REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Where are the Libertarians?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, September 3, 2023 08:29
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12349
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, December 30, 2005 8:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
I'd already linked to that. Yes, Clinton signed an Executive Order. So did Bush, Reagan, Carter, Bush, and Nixon. For all I know, so did Ford, Eisenhower and Roosevelt. But I haven't heard of wiretapping "millions" of people simply because it would be impractical. I HAVE heard of NSA programs that screen electronic communication for key words.

And you somehow have failed to respond to the key question: Where were the Libertarians (or in fact Republicans or Conservatives?) The question wasn't "who" spied and/or wiretapped, the question was: Didn't anyone (besides those nasty pro-government liberals) do anything about it?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 1, 2006 7:00 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I realize that there are true small-government Libertarians on this board, and then there are those self-professed Libertarians who believe in small government unless in involves squashing people's privacy, invading nations, or helping monopolies. At that point, they like BIG government. They're fascists pretending to be Libertarians and all my poking and jibing is directed at them. DANG! They're giving Libertarians a bad name!

After reading the various (real) Libertarian arguments, posted by people I both like and respect, I've come to see that large government can indeed be dangerous. There was a post about big government being like the One Ring- when you don't have it, it looks evil. But once you have it you think- well, I can use this for GOOD- and it becomes almost impossible to give up.

And yet, I also think that semi-planned economies are the wave of the future, and that attempts to dismantle a centralized government will only lead to takeover by someone else's monopoly. The mechanism for this is simply the efficient accumulation and direction of capital, and that nations that are not efficiently accumulating and directing capital will wind up like Argentina. In order to break out of this conundrum, we need to find a totally new long-term paradigm. One without stock markets, for example.

Until then, it seems to me that Libertarians and Liberals and leftists have much in common. One strategy, as pointed out by Dreamtrove, is finding an acceptable candidate (of either major party IMHO) that is not part of "the machine". We can gleefully kick Hillary, Feinstein, Biden, Lieberman off the list. YAAAY and good riddance! Just curoius- who else would you kick off the list? (yes, I know- it involves most of the Democractic party. Pretty much like it involves most of the Republican party.)

But- an independent President would be stymied by an intrasigent Congress. And. Congressional elections are coming up. So- who are good Congressional candidates (either party) in your opinion?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 1, 2006 1:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

I HAVE heard of NSA programs that screen electronic communication for key words.
Key word screening is gone. In its place is contextual screening which doesn't look for specific words, but words that cluster together. Like funds, shipment, goods, meet etc.

Now I bet that gets me on a list.

But I do agree with you. There is a deafening silence from some self-proclaimed Libertarians.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 1, 2006 4:47 PM

FLETCH2


I mentioned before that it's useless to view the political situation without relating it to the overall social and economic state of the country. The parties that currently exist and their political platforms are the ones that economics say will exist.

The media says there is a 50/50 red/blue split, so let's start by looking at that. Before the last election I watched a CSPAN program where a Republican polester was giving a lecture at a University. What he said was basically this. For both main parties 30% of their supporters are hardcore, dress a pig in a suit and put him up as that party's canidate and these folks would vote for him. 10% of each party's vote is "Soft" most of the time they will vote for one party or another loyally but the right canidate and policy can steal some of this group away. This is where folk like Reagan Democrats come from. Add that up for the 2 political parties and you get 80% of voters, the 20% that are left are the genuinely independent/undecided crowd. To win you have to attract them.

So politics becomes a juggling act. In the primaries Democrat hopefulls go left to appeal to their activist base. Republicans used to go right, these days they hit the religious crowd. Once a canidate is nominated he moves back towards the center because that's where his 10% "soft" vote is and that is where he has the best chance of picking up some of those 20% undecideds. As the election process continues each party consolidates the middle trying to get and keep as many of the 20% as they can, at the same time they poach at least one of their opponent's trademark issues in an attempt to woo the other party's soft vote. Unlike the undecideds the soft vote is doubly attractive because not only do you gain votes you also take vote's from the other guy. Last election cycle Kerry played the defence card to appeal to soft Republican voters, Bush played the Prescription Drug Benefit card with seniors that usually vote Democrat.

