it impacts mine and that we make laws based on that. I am certainly not defending the corporatist state that we are living under, but that, in no way, implies that there can't be laws and regulations made to create some minimal level of competancy to do something that can take anothers life and liberty. You can operated a car without a license on your property, but when you take in on the street, that was paid for communally, we can ensure that you have a basic minimum competency.  Same for a gun. Same for practicing some professions, engineering, medicine, etc.

-

The rest of your rant, is just that, ranting dogmatic bullshyte, not based in reality. Of course Katii loves it.

7 months ago

Chile..There are already laws on the books regarding murders, assaults,and damage to a person's property. You seem to imply that one size fits all when you talk about minimal laws. Different states,regions and subcultures may have different ways of operating..the only way these can manifest itself if Federal Gun laws are abolished

7 months ago

Chile:  "there is no evidence that this would have been stopped by an armed individual that was not a police man."

.

So you are saying that the kid killed himself because this was a agent of the State and that a armed individual would have not have had the same result ....... Unbelievable.

.

If you believe this is the case, then perhaps someone at every school should become a police- officer.  And be unarmed to boot!.  Surely a nut seeking mayhem would commit suicide on just hearing a unarmed person saying: "police".  LOL.  I'll stand by the idea that it is an armed individual.  

.

Chile:  "3rd world has more regulations? Where do you get this crap? we export jobs for two reasons, money and fewer labor and environmental regulations."

.

Read the post Chile, I said "third world countries have even more regulations and bureaucracy that the US."    Regulations are more than those that involve environment.  Details in the "Economic Freedom Index" clearly show that third world countries are overburdened by their governments.....and the USA is losing ground.  It's also not a surprise that the countries at the top do better and have a more prosperous population. It's also not a coincidence that as the USA has dropped in the index, the general population is losing ground......the exceptions being those connected to the corrupt corporate special interest  controlled government.   

.

Chile:  "..if you can't understand that your freedom and liberty ends when it impacts mine and that we make laws based on that."   

.

Oh I understand that pretty well Chile, but I'm NOT impacting your freedom and liberty.  I don't seek to use force on you at all.  Unfortunatly the same cannot be said for you.  Your defination of freedom and liberty apparently includes the right to use force based on some pretext of common good.

.

 Chile:  "I am certainly not defending the corporatist state that we are living under""

.

Of course you are Chile.  You just used the Wimpy Defense and the Schlutz defense.  You admit that the State is corrupt.  But you continue to support it.  Heck, you bought into the bank/Wall Street  bailouts.  You support regulations by corporate controled government agencies used to suppress their competition and the resultant concentration of manufacturing power that allows these companies to send jobs overseas.  

.

When this string started, your immediate reaction was "hire more police".  You didn't even think to retask the present police.  You went on to say that I had no idea if Austin had the proper numbers of police......  On the latter, Austin is in the top 40% in per capita police for large cities.  And despite the drop in drug arrests nationwide, Texas (and Austin) is up by more that 20%.  

Chile:   ".......you can't understand that your freedom and liberty ends when it impacts mine and that we make laws based on that. 

.

There you go with the "we" again.  Collectivist thought.  I don't make those laws.  In general, neither does the general population.  In fact, in many cases,most oppose the laws.  In fact, the laws are made by the political class, their allies and powerful special interests.  Unless you think that lobby's actually are the "we" you speak about.

 

 

7 months ago

But let's examine the laws you so glowingly speak of.  Despite wide spread fraud, Wall Street criminals prospered and were not even charged with a crime!  Meanwhile the USA has the highest incarceration rate in the World.  

.

A corrupt State uses laws to benefit those that control it.  The powerful and connected are immune.  Those that oppose them are restricted, obstructed and sometimes imprisoned.  Those that claim "justice" can ignore their own laws.  Such is the nature of power. The idea that it is even handed is preposterous.  

 

7 months ago

Its not myself who is removed from any reality if my "diatribe" about anything in this thread sounds like batshyte to you, Chile.  

.

