[Soup forgot his password]

@ Spambot

You do realize this is the nth time we've had a discussion about GDP, don't you? OHHHHH that's right you're not actually talking to me, you're using my post to launch into a libertarian thing about the GDP for all your avid readers. Hate to break it to you but nobody but me and two other people are reading anything in crossfire and we know all about GDP.

If you are talking to me, a lot of things are tied to GDP growth. Employment rates for example, are related to GDP growth. In fact its not even worth arguing with you over what the value of GDP is. If you dont think it has value, you should go find some. Every economist and person in the world already has.

@ Amprock
I already gave you a list of requests and questions you needed to respond about but you ignored all of them and continued to repeat yourself like, again, an automated hotline at the limit of its abilities .... I dont see why I should have to repeat myself just because you continue to. if you dont want to respond. fine. If you want to continue to make things up ok.

And to clarify, Im not insisting on Obama being anything. You can feel free to cite where I've been insistant on Obama being good or bad. What i've insisted on is you citing where your information comes from. You can't because you don't have any sources. Being a graphic designer for a newsletter must mean you get information "unfiltered" by newspapers and credible sources.

If you dont post another newsletter I'm going to count this discussion a loss. I've been asking you this entire time to post SOMETHING about Obama supporting the patriot act and AETA, but you haven't. I've asked you to post an article showing what exactly the Shac 7 organization was doing prior to being arrested but you havent. I've asked you to find a credible source citing why they were arrested but you haven't.

And the word "livestock" refers to animals on farms or for science. In the case of Shac 7, it would refer to beagles for science. THe term "livestock" is very clear in the definition of what AETA is designed to protect. So to answer your question, where i got the term "livestock" from. I got it from the actual AETA law as it's written. Whered you get YOUR information?

[Spambot5000]

Originally Posted by Soup forgot his password (View Original Post)

@ Spambot

You do realize this is the nth time we've had a discussion about GDP, don't you? OHHHHH that's right you're not actually talking to me, you're using my post to launch into a libertarian thing about the GDP for all your avid readers. Hate to break it to you but nobody but me and two other people are reading anything in crossfire and we know all about GDP.

If you are talking to me, a lot of things are tied to GDP growth. Employment rates for example, are related to GDP growth. In fact its not even worth arguing with you over what the value of GDP is. If you dont think it has value, you should go find some. Every economist and person in the world already has.

Wow. Again I come to the realisation that it is impossible to interact with you. I made a point which you can take or leave. Discussion or no discussion; I don't care. Yet, you come out all guns blazing, determined to highlight your superior knowledge and, in contrast, my 'real' agenda. All based on a half reading of what I have said. Amazing...

I'm out.

[Soup forgot his password]

Nobody wants to talk to you about GDP. Get it now?

[amprok]

I posted court documents from a main stream civil rights organization that was working pro bono on the shac 7. that is hardly a "newsletter".

I also provided a link to a New York Times article about it. Not a small no name news letter either.

Either of those sources should be reasonable. Either way, I'm not sure why it's up to me to provide source after source, if you're just going to refuse them and write off Center for Constitutional Justice as some shady lawyer making a quick buck.

This conversation has gotten so far off track -probably my fault.

The whole point of the derailment was that you claimed Obama has done "nothing but good".

I claim that he's done some shitty things, like supporting the AETA (which is where we got way side tracked) and the Patriot Act.

You refuse to believe the AETA is that bad, that the main stream civil rights group is just some lawyer making money off of the case... which would rad if it were true, but hilariously inaccurate, and the New York Times article is some newsletter from a fringe group.

That's fine. You also interject "pull it your head out your ass, blah blah comments", which is fine.

You admit that the patriot act was extended (or at least parts of it) but for whatever reason that doesn't bother you.

So we're at a loss. Not a -agree to disagree-, but a loss. You think extending the patriot act is a good thing (?) and you think the AETA isn't as bad as some shitty little news letter called the New York Times claims it was, and that some main stream civil rights organization is just some shady lawyer.

I could keep posting link after link, but it appears that you'll just ask for more, claim i have my head up my ass, and insist that Obama can do no wrong.

So whatever. Here are the crazy 911 conspiracy links that you'll just discredit that I already posted.