So after all that manouvering what did we get? Almost a 50/50 split. If you look at the two parties platforms on most subjects their possitions are quite close, in all cases appealing to the middle class voters that make up the undecied 20%. Those subjects that do divide them are hot button issues like abortion where there is very little middle ground.

DT likes to see a world where PNAC and the DLC have the next 3 or 4 elections planned out, either because they are the same shadow cabinet or because they have a deal. I see a world where the people that vote want a safe quiet life with good economic prospects and decent security. They will vote for whichever party they believe will deliver that and as what needs to be done is pretty obvious both parties tend to have the same general policy in these areas.

So an election prodiction for 2008. If Bush comes out of this term with no mainland US terrorist event, American troops out of Iraq and a reasonable economy then whoever the regime decides is his successor will probably win. If the world hasn't done anything bad to America people will vote for more. If Bush blows it then Republicans will nominate a Bush critic to be their canidate and will try and distance themselves from the Bush legacy.

If Bush ends his second term more or less ok Democrats will nominate someone with media interest and try to woo voters by going to the right, since that is where the electorate is. If the economy is in a mess they will go left because that's where the 20% will be. If the US has a terrorist attack they will go hawkish to try and get the 10% soft Republican vote.

From our point of view nothing will change.

The ONLY way for a seachange is for things to go bad and stay bad for a protracted period, long enough for the 20% and one party's "soft" vote to permainently drift to one party or the other. That would give that party the seats in congress and the mandate to effect change.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 1, 2006 7:13 PM

DREAMTROVE


Signym,

Ah, I see you're still thinking too 20th century. That's so democrat of you :). Kidding, and yet not. I think there's a new paradigm in town, and so it needs to be examined.

First. You put Dean (Yale/S&B?..) in the wrong crowd, he's part of team evil. Don't think they would have let him sneak in. Okay, granted, he came in as a partial-outsider. But the media killed him like a rabid dog and then he capitualated with the team evil and they made him Dunce Regent. He waived his right to vote for platform points in the '04 dem con, that's a total capitulation to Kerry, who is Evil. Dean needs to be counted as evil. But that's just a showing that the dem vote totals are pathetic, but this isn't the paradigm, so I digress.

Before moving on to the point, Ted Stevens annoys me, he's likt the GOP's Mary Landrieu, the totally corrupt oil puppetician who every once in a while acts like an elected representative of the people. But he's not conspiring with the actual enemies of the united states, those being al qaeda and the commies, and so I wouldn't kick him out of the the party or anything, just not putting him forward as president.

Anyway, the new paradigm is 'You vote for your guy, no one else does.' Under this paradigm, advertising is uselss, because everyone else is voting for their guy. The assumption here is everybody voting is a de facto employee of one of the candidates. Therefore it behooves you to create a base of support large enough to get your candidate elected. This means when I say it takes 10 million to win, I mean your organization needs 10 million members. It's not impossible, many organizations have 10 million members. If Seinfeld viewers wanted to elect a primary candidate and were organized to do so, they would would win hands down. If the nations black voters were highly organized they could trounce the traditional demohawks.

Most of the GOP is supporting the party. Someone them barely know who Bush is, and the rest don't care. Bush started out with about 10 million supporters, and now I think he has about 5 million. The GOP has 50 million. This is why the primary is so important. As long as you don't spit in the face of the GOP once you get the nomination [*considers bush for a second*] okay, even if you spit in the face of the GOP after the election, they will more or less fall in line.

To say that 55 million people support Bush is to not understand the dynamic at all. All of those 50 million republicans would support John McCain, John Sununu or Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel or even Lincoln Chaffe if he was on the ticket.