And hello?  YOU, Chile, want to talk about someone stomping on YOUR rights?  Like WHAT? HOW?  Nobody here has suggested your individual rights should not be respected, or that you should play victim to a rogue government robbing you blind of your freedom and money.  WE are against all that ( as you very well know ).  You, Chile, not so much.  You don't even understand the concept of force, so I guess nobody shouldnt be surprised.

7 months ago

No. Y'all are claiming it was an armed individual. You cannot show that the fact it was a cop is not relevant. The burden of proof is on YOU, David, Katii and now Rebecca. All we know is an armed cop stopped a shooting, you know, like they are supposed to do. Trained to do.

When this thread started, I said:

"But Libertarians don't want to pay for public officers to work at public schools. I have no problem with an armed & trained police officer at a high schools. Austin has about 100 schools and we currently have about 1600 officers. So what would we need? 150 more officers? Fine with me."

As David's articles explicity argue for placing police in schools. That is all that can be argued for. I pointed out that this costs money. I then proceeded to make an estimate of how much it would cost to do this. And no, I don't have a problem with it.

But yes, if a cop says "Stop Police" you stop and you know it. If a person says "Stop, Home Economics Teacher", you might not get the same reaction

--

Now you are continually posting crap about how many cops Austin needs. You don't know and I don't know. I think Austin cops are corrupt as Shyte. But I never made the argument of how many we needed. LOOK:

I posted:

I really don't care where the cops come from and I have no training or basis to assume I know how many Austin needs. I am guessing that you would need at least 1 to 1.5 per school in addition to what is needed. You are assuming austin has too many cops already, based on what? Nothing.

THEN:

Sorry Jim, IF someone concedes a point to you and you go on a tirade about it anyway, throwing all kinds of asumptions at that person, It just makes you a pedantic assshole.

_

THEN:

If you are going to add officers to school, I made a point about how many would likely be needed, that is all. trying to make it a larger issue about what police roll in sosciety is another subject.

-
Again, you continue to assign me positions I am not taking and have not taken. So yeah, You are a *****. Its accurate.

-

Again, you lie when you claim I supported the bank Bailouts. I said I supported federal action. I said I would have supported nationalization of the banks. I could have supported some type of bailout that paid for peoples houses not to go under. I did not support the bailout. We have been over this, like 10 times now.

__

So Yes. You lie and assign other people beliefs to try to make some dogmatic point that isn't correct.

_

But then you do it again, you lie when you say I continue to support the state. I do not. I support an political ideology, as you do. I do not support the current government. I do however, believe in government. I believe in SS, Medicare, licensing for competency when the operation or use of something can directly infringe on anothers rights to prosperity.I would whole heartedly support Single Payer. I think obamacare is corporate giveaway.

-

I do believe in the clean air and water acts and regulating pollution discharges. But that does not mean that I support the current private-public marry-go round of regulations. I d

Unlike your philosophy, based on greed and selfishness, There are examples of government for the people and by the people working. NO libertarian government has ever worked or ever come close to working. See Somalia, post collapse .

-

Katii, I completely understand you and Jim's idea of "Force", but I believe in a social contract and a society that can pass laws to regulate their interactions.
-

For example, y'all probably think that home inspections of remodels to meet code are an infringement of rights by FORCE. I completely disagree. I seem them as a neccessary bureacracy to protect neighborhoods from fire and the health and safety of future tenants.

7 months ago

Chile:  "The burden of proof is on YOU".....  

.

How so?   Esentially you are eclaiming that if the cop had been unarmed the kid would have killed himself.   Just ludicrious.  You can't create a real argument why it has to be a cop.  Period.  

.

Chile:  "If a person says "Stop, Home Economics Teacher"

.

..... LOL.  You leave out the obvious.  How about' "stop I'm an unarmed  cop.  Or "stop I'm armed". A person who is armed and is resolved to murder others isn't likely to stop unless someone is opposing that person with arms.  Doesn't have to be a cop.  

.

But here is an example of your "trained police":  

.

"The family of a United States military veteran killed in 2011 after an Arizona SWAT team fired 71 rounds at him from the doorstep of his Tucson-area home has been awarded a multi-million dollar settlement from law enforcement.

