DukeNukeEm

Oh bull-f***ing-s*** you do. You realize that you cant get the 2A repealed so youre trying to pick the low hanging fruit. If you honestly beleived these systems rehabilitate then why still deny them the 2A? Another big project 'fixed' them, so they'll be cool to own guns. And dont try to start softening your vocabulary from "help they need" to "help offered". I know what you really mean, you think you know better whats good for these people. You demand, because they need it, they be medicated and bedridden. If they dont want it? Tough luck. Youre getting that "help" anyways because were just that damn compassionate.

And to preemptively answer your snarky little question of whether Id rather have them going on a spree once every 6 or so months or have them be entitled to the same rights I am thats inevitably coming... Yes. Id rather have a thousand Sandy Hooks than have any group in this country have rights stripped from them via legislation. Im not living in Jim Crow, Plessy v Ferguson America. That is not what happens next. While most of you humiliate and degrade them and cheer their rights being stripped Im never going to play along. Its morally reprehensible. So you try and think youre clever, and you go to sleep thinking what youre doing here is OK. But when theyve finally pulverized whats left of the mentally ill's rights they wont stop. Theyll find someone new, and maybe then youll wish you said something when they established that it was just fine to rob people of their freedom in the interest of the public good.

What if they dont want doctors and meds? In a free country they have that choice. You dont think they should, but in the same breath youll talk about things like institutional racism and rape culture. You keep deflecting back to the 2A, but I know you think nobody should have that right so its whatever. But what about free speech without repercussions? How about due process? Explain why the mentally ill dont deserve those rights. Dont feed me a line that youre somehow drawing a line at gun control, dont say youre innocent in this regard. You actively say one universal right in this country should not apply to them, and once you go down that road and set those precedents you freely enable all their other rights to taken away as well. You and the whatever-majority-it-is-now-of-Americans who will throw them under the bus to win a tiny victory in your control endeavor think its a worthy trade off to see them demoted to second class citizens. Its so disgusting I really dont know how you reconcile it with yourself. Im not even one for caring much about people but even here I see a class of this country that can never incur a criminal charge but still have all their rights taken from them. What the f*** kind of world are you working for here? Whats your endgame? Dont say "wah no guns think of the children #justice4trayvon", because this is so much deeper and more sinister than that. You want to kill them? Relieve the people of the burden of sharing this country with them? Are you just taking care of the formality of removing every legal protection they have before zeroing in your final solution here? Whats wrong with you?

Nor do they have any of the other rights I listed but thats OK. Look at the compassionate liberal, maybe if people with mental issues voted Democrat consistently enough youd be championing their rights the way you do the blacks and gays. Then again, theyre a politically convenient target. You have no issues with developing . national dialouge that dehumanizes them and turns them into second class citizens at birth because it furthers your personal ideology of gun control. "The care they need" is code for being institutionalized by the way. Because thats the way the liberals solve problems, brutal state oppression enabled by decades of a dehumanizing propaganda campaign to tilt public opinion in favor of indefinite detention without a jury trial. Nice work Balta. My question is who will be next on the list to be gotten rid of once you've taken care of the crazies? Do they tell you in the party who its OK to hate next?

Implement the law as written Jake. The executive does not alter legislation.

We are well on the path of openly disowning the mentally ill from whats left of our rights in this country. Their access to the 2A is pretty much over, they cant say what they want or they wind up in the loony bin or sedated by a batch of drugs and now were oh so close to snatching away their protections from unlawful and unwarranted search and seizure. They cant admit anything without someone trying to get them institutionalized (hello self-incrimination) and they are forced to take mind control drugs or wind up back in the nuthouse. It sickens me to see people cheer this trend on. More money to lock people up! Theyre all a bunch of James Holmes' waiting to kill us! I hate it so much. Theyre all treated as criminals before they ever com it a crime.

Want me to summarize yours real quick? Other people need to buy my food, shelter and healthcare. Ban anyone who doesn't agree. You and Tex should get a room at the Motel 6.

