Let's ban profits!!!!!!

[unregistered]

 

[thør]

Uss Truman
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/red_ripper_night_launch.jpg

I have a nephew that pilots one of those units.

 

[bra_man69]

I have a nephew that pilots one of those units.

I always wanted to take off in a airplane from carrier.
If I know how to work photography editing software I got some really cool pictures over looking Pearl harbor uss Ronald Reagan in the background.

 

[LongPenStroke]

I asked you the other day to engage me no further in conversation. I meant it. If you want to apologize for being a purposeful troll and by doing so prove to me that you have an ounce of integrity, I'll reconsider. Until then, don't bother.

This coming from the man who calls people names on here. This is fucking rich. You keep cracking me up.

 

[LongPenStroke]

Today's liberal has no relationship to the classical definition of the term used in days of yore. Today's liberal couldn't sell a single piece of legislation to the liberals who founded the nation. Go peddle your shit to someone who doesn't know better.

Let's see.

In 1798, John Adams signed the very first health care mandate into law. The law required sailors to pay a tax to the United States government which in turn would provide medical care to them. The next President, Thomas Jefferson, apparently approved of this program as well, since he never challenged it, nor did he ever try to repeal it. According to Republican logic, Adams and Jefferson are a couple big government liberals.

Separation of church and state is not just a liberal concept, the Founding Fathers made it part of America’s sacred foundation. Freedom of Religion was not included in the Constitution just to protect Christianity. Freedom of Religion protects ALL religions, even if you do not practice any religion at all. The idea that a wall between church and state doesn’t exist is absurd and the idea that the Founders meant America to be a Christian state is equally absurd. Nowhere in the Constitution can you find God, Jesus, or any mention of a specific religion whatsoever. The only mention of religion is that we all have the freedom to practice whatever religion we want and that government cannot make any law that puts one religion over the other, even Christianity.

Conservatives always claim that liberals are the supporters of big government. Well, the Founding Fathers also supported big government. Oh sure, they tried small government at one point but The Articles of Confederation didn’t cut it. The Federal Government under that document was useless and powerless. General chaos reigned among the states. Revenue couldn’t be raised. Laws conflicted between the states. Small government had failed. So, the Founders had an idea. They met in secret in 1787 and wrote the Constitution which created a bigger, stronger central government. Conservatives would call that growing the government.

 

[hogjack]

Let's see.

In 1798, John Adams signed the very first health care mandate into law. The law required sailors to pay a tax to the United States government which in turn would provide medical care to them. The next President, Thomas Jefferson, apparently approved of this program as well, since he never challenged it, nor did he ever try to repeal it. According to Republican logic, Adams and Jefferson are a couple big government liberals.

Separation of church and state is not just a liberal concept, the Founding Fathers made it part of America’s sacred foundation. Freedom of Religion was not included in the Constitution just to protect Christianity. Freedom of Religion protects ALL religions, even if you do not practice any religion at all. The idea that a wall between church and state doesn’t exist is absurd and the idea that the Founders meant America to be a Christian state is equally absurd. Nowhere in the Constitution can you find God, Jesus, or any mention of a specific religion whatsoever. The only mention of religion is that we all have the freedom to practice whatever religion we want and that government cannot make any law that puts one religion over the other, even Christianity.

Conservatives always claim that liberals are the supporters of big government. Well, the Founding Fathers also supported big government. Oh sure, they tried small government at one point but The Articles of Confederation didn’t cut it. The Federal Government under that document was useless and powerless. General chaos reigned among the states. Revenue couldn’t be raised. Laws conflicted between the states. Small government had failed. So, the Founders had an idea. They met in secret in 1787 and wrote the Constitution which created a bigger, stronger central government. Conservatives would call that growing the government.

The author of this is Stephen D. Foster Jr.

Quit stealing crap and passing it off as your own you fucking dufus. It's quite clear you don't have the mental capacity to write anything remotely insightful, interesting or influential fuck-for-brains.

 

[fuckwaffle]

.......

 

[LongPenStroke]

The author of this is Stephen D. Foster Jr.

Quit stealing crap and passing it off as your own you fucking dufus. It's quite clear you don't have the mental capacity to write anything remotely insightful, interesting or influential fuck-for-brains.

You are correct, and I wasn't trying to pass it off as my own. I am pretty sure this the internet and everyone can use google, even someone as a fuck-for-brains like you.

 

[hogjack]

You are correct, and I wasn't trying to pass it off as my own. I am pretty sure this the internet and everyone can use google, even someone as a fuck-for-brains like you.

You got caught.

Live with it, Dumb Fuck.

 

[LongPenStroke]

You got caught.

Live with it, Dumb Fuck.

Caught doing what, exactly, not providing my source, dumb fuck?

 

[SeatWarmer]

The author of this is Stephen D. Foster Jr.

Quit stealing crap and passing it off as your own you fucking dufus. It's quite clear you don't have the mental capacity to write anything remotely insightful, interesting or influential fuck-for-brains.

Argumentum ad hominem in its finest.

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument.

Oh no, I just quoted Wikipedia! Because it's not my own personal construction of thoughts, it must be a lie!