Jose Guerena’s wife, Vanessa, will receive the $3.4 million agreed to last week after a two-year legal battle between the Marine veteran’s estate and Pima County, Arizona."

.

"Again, you lie when you claim I supported the bank Bailouts. I said I supported federal action. I said I would have supported nationalization of the banks. I could have supported some type of bailout that paid for peoples houses not to go under. I did not support the bailout. We have been over this, like 10 times now.".

.

Nope.  You clearly supported both the government bank bailouts and the Federal Reserve banking system that did in fact do most of the bailouts. As for nationalizing the banks?  Of course you'd be for that.  It's more power to the State.  You can continue to make untrue statements about your position but it isn't going to change anything of fool anyone.

.

 Chile:  "I do not support the current government."  Of course you do.  You may not fully support the current regime of the government.  BIG difference.

.

"I do believe in the clean air and water acts and regulating pollution discharges."....  I support clean air and water also Chile.  The methods in which we do so are significant.  I do so in private ways.  I also believe in the court system being used as was intended: to protect peoples life and property.  If someone  damages me or my property there should be remedy.  Instead we have the government agencies run by lobby's writing legislation that protects them from law suits from damaged party's.

.

The Libertarian way is much more strict on polluters.  Instead of getting a slap on the wrist for doing harm, polluters would be going out of business and the assets of the management clawed back to the damanged party.  Think about CEO's and their families being put out on the street, evicted from their mansions.  Notice that under "regulations", most of which were written BY the banks left the financial elites wealthier than ever......and now they have even more control over the economy and are effectively guarenteed by the State as "too big to fail".  Regulations were written by them to protect them not us.

.

"social contract"....  this concept is complete hogwash.  I'll follow with a bit on that.

.

   

 

.

.

.

 

7 months ago

Chile: "For example, y'all probably think that home inspections of remodels to meet code are an infringement of rights by FORCE. I completely disagree. I seem them as a neccessary bureacracy to protect neighborhoods from fire and the health and safety of future tenants."

.

Personal experience.  I house sat for my Ex while a electrical contractor came to fix the electrical system.  Even I could have done a better job than the government approved electrician that had done the original work in 2002.  The electrician I had found for her was a very good one.  He pointed out all flaws and shoddy work.  I asked him about the CO inspection, and he laughed.  Turns out the inspectors usually didn't even bother to show up and on larger jobs, they were just "taken care of".

.

I looked at a house to buy in 2010 that was in S California.  Failed inspection by PRIVATE company.  When it was approved with a CO the GOVERNMENT inspectors didn't bother to check the foundation and the house was ready to collapse at the rear footings.   

.

Here is the thing:  a good contractor doesn't need to be "inspected".  And if they aren't any good then word gets out and they go out of business.  BUT people assume they are being protected by government inspectors, so the become neglegent in checking for themselves.  

.

We see things differently.  You see the State as being the protector of the people.  That is not the function or purpose of the State.  The State is there for those that control it.  The people don't control it......which is something that you pretty much admit.  Then you fall back on the Schlutz defense and the Whimpy defense.  

.  

People need to protect themselves.  Or form voluntary associations to protect themselves.  Share information.  Freely help their neighbors through a true moral compass.  You Chile put your faith in the government.  I put my faith in myself and in people.  We will never advance as a people if we view ourselves collectively as a government.   We will never be a moral people unless we take care of each other by choice.   

.

For Chile: Merry Christmas, Peace and Liberty
7 months ago

Anatomy of the State

.

What the State Is Not

.

"The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the "private sector" and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. .

If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

.

We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one another," must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

.

If, then, the State is not "us," if it is not "the human family" getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.[3] Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

'

http://mises.org/pdf/anatomy.pdf

.

I've read much on Progressive ideology I actually used to believe in some of it.  Here is a little of what I have come to accept.   Read a little and perhaps you will understand. ....Or not.  LOL   

7 months ago

Nazis? Really?

_

You descredit yourself with your own posts. Pathetic.