Let's take a point to the side for a moment. These voters are not 'stupid.' This is a classic misinterpretation which leads one down the path of bad strategy. These voters are strategic voters who feel they are better off with the worst republican than with a democrat. Most care little about wide-sweeping political issues and care a fair amount aboiut one or two issues. Some care about freedome of religion, others care about tax breaks. Some care about how well their employers do, or to what degree the govt. interferes in their lives. Some of this last group are hating Bush right now, but not enough to vote for a democrat. Many 'Bush supporters' now are even anti-war. Kerry promised more war than Bush delivered, since historically democrats have just about always done so, it would be foolish of an anti-war conservative to support the democrats.

So in essence, these voters are locked in, they support GOP, their support of the candidate is simply a side effect of their support for the Republican Party.

The democrats have similar groups. People who care heavily about affirmative action, feminism, or gay rights. People who rely on a steady welfare check. A lot of these people may have been angry with Clinton for the degree to which he did not support their issue, they may have even hated him for it, but if they, because of that, joined the GOP, then they are fools. These people also aren't stupid. They support the Democrats. In the primary, they are liable to support someone else other than Clinton, but when it comes to the election, they will support the party. I figure the Democrats have about 45 million supporters.

Finally, I think the GOP split in the Senate is very close to 50/50, whereas the democrat split is more 40/4. What's deceptive here is that the anti-Bush republicans hands are tied when they own the executive, because that gives Bush and co de facto total control over the party machine. They need him, it's almost impossible to oppose him. The fact that they do it as much as they do stuns and amazes me daily. It's really very encouraging.

Clinton was not just an evil man, he was a terrible Democrat, even by the values Democrats strive to support, but very few Democrats routinely bucked his lead. Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, maybe the occassional Dick Durbin or Pat Leahy.

Oh, and John Edwards is not a Lib/Lib. He's a Lib/Dem on my big circle. His ideas fall deep in traditional democrat, with slight leanings toward big govt./globalist, and he supported the pres.'s iraq policy.

If you think you cna take the democratic party by all means do it, but I think the gop will be a much easier target. Plus, if I capture the GOP, I would have the dems, a minority with a classical traditional of weak opposition as an opponent, whereas you would have a minority with a majority of strong opposition in the republicans.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 6:03 AM

CENTURYHOUSE


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
These voters are strategic voters who feel they are better off with the worst republican than with a democrat.



This is very true. I can't see that I would ever EVER vote for a Democrat because they are consistantly working to destroy rights that are important to me in a much more dramatic and concerted way than the Repubs. The 2nd Amendment is one major part of that for me, but there are many other main Dem platform items that I am adamantly against. I would vote Republican as a step to keep the Dem-wolves at bay, and it really is a lesser of two evils situation.

If the Libertarians would get a REAL candidate who wasn't a fool and who's policies weren't idiocy, then I would consider voting for them and would help push candidate to people I know. I would actually LOVE for this to happen so I could throw my support in with them.

I feel the same way about the concept of Libertarianism as I do the concepts of Liberalism or Conservativism. All are nice theories and I philosophically agree with all three of them. Individual freedoms from Libertarianism, tolerance and understanding of Liberalism, Small government with limited power & spending and an adherence to the old Constitution and the intentions of the founders from Conservatism.

Unfortunately, these philosophies do NOT carry over to the parties that claim to represent those ideals. Modern 'liberals' are hypocrites and often the least tolerant people I know - coupled with no common sense whatsoever when it comes to real world or the nature of people.

Libertarian politicians seem to have no clue when they start talking policy and governance. It's all good talk until they get to the details.

Conservatives? Where?? GW isn't the demon that many make him out to be in their frothing at the mouth ravings, but he is a typical politician that is for middle of the road big government. The Republican parties has some real conservatives and Constitutionalists in it, but they are far too few and to weak to make it happen with that party. I bet a lot of them would defect if the Libertarians got real.

Repubs are the slow road to destruction as opposed to the Dems who are the fast track. The Libertarian politicians have to get potty trained at some point and get out on their own with a real message and workable solutions - so that they can be taken seriously as a player.