Democracy Now (left, but pretty mainstream news outlet). and


ACLU expressing concerns (VERY VERY main stream civil rights group)

Center for Constitutional Justice (semi main stream civil rights group that's been around since the 60's)


and a new york times article (one of the most respected newspapers in the world)

Court documents from the National Lawyers Guilde asking for the Obama Cabinet to repeal the AETA (more shady lawyers looking to make a quick buck i think.)

But whatever, the ACLU, CCJ, New York Times, and Democracy Now are just fringe news letters and shady lawyers. and Obama can do NO wrong.


Obama extends the Patriot Act via the Washington Post

Obama signs extensions on the Patriot Act via the Huffington Post

Obama supporting the AETA can be pointed out simply by looking at those in Shac 7 who are still in prison from the case.

But Obama has done nothing but good.

[amprok]

also...

i'm down to talk about GDP.

[Soup forgot his password]

From the NYT article

During the three-week trial, defense lawyers acknowledged that a Web site run by Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty posted home addresses and other personal information about animal researchers and others. But the activists said they were simply trying to shame their targets into dissociating themselves from the company, Huntingdon Life Sciences, and they disavowed any involvement with the vandalism, death threats, computer hacking and pipe bombs against those on the Web site.

Although federal prosecutors presented no evidence that the defendants directly participated in the vandalism and violence, they showed jurors that members of the group made speeches and Web postings from 2000 to 2004 that celebrated the violence and repeatedly used the word "we" to claim credit for it.

Keep in mind that this is coming out of a post 9/11 america where we were directly endangered by people who advocated violence over mass-media.

Prosecutors also produced telephone records indicating that the president of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Kevin Kjonaas, called a man charged with bombing a California biotech lab shortly after the explosion.

I knew there was more to this than just a website ran by some humanitarians against dogs being used for scientific research. And you wonder why he has his lawyer present during the interview.

While the bill provides an exemption for “lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise,” that exemption applies only to claims of economic “disruption” and not claims of economic “damage.” It also does not necessarily cover the entire range of expression protected by the First Amendment, which covers more than a lawful “reaction” to a “disclosure of information.” Ordinary persons would not understand which activities are prohibited and which are lawful.

In other words, the difference would be what Occupy Wallstreet did to the Port of Oakland. It would provide expemption to people who protest on private property and blockade people from doing their work, but that same exemption doesnt apply to damage or loss of property.

[Soup forgot his password]

Crap i accidently lost half of my post.

Here's the gist (all from that NYT article, btw)

Shac 7's president is associated with a convicted bomber
Shac 7's director is threatening scientists on tape shouting "The police can't protect you."
Shac 7's website condones violence, death threats, and posts the names and home addresses of scientists.
Shac 7 was convicted by a jury of piers.
Shac 7 was sentenced to 7-21 years. One of whom was out in 31 months.
Shac 7 was the ONLY example of any one ever being convicted under AETA, which is a twenty year old law.

So why would eliminating this law be important to Obama? Currently he has to deal with missle launches in Korea, nukes in Iran, China's navy threatening US, Healthcare reform, Social Security Reform, Immigration reform, and a million other things. Why would he take a stance that would make him look like he's in defense of a violent and retarded organization against scientific research? The flipside of the coin is that by defending Shac 7's right to make violent threats against Scientific Researchers, you're infringing on the consitutional rights of those scientists. Why put that on Obama? And what politician would do something differently in Obama's shoes? You can think of Obama as being a piece of shit for being a politician, but don't say he's a piece of shit over other politicians. How much sense does that make?

[Realism]

Tough shit hippies, AETA rules

[nsmbfan]

wooooooooo!!!

[McLovin]

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/91689761

[McLovin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL7BE34898EFC5C04E

[ipod90]

^
Unavailable.

[Cunt_Eastwood]

Rand Paul endoresing Romney almost made me vomit.

[Soup forgot his password]

Why would that make you almost vomit? Isn't Mitt Romney's every libertarian's dream? He comes from a very successful business/financial background. I would think from a libertarian perspective having a wealthy businessman run America would be perfect.

[Cunt_Eastwood]

Im not a libertarian.

Also anyone who hears Mitt Romney and dosent want to vomit must wipe their ass with dollar dollar bills yall.