 

[LongPenStroke]

Argumentum ad hominem in its finest.

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument.

Oh no, I just quoted Wikipedia! Because it's not my own personal construction of thoughts, it must be a lie!

I would have done this, but I fear that the words 'ad hominem' are beyond him. It's much easier for someone like him to attack the person than to defend his stance.

 

[hogjack]

Oh no, I just quoted Wikipedia! Because it's not my own personal construction of thoughts, it must be a lie!

Considering I didn't comment on the validity of the argument this is nonsensical.

Teal is a pretty font color. Unfortunately, doesn't improve the content.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Today's liberal has no relationship to the classical definition of the term used in days of yore. Today's liberal couldn't sell a single piece of legislation to the liberals who founded the nation. Go peddle your shit to someone who doesn't know better.

Back in 1859 my ancestor called liberals INSANE PHILANTHROPISTS determined to destroy industry and criminality by giving criminals all they desire without any penalties. He also said people will cease to create anything worth stealing when the insane philanthropists seize it for the criminals benefit.

 

[SeatWarmer]

I would have done this, but I fear that the words 'ad hominem' are beyond him. It's much easier for someone like him to attack the person than to defend his stance.

Which is why I'm glad I've learned to laugh. It confuses people when their attempts at being a douche make me giggle. Icing on the cake is their confusion makes it even funnier!

 

[SeatWarmer]

Considering I didn't comment on the validity of the argument this is nonsensical.

Teal is a pretty font color. Unfortunately, doesn't improve the content.

Your comment was geared to mean the following: You steal from others because you can not organize your own thoughts into anything insightful.
That is ad hominem, whether you like it or not. You don't have to question the validity of what he quoted, you're still attacking him personally for choosing an already well-structured source (Stephen D. Foster Jr.) and copy-pasting it. Because he chose to use something pre-written that is a good reflection of his thoughts rather than word it himself, you choose to attack him over it.
"You choose to attack him". And we arrive at the start of my post again. That is ad hominem, whether you like it or not.

Read it a few more times until it makes sense. <3

Also, Teal is a pretty font color. Thank you. ^_^ I'm glad I chose it for my posts.

 

[cjh]

Their number is on the back of every ambulance.

Heh.

A plumber and a photocopy jockey quibbling over the contingency fees I've earned.

Such a cute couple.

 

[hogjack]

you're still attacking him personally for choosing an already well-structured source (Stephen D. Foster Jr.) and copy-pasting it. Because he chose to use something pre-written that is a good reflection of his thoughts rather than word it himself, you choose to attack him over it.

Obviously you've spent far too much time testing what objects will fit comfortably in your fat ass.

PenStroker gets caught "chosing something pre-written" which he clearly intended to pass of as his own words. Dumb son-of-a-bitch got caught.

You come dashing in with a bunch of bullshit to save him. Sweet!

Looks like it's the start of a beautiful relationship. Cut-and-paste poetry back-and-forth before sharing your real feelings from the heart. Good luck!

 

[SeatWarmer]

Obviously you've spent far too much time testing what objects will fit comfortably in your fat ass.

PenStroker gets caught "chosing something pre-written" which he clearly intended to pass of as his own words. Dumb son-of-a-bitch got caught.

You come dashing in with a bunch of bullshit to save him. Sweet!

Looks like it's the start of a beautiful relationship. Cut-and-paste poetry back-and-forth before sharing your real feelings from the heart. Good luck!

You must be flustered if you resort to ad hominem again. And you took the teal out of my post! Jerk. :3
Pity you'll never know this true love I've found with Pen. I never thought love at first sight was true until now.

 

[LongPenStroke]

Obviously you've spent far too much time testing what objects will fit comfortably in your fat ass.

PenStroker gets caught "chosing something pre-written" which he clearly intended to pass of as his own words. Dumb son-of-a-bitch got caught.

You come dashing in with a bunch of bullshit to save him. Sweet!

Looks like it's the start of a beautiful relationship. Cut-and-paste poetry back-and-forth before sharing your real feelings from the heart. Good luck!

Can you actually refute anything that I posted? Or are you just going to attack me for not putting up my source? If you can answer these questions honestly, it will go a long way to proving what kind of person you are.

 

[unregistered]

 

[hogjack]

In your role as Master Of The Obvious you've missed the point entirely.

You are arguing with the author, Stephen D. Foster Jr.

I doubt he'll respond but he might be posting in The Playground.

 

[LongPenStroke]

In your role as Master Of The Obvious you've missed the point entirely. There is a difference between classical liberalism and today's liberal. A good example can be found in Federalist 51 where the classical liberal James Madison writes:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Today's liberal isn't interested in individual liberty, nor is he interested in restraining the growth of government power. He or she is interested in the collective and will sacrifice individual liberty and will gather all the government power required to maintain the equilibrium of the collective. Today's liberal is a collectivist, the classical liberal is today's libertarian.

And yet, Madison was arguing for a stronger central government. Thanks for making my case for me.

You should really look at the anti-federalist papers for more help, but they might not be that much help since the anti-federalists lost.