And Warren can gain a national constituency in about a week. "Wait, I can hate that repulsive Hillary Clinton and still Vote to Make History ", Warrens got it. The Democrats are addicted to the idea of a woman president but nobody likes Hillary. Like Obama, Warren is an unknown commodity, people arent sick of her s***. She's already got it won unless Obama can not find a way to keep the wheels from completely falling off his healthcare mess before election day. Just watch, shes in a perfect position right now and her people are already playing coy. Get the hardcore party loyalists hooked on her and it trickles down. Just like with Obama.

Look I'll be happy to have this discussion in another thread. But this is about Elizabeth Warren winning the presidency in 2016 and me being very sad about that.

In the most obvious form ever. Its a country, with citizens, you cant charge them to move around in it. Thats not even regulation really, no more than rape or murder is a regulation.

You pay the toll anyways whether you use it or not. That money is coming out of your pocket. And they couldnt just charge whatever they wanted or theyd be stuck paying property tax (I think this is the only tax that is ethical) on a bunch of highway. Wouldnt be a monopoly either. Theyd face stiff competition from rail and clever people who buy one license for the road then bus them around it. What it costs for your license plate and sticker would probably be more than enough. Also, its illegal for anyone to charge money to cross state lines. Like.... way illegal.

Prisons shouldnt be privatized. Thats a legitimate arm of government. Its sad that they are, but it just shows how f***ing backwards are government's priorities are. You cant trust the market to run a legal system, just like you couldnt trust them to run a military. Its just the odd nature of those things. And yea, I like the National Parks. I do, I f***ing admit it. I dont mind that money for personal reasons derived from me just liking something. Protect that land, I'm with it 100%. It probably has something to do though with there being a million white trash families of idiots suckling off the state who I couldnt give half a s*** about adversely harming by cutting them off while theres only one Glacier, Yosemite, Mt Rainier in the world and it would be sad if it turned into a dumb theme park marketed to the aforementioned trash. By the way (and its funny that my throwaway comment better responss to the theme of your post than the past two paragraphs so if you want me to expand I will) this isnt creating a problem for the fijancially incompetent, its a solution to them.

Actually the correct answer is that the money is better left with the people. The taxes we pay are for protection against stuff that wants to hurt us that we cannot fight individually (like Canada invading or something). Though I'm sure since all the roads are physically there and transitioning their ownership to the private world would be the most corrupt scene imaginable some small government people are OK with the status quo in that specific instance. But the entire idea of "best ways to spend money" doesnt apply. Theres no such thing, the philosophy says that every cent given to the government is basically wasted in the process while the broader public gets an extemely narrow portion it for commom benefit. **NOTE TO ALL THAT WHILE THE WORD "ROAD" IS IN THIS POST WHAT IM SAYING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY JOB AND IT DOES NOT BEAR BRINGING UP**

And its following the rapidly developing precedent that Obamacare is actually Obamacare. It was a vote to give the executive unilateral power over the healthcare industry. Which, I mean, sort of defeats the purpose of entire political system when all it takes is one judge and a handful of congressmen to crown someone king. Its bad. I mean the law has always been bad but the standard its setting for governance is terrifying.

So Obama is gonna let people keep their plans for a year. Those evil tyrannical plans this bill supposedly killed. Its ridiculous how much of a mess this thing is and how desperately hes trying to force us into liking it.

People f***ing bring it up and I respond. I feel the same way.