Check out my songs:
http://www.thelightningwaltz.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 5, 2006 8:02 PM

DREAMTROVE


Well said

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 3, 2006 5:52 AM

JHANCE11


One LARGE differance.( I'll go slowly) President Clinton took the legal method of going through the FISA court to get the wiretaps your talking about( By the way why do we still call them wiretaps, it's not how they do it anymore) The Fisa court was set up to make sure the system was not abused and has worked for many years. 98% of all requests are approved when the Executive branch asks for them. Dispite what hot air is coming from the political landscape, they are quick and almost always rubberstamped. President Bush is trying to extend the power of the Presidency period. I respectt the footsoldgers of the republican party even when I diagree with them but your own party is playing you and you do'nt even know it

jhance11

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 3, 2006 6:08 AM

JHANCE11


Guy's try to remember politic's are cyclical. There was A time when this oldman can remember. there was such A thing as A liberal Republican.

Religion can be A wonderful thing. It gives hope,direction and purpose. However when Religion rears it's head in politi'c the end result is always bad. If history tells us anything it tells us that.

The wheels will eventually come off the strangle hold the religous right has on the Republican party bad things will happen when it does. After that there will be A timeof comprommise and talking and things will get done. Hang in there



jhance11

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 3, 2006 8:11 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:


One LARGE differance.( I'll go slowly) President Clinton took the legal method of going through the FISA court to get the wiretaps your talking about



No, not a LARGE difference. I can't believe I'm going to defend Bush wiretapping. I guess I'm not defending it, Bush is still wrong, but I have to shoot down this argument, err. clay pigeon.

Bush is lazy. Clinton is dilligent. Clinton did NOT acr according to FISA. He modified FISA to suit his purposes in a way that made FISA completely irrelevent. I've posted this six times now and no one gets it:

Clinton FISA works like this:
1. AFTER you tap, you apply for a warrant.
2. If you don't get your warrant, then the evidence becomes inadmissible in a court of law.
3. If you never intended to use the evidence in a court of law, but were instead tapping political groups, opposition parties, and corporations, then you intend to use this information in subversion, political campaigns and business.
4. Thus, the Clinton bastardization of FISA makes it perfectly legal for the president to order unwarranted wiretaps for any purpose OTHER than to protect America.

But there's one other thing that almost no one gets:

Bush is Clinton, Clinton is Bush. Or, in Jossese: Ben is Glory, Glory is Ben.

The thing is that these people, now the Bunton administration, have been pushing for an increase of executive power since day one, and Bush's transgression is the natural extension of Clinton's, with one difference. Bush is lazy, and didn't bother to make it law first. If Bush were Clinton, he would write the new law like this:

"If the president fails to apply for the warrant, then at the end of 72 hours it becomes treated like the warrant was applied for an refused, and the information would inadmissible in a court of law."

If Bush had bother to ammend the FISA law to include this line, he wouldn't be over his head now. But people are talking like Bush made watergate legal. No he didn't, Bush broke the law. Clinton made watergate legal.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 3, 2006 8:36 PM

FLETCH2


All of this is completely irrelevent.

First you have always been spied on, if you have ever expressed a serious political opinion, joined a political party been active in trade unionism, lobby groups, political action comittees or the like somewhere the government has a file on you. It's what governments do.

As to wiretaps, here's something you may not know. In the UK we have an electronic interception center called GCHQ. Back in cold war days it spied on the Soviets. As part of the "Special relationship" a member of the US NSA was assigned there as a liason. If GCHQ heard anything of interest to the US they passed the file to him and he sent it to his superiors. Reciprical to this arangement the UK had an agent at Fort Meade. However, other than keeping tabs on US IRA sympathisers he had little to do. At the NSA's request he would spy on suspect Americans using US equipment, he would then pass his findings to the NSA who would mark them "gathered from foreign intelligence sources" and use them. So Americans were being spied on in their own country by Brits using American equipment to get around domestic spying rules.

Oh and I know I have a Special Branch file -- my crime? My association with that radical group the Young Conservatives while in college. The important thing to note here is that when I was in college the Conservatives were in power meaning that the intelligence machine will actually spy on the current ruling party (well they do in the UK.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 4, 2006 7:25 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Just a bit of historical trivia for those who like to keep track of Bush's mis-statements:

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 4, 2006 9:05 AM

JHANCE11


Your shot missed the mark here my friend. The FISA court was modified long before Clinton took office. There are times in the inteligence business that information has to be acted on quickly. That was the reason for the modification.