-

Of course the burden of proof is on you, david, Katii and rebecca. Besides the point that this is one incident and i assume you would understand how meaningless anecdotal evidence is, you need to be able to prove that an armed citizen did, that was not a cop, would have the same effect. You are making the claim. That is how it works. That is alwayse how it works. Freaking ridiculous.

-

as to what one could say, and what would work, who knows? What know what the cop did say. That is all

-

Sorry, just a paragraph ago I gave you credit for being intelligent enough to use anecdotel evidence to prove a point. Then you do it, twice. I'll stop that now.

-

You believe that if someone does harm, I should be able to come after that person after the fact that the harm was committed and that that harm should be commisserate with financial restitution. I believe we should be able to regulate to try to prevent the harm from happening. I do not believe that there is adequate financial or other restitution for some harms.

No, sorry, its not that I don't beleive it, its just that its completely fukking stupid to believe that. And there is no evidence to support such a belief. But other than that, knock yourself out.

_

There is nothing wrong with temporarily nationalizing banks to protect the assets of individuals from the fraud of the bankers. Nothing Take everything the bankers have, pay back the depositers/creditors/etc. Nothing. Then after stability has been reached. sell the assets.

_

But there you go again, being a ***** and assigning me views I do not have.
_

Lets both do that:

Jim supports pederasts. He believes, like the old greeks, that the induction of Pederasty into our socieity would be a good idea.

_

FUkking gross, Jim, you fukking sikk fukK pederast. you should be arrested.

7 months ago

Nope. We don't. But I notice that you are unable to show that the police have been unable to stop shooters without a huge average number of deaths and wounded. In fact the average is around 12 per incident. Worse. Within cities, the police have been unable to prevent massive numbers of deaths despite huge increases in costs. Progressive Chicago, for example, had over 500 last year. Many were very close to where the police were. I seem to recall that it took the police some 24 minutes to respond in a incident where there were multiple deaths in a public mall.

.

You claim that a armed civilian(s) would not would not have been able to stop a shooter and it had to be a agent of the State. That is just plain absurd. There have been multiple examples of both unarmed and armed civilians that resulted in death totals much lower than when the police were involved. The following were a few where armed civilians did stop a shooter.

.

People without a political Statist agenda might also consider that there would be more interventions by civilians in these situations except for the fact that people like you support "gun free zones" where the vast majority of these incidents occur. That means the ordinary people are deprived of the single most basic of human rights that of self defense.

.

  • 10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.2/25/2005 –
  • David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.
  • 12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.
  • 4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parkeropened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed weapon.
  • .

There are also multiple incidents where the shooter was stopped by unarmed civilian intervention. Overall the average number of deaths from shooters with police interventions are around 14. The average number of victims with civilian interventions is around 2. One must wonder how many have died to advance the political agenda of those that seek to empower the State with even more authority. Likewise the massive increase and militarization of the police has resulted in the deaths of large numbers ,

7 months ago

You seem to be unable to understand simple logic or even common sense. Somehow a person becomes superhuman when representing the State. As I pointed out earlier, the police officer at this school put in for retirement the day before. By your "logic" in another two weeks or so, this off duty and then retired police officer would lose his mantle of the State and this kid would have continued his killing spree. The fact is clear: this was a armed individual.

.

You say: " I believe we should be able to regulate to try to prevent the harm from happening." Of course. But the fact is that you wish to empower the State to do the regulation. That the regulation is by individuals that are attracted to authority. This results in psychopaths being in power. You seem to think that special interests will not use this power to benefit themselves. No THAT is really funny. It just doesn't hold up in a real world.

.

But you claim that "regulation" is the only method of deterrence is particularly telling and disingenuous. The regulation you advocate is based on potential punishments. There are several obvious problems with this. One is that the powerful will agree to be regulated. After all, the do control the State. Or perhaps you are so immersed in propaganda that you cannot see it. Fact is the rules will hardly be applied across the board to everyone. One of the other flaws in your thinking is that there is no deterrence in those who engage in harm and being held responsible via loss of wealth. That's what they are in business for. If they know they will lose their ill gotten gains and more they will be unlikely to make the effort and take the risk.  That is far more preventive that using regulation that is controled by the powerful for the powerful.  