[Spambot5000]

Originally Posted by Soup forgot his password (View Original Post)

Why would that make you almost vomit? Isn't Mitt Romney's every libertarian's dream? He comes from a very successful business/financial background. I would think from a libertarian perspective having a wealthy businessman run America would be perfect.

Romney is definitely not a libertarians dream candidate; he is a socially conservative corporate puppet.


In other news, Peter Schiff gives a good speech at the Fraser Institute.

[nsmbfan]

we have more pages in this thread than we had voters for Ron Paul at my polling place


smh


The elite bought everything. There's nothing left but ACTUAL REVOLUTION. Grab your brooms everybody!

[Soup forgot his password]

Originally Posted by Spambot5000 (View Original Post)

Romney is definitely not a libertarians dream candidate; he is a socially conservative corporate puppet.


In other news, Peter Schiff gives a good speech at the Fraser Institute.

You're only proving my point. Libertarians are conservatives who believe in the rights of corporations.


Edit: and to add to that video that you posted, greece didnt fail because of government stimulus. It failed because the government lied about its finances when it entered the EU. Germany, Great Britain, all the other countries in the EU that are trying to keep greece afloat have stimuluses as well, so you can't logically come to Pete's conclusion.

[McLovin]

....




Most who are voting for romney feel it is their only chance to boot obama out. Most dont even like romney but prefer him to obama.

[Spambot5000]

Originally Posted by Soup forgot his password (View Original Post)

You're only proving my point. Libertarians are conservatives who believe in the rights of corporations.


Edit: and to add to that video that you posted, greece didnt fail because of government stimulus. It failed because the government lied about its finances when it entered the EU. Germany, Great Britain, all the other countries in the EU that are trying to keep greece afloat have stimuluses as well, so you can't logically come to Pete's conclusion.

facepalm.jpg

[Soup forgot his password]

Why are you facepalming? Milton Friedman was an economic advisor for Ronald Reagan.

Conservatism:
Limited government spending
Fewer taxes
Small government
Limited state wellfare
Fewer corporate restrictions


Libertarianism:
Limited government spending
Fewer taxes
Small government
Limited state wellfare
Fewer corporate restrictions

You're in australia so you might not understand what our political parties believe. "Conservatism" isnt a universal term across every country. Then again if you don't know something you shouldn't be arguing either.

[/quote]Most who are voting for romney feel it is their only chance to boot obama out. Most dont even like romney but prefer him to obama.[/quote]

If that's the case then why isnt Santorum or Ron Paul winning in polls? Mitt Romney's a more popular canidate for a reason. People like the idea of placing a businessman in the oval office. Mitt Romney takes bankrupt businesses and helps them turn a profit again. He downsizes them, trims fat, restructures the management and then flips them for a profit. A lot of people want that to happen to the American Government. They also like the idea that he's a self made man and has spoken out against lobbiest's influence in congress.

I'm not saying those are reasons to vote for a president. Im just saying that's a libertarian's wet dream. Ron Paul's a talking head/politician. Mitt Romney's an actual businessman.

Oh and that depiction of what it means to be libertarian is retarded. That's a false dychotomy. Republicans and democrats both attempt to give americans personal and economic freedom. They just have different ways of doing it. The way libertarians go about it is identical to conservative republicans.

[Spambot5000]

Originally Posted by Soup forgot his password (View Original Post)

Why are you facepalming? Milton Friedman was an economic advisor for Ronald Reagan.

Conservatism:
Limited government spending
Fewer taxes
Small government
Limited state wellfare
Fewer corporate restrictions


Libertarianism:
Limited government spending
Fewer taxes
Small government
Limited state wellfare
Fewer corporate restrictions

You're in australia so you might not understand what our political parties believe. "Conservatism" isnt a universal term across every country. Then again if you don't know something you shouldn't be arguing either.

I wrote a reply explaining the shared interests and then the differences between American libertarians and conservatives, as well as why Romney is not even remotely a favourable candidate for libertarians. Then I had a sharp realisation; you are a retard and I would be wasting my time to rebut such a stupid point. Go read a wiki page or something...

[Soup forgot his password]

Easy there tiger

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://lewrockwell.com/yk/ron-paul-w...se-romney.html

Romney is not a Libertarian dream.

[CILONE/SK]

^I guess that is a well thought out article with valid points from both sides of the spectrum.