If it sounds like I'm making Bush's aurgument for you not listening. The largest differance between the two processes you discuss, is oversight. By going to the FISA court no matter the method. A judge and the panel are aware of the matter and can step in if they see abuse'es.
Plus the fact the procedure can become public much easier if the court feel's like abuse's are occuring. Accountablility is the key. is the system perfect, anything but. If you have A better Idea to inprove it and still make it afective, now's the time. Bush is not lazy, he just has an ingraned arrougance that comes with the victory's the Republican's have scored.

Yes both wanted to expand the power's of the Presidency as Congress like's to do the same with their's it's the nature of the beast. There are times in society the Executive branch need broader power's and there are times Congress need's more oversight. Back to the original subjuect. Modified or not Clinton followed the law Bush did not and history will judge.

jhance11

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 9, 2006 9:29 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Steve Kubby will run 2008

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 4:34 PM

DREAMTROVE


Sure, and where are the Richard Nixons?
Nixon didn't 'try that'. Some people in the nixon govt. tried that. People like Karl Rove. They're still 'trying it' and they will be 'trying it' as democrats, just as they did in the clinton and carter administrations.

boy, the weird twisted lense of the democrats-eye-view.

Anyway, I agree, libertarians, where'd they go. Just a few raging voices, ron paul, russ feingold, john sununu, but not a lot of power.

I think that we need richard nixon right about now. Nixon '08

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:51 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Anyway, I agree, libertarians, where'd they go. Just a few raging voices, ron paul, russ feingold, john sununu, but not a lot of power.



Libertarians just dropped the ball really. Not that making a dent in the two party system is a realistic goal, but that's where they failed. The goal should have been squarely on influencing debate and making inroads, not on quixotic runs for national office. To be fair, most party members see it that way, but the message is too extreme and not presented in a strategic fashion.

Unfortunately the party attracts ideologues who take great pleasure in shocking people with their iconoclastic and novel 'understanding' of government. The strongest feature of the Libertarian party, the purity of their political philosophy, is also their greatest flaw. It's what keeps zealots from approaching compromise and real political progress.

That said, I still think the real leverage point is the voting system. As long as we're stuck in a plurality, winner-take-all system, all challenges to the status quo will lose miserably. If we can change that, we might make some progress, but it's not really on the radar these days.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Nixon was a crook, but he was our crook, more willing to share the largess with the masses to keep them happy than hoard it all and split it with his buddies like our current crop.

The only time the Vox Populi is truly heard by the ivory tower crowd is when it is expressed with violence, this is a sad, but true fact and history shows numerous examples of it.
And make no mistake, it's an ugly, ugly business (Google: Bonus Riots) that it tends to come to.

We all see it comin, it's just a matter of when, and how - not to sound nihilistic, but do you REALLY see another solution actually happening, or are you clinging to such possibilities in the hopes that history will NOT repeat itself as it always does ?

For myself I'd like to see Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinuich on a Lib ticket, but it won't happen when every aspect of the political arena is controlled by a firmly entrenched,moneyed elite we have no power over whatsoever.

It'll get.... as bad as it gets, and while that leak in the dam spreads, I am doing much what Sarge is and just ignoring the bastards, cause there's little else I can do other than feed information to folks likely to put stumbling blocks in the path of our inevitable dictatorship.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:03 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


they should do good in '08

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 31, 2007 5:12 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
That said, I still think the real leverage point is the voting system. As long as we're stuck in a plurality, winner-take-all system, all challenges to the status quo will lose miserably.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Libertarians can't make a real dent until the voting system changes to allow easier third-party access to the ballots AND run-off voting or something similar.