.

7 months ago

"There is nothing wrong with temporarily nationalizing banks to protect the assets of individuals from the fraud of the bankers. Nothing Take everything the bankers have, pay back the depositers/creditors/etc. Nothing. Then after stability has been reached. sell the assets.".

.

So who has a problem with that Chile?   That is pretty much what the bankruptcy process is about.  And very close to what I and libertarians advocated for and was rejected by statists (progressives and fake conservatives). BUT it didn't happen did it?  The powerful used the government to protect themselves.  They use the Federal Reserve (which you support) to bail them out and prevent the market from forcing them into bankruptcy.  In the meantime.  You don't seem to realize you are making our points.

.

The bankruptcy process means that the buisness go under.  The assets are sold to those that are better able to use them.  The order in which the assets are distributed is set long before the bankruptcy and has been for over a century.  Some creditors and stockholds lose everything.  That's the risk they took.  IMO, if the claimed profits are fake, all bonuses by the CEO's and mananagement should be clawed back and they should be left with nothing.

.  

In fact, the banking crisis is a example of how corrupt the State is, and how it is controlled by the powerful for their benefit.  The top 6 Banks in the USA are now 37% larger than they were in 2007.  They, and Wall Street were rewarded and protected......by the State.  

.

Personal attacks....
7 months ago

BTW, You don't seem to be able to make a real cogent arguement Chile, so you resort to slander like claims of "pederast"  Notice in this thread and others, I have remained civil.  You haven't.  There lies the problem.  One must wonder how such as you would use the State and how far you would go.  

 

7 months ago

Jim, Chile has you confused the potus

7 months ago

Look Pederast Jim is posting again. I guess these are positions to try to support his pederasty beliefs. Free markets and all. Real Liberalism

7 months ago

But really, Angry Pederast Jim, do you not understand that when you set forth a thesis statement it is up to you to defend it? Talk about not understanding or being able to make a cogent argument. I did not argue FOR police in schools. I only pointed out that YOU WERE and pointed out the cost of doing so. Whether you understand the evidence you presented or not, the evidence in the original articles ONLY suggests that a police officer stopped the shooting. But you 4 are too hung up blidnded by pedantic dogma on making some grand point about armed individuals, that you were blind to the evidence you actually presented.


Its really quite amusing.

When you go on about the "representation of the state" its even funnier.

_

Then you go lying about my positions again. Right, there is nothing wrong with the nationalization of Banks. Glad we agree. Also, again, I don't support the Federal Reserve, I do not, however, believe that money can be based on something like gold, which is a finite commodity. I do not know where the middle ground is and do not claim too.

-

You do not remain civil when you continue to assign beliefs to me that I don't have. You are as much of a pederast, as I am a supporter of the Federal Reserve.

-

So where is the limit to gun ownership?

7 months ago

Lying about your positions?   You have argued for gun control, regulation/registration  and such for years.  

.

And when you support Federal government deficit spending somehow you think that it isn't the Federal Reserve system that allows it.  Also you were clearly supportive of TARP and such including you stating that it  "saved" the economy. 

.

My position on the Banks and the giant corporations that control the Federal government is quite clear and I have given ample details on restructuring the banks a number of times. It's called: "bankruptcy".  I have not changed that position.  

.

I far as civil?  You claim I misrepresent your positions.  But I do so based on what you state and what you have written.  You can argue that, but you clearly use the slanderous claim I am: "Angry Pederast Jim". So....... given that is what you say, that is either your "position" or you are lying  Take your pick.  Likewise I my claims on your "positions" are based on what you say or have said in the past.  So you have either changed your positions or were misrepresenting what your positions were.  In all cases, I am merely taking what you state as what you believe.  Perhaps that is the problem.  

.

7 months ago

"pedantic dogma" -Chile

7 months ago

How does one support a welfare state, (and now because it's 'Obama's') and a warfare state without supporting the Fed enabled deficit spending to pretend like its being paid for?

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.