Im glad this was split off, definitely merits its own thread. They were both pretty bad, but what makes Obama worse is a matter of expectations. Bush when he ran for his first term had what major policy goals? Privatize social security (he didnt) and build a big missile shield in Poland. He wanted to be a steward, just kinda watch America do stuff, do some favors and leave his stamp on some things the party wanted. Basically just wanted to Go Presidentin'. Then the towers fell and he had a little episode and went way off the rails. Had he just given up after his first term and not gone for reelection his presidency would really only have been marred by the Patriot Act. But the Republicans need him to go out and be a referendum on the wars despite being well overmatched for the job he was doing. No 9/11, Bush does fine... but there was a 9/11 and he did a mostly bad job. Now Obama, he campaigned as someone who could solve this mess. He knew how f***ed everything was and he said he'd make it better. This isnt like Denethor absolutely losing his marbles when a few thousand orcs rained on his parade of just being Kingly, its more like Denethor thought he could stop the orcs so he made himself king to stop them. I mean, (FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARGUMENT) Minas Tirith falls anyways but to me then poor sob who walked in on an easy which turns brutally difficult has a lot more excuses for his failure than the guy who promises to fix everything but winds up making it worse.

Its a cornball speech but I adore that piece of dialouge from that movie. A lot of people have not the slightest idea what makes this country run, they just migrate from apartment to cubicle and get so fat and sensitive in that sterile enviroment theyd be incapable of existing in a world were "how you feel about that" is irrelevant. Im not proud of driving truck any further than being proud of myself for making a middle class wage at my age (which is kinda rare) doing something I love. I could care less about the load of organic soy milk going to Whole Foods and the people who depend on it. It is nice to remind them that my industry isnt just expendable when they start whining about drivers going too slow.

Well the military shrank durastically for a littany of reasons and thankfully technology probably eliminated the need for dudes who just have to count stuff for 12 hours, but I'm more alluding to the scope of government which has done nothing but rocket upwards in my lifetime. Anything pre-Reagan is fine by me for my one day amusenent trip to a free country.

Except the government's attitude towards the trucking industry has been adversarial at best. Now if I wanted to direct a play or study sheep migration theyd hurl money at me, but these essential services you imagine the federal government providing are non-existant. They f*** over drivers, they f*** over carriers, they f*** over shippers... they may have taken 40 years to build a whole bunch of limited access roads but their current attitude towards the industry is destructive. Also, though it was initially a federal defense project the highways are all but entitely maintained by states, which makes it only slightly better since its pretty easy to flee a state trying to choke every cent of you (hi, Illinois).

I laughed out loud at that article. Local bureaucrat: "7.8 million? Thats like one smaller sized contracting favor. How am I supposed to get all my nephews jobs holding the "Slow" sign with $7.8m?" But you liberals got the answer, tax em more. Yea, that'll do it! Levy 10,000% taxes on something that is literally in every product you have ever bought and everything you physically own. It protects the precious roads so your rolling deathtraps held together by duct tape and one working brake you get irresponsibly wasted on will have a slightly easier time. You want this plush life of yours where youre comfortable enough to give a s*** about starving Africans or run around with some pretentious "Save the Planet" petition? Thank the trucking industry. And yea, the point of the IHS being a defense project is that it wasnt set out to be some pork laden work project and contracting sweepstakes. The people in charge of it where discplined, smart, and resourceful which is a far f***ing cry from the idiotic, wasteful, spoiled, lazy, entitled ingrates who make up the unnecessary side of the public sector now. "But they maintain the roads, Duke!", no they dont. They go to the capitol begging the legislature there to increase their budget then use that money (after giving themselves big fat raises of course) on private contractors to do the actual work. Its a sham, theyre like big crooked brokers leeching taxpayer dollars without doing jack s***.

Except the IHS was designed and implemented as a defense program. The Supreme Allied Commander oversaw its construction! He got the idea in war, he literally said this would be for the defense of the USA. Stated goals and s*** dog. That's a whole different story than cowardly adhering to my definition of what government should do (mainly because there's no real way to defend anything else they're up to) and then trying to improvise ways all your pet issues help defense. B-b-but the soldiers want free stuff and I want free stuff! Gubmint, oh lord and savior Gubmint, give us some more free stuff because itll make us safer.

Though I wouldn't put it past the government to restrict our access to them it makes very little sense to have them just sitting there unused until the military needs them.

The interstate highways were a defense project, I think defense falls under military. If I wasn't clear enough on that my bad.

Quit trying to pin me as an anarchist. Its beneath the level you're capable of arguing at.