In my state, we had to fight draconian laws to get on the ballot. Case in point, the law required us to warn all people we solicited to sign our petition (to get on the ballot) that they would not be able to vote in their primaries if they signed--even though that was completely untrue. We had to sue the state to get that law changed--and then we only had 4 months to get 16,000 signatures we needed to get on the ballot. We busted our asses and got 18K sigs, but 3000 were invalidated, leaving us 1000 short. We tried to get the deadline extended just 3 more months, because by then we had the necessary signatures for the 2004 presidential candidate. The courts refused. It was a huge amount of work and money to fail in the end. Getting on the ballot shouldn't be this difficult.

People complain that Libertarians don't get anything done. What they don't see is that they (and all third party candidates) have to fight unreasonble obstacles placed by those in power to get them from effecting change. There is no way we (or any third party) can make a dent until those obstacles to reasonable proportions. We live in a duopoly with the power and money to keep change out, and that is the fact of life.

I have largely given up on trying to change this country. Things are going to get a lot autocratic and corrupt until the whole system collapses. Then some other country with more freedom will take over as the world superpower. And we'll deserve to be left eating their dust.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 1, 2008 5:00 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


another dead youtube.com watch?v=ZlEGAN2nL1Y link

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2019 8:13 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2019 3:52 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Is this the record for necroposts?

Almost 11 years.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 2, 2019 8:53 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Jesse Ventura and producer Brigida Santos discuss the recent arrest of alleged serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and reveal the names of the politicians and celebrities listed in Epstein’s black book. RT Host Rick Sanchez scolds prosecutors for referring to Epstein’s female child victims “prostitutes.”

https://news.ava360.com/jesse-ventura-%E2%80%9Cpowerful-forces-covered
-up-the-epstein-case-the-first-time-for-a-reason%E2%80%9D_00ea87cad.html


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is this the record for necroposts?

Almost 11 years.




Not even close

Only the other day I seen a thread from 2002 get bumped ...

maybe before that, I seen one bumped 10 yrs old

Epstein was convicted or served a Criminal penalty? for ?13 months back in 2008, that's 11 yrs ago. I will see if I can bump the original, pretty sure it was a crazy 'John Lee pirate news' thread where he was ranting about Bush, Clinton, rambling conspiracy about High-Priests, Masons maybe the Jews and Satanic Lucifer Devil Temple rituals

I will see if I can bump the original thread


Jesse Ventura: “Powerful forces covered up the Epstein case the first time for a reason.”

http://watsupamericas.com/news/jesse-ventura-powerful-forces-covered-u
p-the-epstein-case-the-first-time-for-a-reason
/




The island?

https://medium.com/p/d2ad68e2e845/


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 24, 2019 1:24 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


the Blackbook

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=rDSM_DTUMyQ

Butler : STORY OF THE MAN WHO SAW IT ALL

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2021 10:36 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


Biden may push to Print another 2 Trillion in Aid?
Security tight, crowd thin for Biden’s address




President Joe Biden in his speech he wants them to pass the George Floyd act, Biden urges Congress to pass George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

The Capital protesting? He called the riot or protest at the Capitol terrorism? the worst attacks since the Civil War, worse than 911? Worse than Pearl Harbor?
Not sure who he's calling out, the Republcians, Q-Anon? maybe Rightwings or Conservatives or Trump voters? says the White Caucasian Patriot American or the Right is the most lethal terrorism threat?

https://nypost.com/2021/04/29/biden-calls-capitol-riots-worst-attack-o
n-our-democracy-since-the-civil-war
/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-slammed-for-plans-to-cal
l-capitol-riot-worst-attack-on-our-democracy-since-the-civil-war-in-speech-to-congress


https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2021/04/29/nation-world-news/biden-cal
ls-for-sweeping-changes-as-us-emerges-from-pandemic
/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56924684

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-speech-us-needs-prove-212317094.html

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/bidens-sp
eech-offers-an-alternate-reality-for-democrats-to-love-after-four-years-of-trumpian-fantasy


Joe Biden Tells Congress: ‘We Have to Prove Democracy Still Works’



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 29, 2021 2:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by dc4bs:
Just wondering.

Why is it a heinous crime when Bush taps thousands of international calls and emails after 9/11 happened in order to try to prevent another one but it's completely ignored that Clinton tapped millions of international AND DOMESTIC calls and emails after the first trade center bombing?

Just curious is all.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs



I guess I haven't changed much.

The only two insights I had later were that:

1) Efficiency is the deathknell of robustness, and
2) If I had to choose between Marx's predicted future of one-world government and nationalism, I choose nationalism.

People, read the ENTIRE thread. This is back from when we had intelligent posters, not hate-filled ideological bots. People who knew how to discuss intelligently. There are a lot of insights from across the political spectrum (when there still was one, and it hadn't been reduced to a Punch-n-Judy show of who could lie about the other side more effectively and get the media to propagandize it).

Seriously, take a lesson from the past and learn something


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 22, 2021 12:22 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 22, 2021 3:31 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Originally posted by dc4bs:
Just wondering.

Why is it a heinous crime when Bush taps thousands of international calls and emails after 9/11 happened in order to try to prevent another one but it's completely ignored that Clinton tapped millions of international AND DOMESTIC calls and emails after the first trade center bombing?

Just curious is all.

I guess I haven't changed much.

The only two insights I had later were that:

1) Efficiency is the deathknell of robustness, and
2) If I had to choose between Marx's predicted future of one-world government and nationalism, I choose nationalism.

People, read the ENTIRE thread. This is back from when we had intelligent posters, not hate-filled ideological bots. People who knew how to discuss intelligently. There are a lot of insights from across the political spectrum (when there still was one, and it hadn't been reduced to a Punch-n-Judy show of who could lie about the other side more effectively and get the media to propagandize it).

Seriously, take a lesson from the past and learn something


Maybe you are confusing this site with some other you used to visit.
As I recall, there was a clique of Libtards here, almost all of whom proclaimed they were from a DIFFERENT part of the Loony Lefty Extremist Libtard spectrum, who always argued with any common sense or rational PoV. Most sensible, rational, reasonable folk here just ignored them, didn't bother engaging their Libtard nonsense, and let them circle-jerk each other ad nauseum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 22, 2021 3:36 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Would JFK Be A Conservative Today?
https://rumble.com/vebt8l-would-jfk-be-a-conservative-today.html

Obviously.
But LBJ pushed the Racist agenda, the Jim Crow agenda.
Then Jiminy Cotta pushed the incompetence agenda, the Inflation agenda, the Anti-America agenda.
Then perpetual Serial Rapist BJ Clinton pushed the Sexual Assault agenda, the Hate-The-Military agenda, the weaponizing the Exec Branch agencies agenda, the assassinate anybody who ticks off Hilliary agenda.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 26, 2021 3:24 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


McAfee is dead but I came across this interesting vid

# VoteDifferent was the hashtag

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=8KZFwkf2ONI

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 3, 2022 8:20 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 10, 2022 10:23 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2022 10:41 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


Betsy Johnson is loosing in 2022, state senate in 2021, after she announced that she was running in the 2022 gubernatorial election as an independent candidate?



Green Party targets fellow lefties over ‘Orwellian’ support for Kathy Hochul
https://nypost.com/2022/11/03/green-party-targets-fellow-lefties-for-h
elping-kathy-hochul
/

Conservative Party of New York State
http://www.cpnys.org/



Constitution Party, formerly the U.S. Taxpayers' Party until 1999
http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Vermont Progressive Party, formerly the Progressive Coalition
http://www.progressiveparty.org/

Partido Nuevo Progresista, PNP is a political party in Puerto Rico
https://twitter.com/pnp_pr

Oregon Progressive Party
http://progparty.org/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 9, 2022 10:43 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


We don't deserve a third party.

Let's just make ourselves comfortable and watch the world burn.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 3, 2023 8:29 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


There was an old 'In vogue. Again.' discussion

Rogan is a drinker a pot head and sucks up to people while talking conspiracy nonsense but as much as I dislike, the mainstream media is worse and he can have good guests

Bill Maher Joe Rogan



might also be mirrored on Rumble and Bitchute and Oysee if it gets banned by u tube filter Admin bots

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 09:39 - 2070 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL