Liberalism and why I despise it

Coffee

Couple of things first you say ‘enforced’ as if change has to be imposed from an eternal entity. The next thing is what do you mean by - ‘grow to astronomical proportions’?

*

As I’ve pointed out many times what "good governance" means to anyone depends on what they see as being ‘good’.

I believe it would be good to restore some balance to US politics, between the interests of the advantaged and disadvantaged , between wealth and the rest, between the few and the many between the interests of the community and those of the individual and so on.

I along with others here feel that at the moment in the US wealth has gained too much power and influence which we’d wish to curtail.
In the past ‘free market’ ideas, limited regulation, inequality and the corrupting power of money in a political system has equated to just the type of imbalance we see today.

So it would seem to me and others that the best way to bring back balance is by curbing and countering the supposed ‘free market’ ideas and policies, bring in appropriate regulation and try and limit the influence of wealth in the political system, through measures that bring about more equality.

But many right wingers here cry NO but seem unable to actually debate their ideas to see if they’re any good they just say NO.
Thing is that the American electorate can vote for change but they need to have the choice to vote for the right kind of change. As I see it many Americas would like to vote for things that would make a bad situation worse.

Only if there is open and honest debate will we be able to move on.
Look above do we get rational and reasonable argument in defence of right wing ideas, well I’m sorry to say no, we get a lot of assertions, lots of unsubstantiated claims and dark hints at conspiracy but very little of substance.

In another thread I lamented that what the US needed was a real movement for change but all it got was the madness of the Tea Party Movement and that is the sad situation I see at the moment.

 

Which, we simply don't have in America. Our government wastes money, and causes greater hardships on the individual. I would argue that when governments have this much power, it is impossible for people to be free.Liberal think things like Government housing, government school and, government healthcare is adding to our freedom, but really it's taking it away. Mayor bloomberg tried to implement finger printing to enter the projects. Government schools indoctrinate kids, and many time shotty teachers that hate their jobs end up raising our kids. I had some very spiteful and mean teachers in public schools, who would talk down to the kids so bad. And, government healthcare again, will create a monopoly, which skyrockets prices. If Obamacare was legitimately to help people, it wouldn't cost so much, and, people would be able to choose if they want it. If they can do it for 313 million people, than, they can do it for 250 million people. They wont let people opt out, because the biggest insurance companies are behind it, and will undoubtedly profit from the raising prices and the fact that everyone is forced to buy in.

This is certainly less freedom for everyone; Government is the reason healthcare is so high to begin with.

It's not simplistic. And, I do want an effective government- but, on real crimes, like destroying other peoples property. Koch Chemicals spilled petcoke in Detroit, and as far as I know, no one was ever punished for that. Under my system, you can't destroy other peoples property. So really, any kind of enviormental damages apply to those laws.

Bribery and fraud is illegal, yet, the banksters, and military-industrial complex get away with it all the time. The idea of localizing governments is only part of it. We also need voters who elect politicians that follow the Constitution, and don't take bribes- you need to watch what bills they pass


The other thing is that alot of states are legalizing marijuana, and that's because a majority of Americans support it-and, the states will work off the will of the people (eventually, as mankind advances in their way of thinking) the Federal Government wont change those laws because they're making money from drug cartels and pharmaceutical industries who lobby or bribe them, to keep laws that make them substantial profits.

That's because you don't understand it. The Federal Government is the strong-arm of these corporations, and they use laws to hurt competitors, small businesses and, average Americans who are being force into government monopolies against their will. Government is obviously never going to really put their foot down with these specific industries. And they're able to control the policies of 313 million people, by just using this federal entity.

The idea is to focus the power away from federal, and make the power local; Local politicians are more accountable, and it'd be much harder for these industries to bribe all 50 state governments. The Federal government was made to be a checks and balance system- the problem is that they've hand their powers over to corporations for financial contributions. Anyone can give into that, but the idea is to only vote honest and Constitutional candidates in.

If Government protects life, liberty, the Constitution and, property- we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. This came about, not by capitalism- but through phoney capitalism, in which an elite few control the worlds resources and policies. The way to a better government is not an extensive
and unfettered Federal Government, nor is the answer a world government- but rather, a government that cares for the will of it's people, and does not impose force. The closest thing we have is the state governments; But voters would still have to be aware of who they're voting in.

Sorry, but no. "Bailouts" are not free market ideals, nor is government benefits. Government picking winners and losers is the problem America is faced with. The richest 0.1% are above the law, yet, implement degrading and unconstitutional laws like the Drug war, the TSA, DHS and, the NSA. We pay alot of money into a government, that treats regular people as the enemy. It may be the agenda of corporations, but their agenda for wars and to boost profits, is always funded on the taxpayers back.

Following laws that are already in place will make this bad situation better. Having a government that works for the people is better. Taxing the rich more will do virtually nothing to stop pollution,wars or, anything else in the corporate agenda. We need to break it at the bend and not allow the destruction of other peoples property. And I say lawsuits cause as I said, some companies are protected by government,and if someone suffered damage to their body or property, the company should be liable. And if bribery and fraud laws were followed, the most corrupt industries that run our government today, could be jailed, or punished greatly. But, we don't need MORE laws, and certainly not ones that ban: soft drinks, horse-drawn carriages, marijuana and, lemonade stands.

The "flaw" doesn't exist? There are tons of flaws in our government. I could sit here and name a bunch just from Obama, but it may take all day- the flaw is our country is no longer free.

Like you said "it's not so black and white." We want to get rid of alot of regulations, not every regulation. If it's protecting life, liberty and, property and, it's constitutional- it's fine.However, Banning lemonade stands and soft drinks are regulations-and they're not working. One FDA worker checking 1 in 200 cows, is not protecting us from mad cow decease. The companies do that work, because they don't want a bad reputation, lawsuits or, people boycotting their company.

First of all, although Libertarians hold some beliefs that mainstream republicans pretend to support; Really all the republicans and democrats do, is expand government. And it's obvious that that system is not working. Freedom is a compromise for some people, because we've become so accustomed to the idea that the government is above the law. Think about it.

We realize killing, stealing and, forcing people into submission is wrong, and yet, we give the government a pass to do all these things, and now they can execute citizens without a trial.


killing, stealing and, forcing people into submission-
this is what you believe corporations will do if left with no restraints. But, that's not what most Libertarians believe. There are ceratain laws and regulations that are okay. We want a government that protects life, liberty and, property- this means any damages corporations cause, they would be liable for damages, and, in the free market, where government doesn't bailout failing businesses, the business would fail because of the fact their food was unsafe. What corporation would want to go out of business in shame? Corporations cannot hurt you, all they do, they do through the government. Otherwise, they offer you a job, or, they offer you a product. Any damages would still be under law, but we wouldn't waste so much money on these programs. I mean, a lot of you rooted for Obama right? He campaigned on cutting spending, and he's doubled spending nearly every year.

There's not many Lobbyist in Libertarianism. Maybe in the tea party, but they're basically still mainstream republicans. As far as I know a majority of them didn't like Ron Paul

And why should it? The national debt is insane, the devaluation of the dollar is insane. Libertarians are the only party smart enough to see the actual problems in American society. I believe our biggest problems are:We're broke, we have lost essential freedom through the fear of terror and, the total government control we are consistently moving toward.

I don't mean to only called out Liberals- Republicans are just as bad. But to me, both parties move in the way of more government control, more spending and, more force. This isn't just opinion, this is what the American government is. This is why I'm very weary of people telling me the government taking another billion dollars is going to help the everyday American, because we all know the system isn't set up that way.

I think you're the one getting very negative. I'm not trying to be negative, I'm just explaining to you why I feel the way that I do. Everything does not need to be done by government- and when things are done through government it costs more and the whole operation is shotty. I'd imagine a government "rehab" would be exactly like a jail- lousy food, no freedom and, guards watching everyone around the clock.

Be realistic- corporations set up NICE operations, because they want you to come back, or recommend people. Some rehabs have spas, pools- all that! And because the fact they're in competition, alot of places are (pretty) cheap with insurance.

My beliefs aren't about coldheartedly just "denying" people of social services, as you cleverly hinted at. My views are to shrink government to keep this country alive. But we have a lot of serious problems.

Namely the Federal Reserve, Massive debt, the military-industrial complex
and, the crack down of Constitutional rights by our Federal Government.
since these are the things I'm worried about as a citizen- so my beliefs follow accordingly.

I'd like to see dependency of Social Services dissipate down the line, but I think it's more important to cut the military spending. The idea on foodstamps is, they get taken over by the state. I just want to cut out the trillions the Federal Government puts on corrupt programs and, wastes overseas.

What are you even saying? Even if you saw a Liberatarian acting this way- so what? Just watch CNN, any Liberal station or, an Obama speech; Politicians just 'support' it, because they know liberals support it, and will get them more votes. Libertarians believe it, because what they people do should be no business of the government. People can do what they want with their freedom (as long as they're not hurting anyone else or destroying property.) We have freedoms that are so often denied when our federal government has total control.

Think about this also. It's our Federal government who hasnt legalized pot. Many states governments have. The Federal Government has also made no move toward legalizing gay marriage- but the states have. I think we're giving too much control to the government, though, when they can tell me what plants I can smoke or, who I can marry.

That's not really what I believe. I think a small amount actually do probably need the help. But, the government was also behind many of their problems. But as I said,I support states taking over foodstamps, but the Federal Government has become this giant entity, that goes above and beyond for no reason other than they like spending our money.

I'm all about shutting down Guantanamo Bay, but there's like 70% of it thats never even been used. it's like, where do they come off wasting money that isn't theirs. (from as Im taking it) That's what your argument is based on; You think we need a Federal Government, we need a world government and, all these bureaucrats; and frankly, I think they are the root causes of this Orwellian Nightmare, in which we live.

I was mainly talking about the Banker Elite. I don't think it's right that the taxpayer bailed them out despite the fact that they made bad business decisions. In real capitalism, businesses like that would fall, and others would take their place.

I don't think every rich person is bad. As Scratcho said "the top 0.1%." These are people who break the law all the time, because they're above the law, and control it through government. Because of this, we arn't in a capitalist society. It's like government playing god in a crony capitalist system. And it's sad to me that people feed into this violent idea that it's okay for government to kill, steal and, waste our money- as long as the appear to be productive.

Yeah, but government jobs costs everyone more, and i don't think we can afford to expand government any longer.

 

25

I repeat- You tell us we are wrong, you tell us you are right, you tell use your viewpoint is just ‘common sense’ – but when asked to produce any evidence of you rationally defending your views you seem unable to do it, we just get more rants full of ill-informed assertion and unsubstantiated accusation

 

You just never listen to what you don't want to hear. The truth is that I don't need to "prove" myself because examples of government abuse are all over the place- they constantly: waste our money, start unconstitutional wars, kill peaceful citizens, spy on peaceful citizens and, are planning on giving military vehicles to police. And what point do we say that our government is too militarized and has too more power?

I don't think you have that line in your head. Technically, the Queen is above the law in the UK, right? cause she "created" that government. But, in America no one is above our Human Rights.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong except the government, and that is shown from years of actions and laws from both major parties. And actually, I also said I agree with Liberals on social aspects like ending the drug war and, allowing gays to get married.

But, as I take it, your belief is that we need the UN, and the Federal Government. And I believe you're simply ignoring all the damage they do, all the innocent lives they take and, their abuse of power through this idea that government is above the law, and it's not "sinning" or "bad karma" to initiate force through the government- but, that's totally untrue. Everyday the US government bullies peaceful individuals, and I don't think true Americans should stand for this!

You, on the other hand, believe in total government control: A new Constitution, a UN world government- and, I think the failures of our government has been plenty enough to show us that central planning does not work on such a large scale.

This is why I don't believe as you do- I don't have endless faith that government will "protect me" and, do what's in my best interest- because their whole policy is a joke, and wont be fixed till the federal government cuts in size and scope- and, they wont do that as long as Liberals/Republicans believe no one would survive without them. Actually, state governments would localize the wealth better, too. We really don't need the Federal government, and they cause alot of hardships and cost alot of tax money. These are some things people should be talking about.
The government has been a disaster, and the people are losing their freedom.

It may not be a disaster to someone like you, who believes government force is okay, but it is to a Patriotic American like me who realizes we received these Rights to protect us from a Dictator or Monarchy, but now, any president basically has the power of a dictator. I mean, Obama was saying Assad "killed kids" in his own country, but, Obama has killed innocent teenagers and no one blinks an eye or ask any questions- and it's only gonna get worse as time goes on.

 

I finally see where your wrong. He gave all sorts of opinions to what was being done wrong and how to fix it. You just ask for proof in some bar charts or how his way worked somewhere else. Your asking for proof that dosnt exist. The country isnt run by a local government so how can there be some documented proof that it would work? Show me some proof that he is wrong. You shoot down ideas without being able to defend your critisisms

 

Pen

Yes he is presenting opinion and that’s fine but he refuses to defend them from criticisms - he just repeats assertions over and over and ignores any criticisms of them.

I’m not asking for proof positive I’m asking for some rational and reasonable arguments that addresses the many outstanding criticisms and we are simply not getting that from 25.

If you believe he has produced any rational and reasonable arguments present them (and if you don’t I will take it as admission that you can’t find any either).

Can you explain your thinking - because if the states ran themselves then there would be no United States of American, it wouldn’t be one country it would be 50 countries.

Now at the moment I believe the number of countries in the Americas is around 50 so it would then go up to 100 or so. Africa I think has 55 countries in it, there are 28 countries in the EU, but around 50 in Europe and in the world there are I believe some 195 countries.

If you want to see how countries deal with each other then you just have study the news and read history, I think you’d get an ideas from that as to what might happen when there were 50 countries rather than one federated one as now. Also there are a number of other federated countries that you could examine.

It’s not about right or wrong that is too simplistic but I and other have presented their criticisms, if they go unaddressed then they remain which seems to undermining the veracity of those of his argument being criticized.

And the big problem is that our criticisms are not under attack they have not been challenged in any rational or reasonable way I’d love the opportunity to ‘defend’ them but so far have been denied the chance.

 

25

I listen and all you are doing is repeating stuff or making accusations that people here have already criticized but you don’t address those criticisms you just repeat the assertions .

For example -

This is misdirection I have not criticized your views on unconstitutional wars, killing peaceful citizens, spying on peaceful citizens or the giving of military vehicles to police.

Can you please address the things I have criticized?

Completely wrong and completely off the point.

It shows a really deep ignorance of the British political system and history.

The King/Queen is head of state and like other heads of state is immune to prosecution while in office, but monarchs can be removed from office and/or prosecuted, the precedent is there with Charles I and George III (the former having his head chopped off for treason and the latter stripped of his position by Parliament for being insane).

And remember the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has absolute Immunity from civil lawsuits seeking damages for presidential actions although presidents do not have presidential immunity from conduct unrelated to their official duties.

And once again it does not address any of the criticisms of your views.

This does not address the outstanding criticisms of your views.

I’ve already criticized the right wing libertarian take on drugs and gays etc can you address those criticisms or explain your views as I’ve asked and you have refused?

Again this address none of the outstanding criticisms.

Completely wrong. You claim I don’t listen but this statement just proves you don’t read my posts.

But prove me wrong and point to where I say this.

I like Thomas Jefferson believes that the US constitution should be re-written every few years (I believe he thought every 20 years I think every 50)

But this is yet another misdirection and has nothing to do with wanting total government control.

As to a UN world government again I’ve argued for global institutions to tackle the problems occurring from economic globalization if you have rational criticisms of those ideas please present them because you have not so far.

We already know your viewpoint but can you defend them from the outstanding criticisms?

Just shout I don’t like it or I’m right you’re wrong – is not a rational argument.

Again we know your opinion but can you address the outstanding criticisms of them?

As explained before repeatedly saying you are a champion of freedom does not make you a champion of freedom, I’ve presented my criticisms can you address them?

There is an old saying that Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (Samuel Johnson).

More silly misdirection trying to portray me as the ‘government’ lackey while you stand tall draped in the old red white and blue - it’s puerile and silly and very funny but it isn’t rational and reasonable argument.

Now can you stop all this silliness, all the hollow ranting, all the misdirecting, all the ill-informed accusations and all the unsubstantiated assertions and begin actually addressing all the outstanding criticisms.

 

balbus there is local government nobody can deny that. what i meant was that the federal government overshadows everything. even when the states make their own laws the federal government steps in and says what laws will be allowed and what ones wont be. just one example would be the pot law in california, local law was leaving everyone be for the most part but federals were still busting like they would if the medical pot law never passed. another would be from my home state of jersey...its been a while so specific details escape me but the jist of it was that the state would not get any funding for interstate highways if they didnt bend to the mercy of doing things the way the federal government did it. i mentioned before i would prefer the federal government to be a military only resource. all other laws and such should be left to the states. heck the states could even say they dont want that pressure and default to a federal law but they should have that option.

the only other thing i will address just to be fair is that when i saw a laundry list of things mentioned and you only replied "i repeat"----instead of answering his post in some in depth way or in any conversational way i jumped on it. but that MIGHT have been my bad i have not read every previous post so if i missed some repeated things from the post i commented about then my bad i will drop that argument now. i dont want to talk for 25 anyway so its all the same with me.

 

Pen

Bad governance is bad governance and I’m against it, and I’ve often talked about my belief in trying for balance in politics and in this context between state and federal desires and needs.

But there needs to be a debate about what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’ I mean was Federal influence in bringing to an end segregation in a number of US states a bad thing or a good thing?

To me, as I’ve explained localism is a good thing as far as it goes.

*
My views on drugs are well documented on these forums and explained to 25 on a number of occasions you can get the basics here if you wish to read it.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=368871

Soft drugs would be grown and sold under licence and regulated in much the same way as alcohol.

Those addicted to harder drugs would receive them under medical supervision with the goal of stabilising and then getting people off them.

Regulation would be put in place to stop corporations from getting control of the business.

*

I’d love it if people would just address the outstanding criticisms so we could move on – I hate having to remind them that they haven’t.

The thing is that I’ve tried presenting my criticisms conversationally, I’ve tried giving great detail and I’ve tried putting them succinctly but it doesn’t seem to work people like 25 or Indie just ignore them or try some kind of evasion (they even lie and claimed they have when they haven't) Its frustrating but...

I can give you numerous links if you are unsure what my views are.

 

BS

 

the end to segregation is a great example. if there was no federal control over the matter of such things happening in georgia what could i do in new jersey to get my opinion heard? well i could stop buying peaches and blueberries, and tell my government that i think they should stop allowing shipments from georgia into the state. if enough people did that then it would cause a hurting on georgia. if they still didnt change their ways they would pay the price for their way of living. and anyone in the state would still be allowed to leave. why i am a black man that dosnt like segregation and there is no segregation in ohio...i think i will move there.
just like it is now the people would decide what is right and wrong, BUT the people in the midwest wouldnt decide for me on the east coast what is right and wrong.


more importantly 198 senators that dont live where i live would have no say in what me and my neighbors decide is important to us.

 

You accuse me of doing this, when you're really doing this.
The reason for my last post was to describe why I feel the way I do, and for some reason, it just doesn't click in you.

I mean no offense by this, but I think the reason you don't see the problem is because you're biased toward bigger government, so obviously anyone talking against them is going to piss you off. But, many Americans have a legitimate reason to be weary of our government, especially with all their insane laws already.

It's not a misdirection because I wasn't referring to you, I said the government supports all these things.

You said you think my views favor the rich,

To which, I said it rewards people for hard work, yet allows a platform to help citizens arrest the elite for their crimes.

You don't want to believe me, so we're back to square one.

The reason why we're never going to see eye-to-eye, is because i want a government that protects:life, Liberty and, property- and you want a government that is big enough to help everyone. But I believe adding to government in anyway is bad. Social Security and the DHS both stockpiled weapons and ammo. Yet, you have a very governmental idea on the control of guns too. To me, government agents and police are more likely to initiate violence- because they're a stocked-up army with no enemy, and taught that random citizens might be an enemy. A kid was killed for carrying a knife clipped in his pocket the other day, and this is a result in a world that has turned against the private ownership of weapons.

It's not off topic, because the people achieved their power through the Magna Carta orginally. (which is what the US Constitution is based on.)

It doesn't make him above the law, and, it's not a good decision to begin with.I think people should worry when Obama's staff says things like "The Homeland is a battlefield."

What was your argument? That we don't want to give money for gay weddings or to set up rehabs? I already answered that I think 2 posts back or something.

Bal- read your own topic names. You always seem to be defending world government, or, simular aspects that really mean less freedom for the individual.

No what he said is "God forbid we ever be 20 years without such rebellion." If he said something about rewriting the Constitution, I've not heard it- and he probably did account for a government that doesn't follow the Bill of Rights, either. The answer to that is in our Declaration of Independence.

Sadly, this just isn't true. When government is given faith, power and, taxes they nearly always abuse it, when they're not accountable or disconnected from the will of the general public. When many Americans hear of things like the NDAA, NSA, DHS, HR347 and, the faa reauthorization act, we get worried. The government is known to crack down on political dissonance, and has been caught watching a young women for being a Delegate for Ron Paul.

The fact is that if someones platform is to keep this current federal government in control, unfortunately, it will cause more problems down the line. When they can kill citizens, make "constitution free" zones and, ban freedom of speech- the government is too powerful. That's why expanding a government that is already so far gone, will just inflate the problem.

Government is a bubble that will pop. There is no such thing as endless money, nor should men take the place of God, being above the laws of human kind.

I've posted plenty of criticisms against the UN: including that they've allowed 65 wars to break out under them, and also that they restrict Human Rights through government.

You think government helps everyone, and I think the opposite is much more valid and evident. The government has connections with corporations- many times ones who promote war and drug laws etc., because it makes them a profit.

The fact that you just ignore this fact tells me that you really don't care about the wars or government use of force, as long as you're getting your 'humanitarian' spending from the taxpayer, right?

if I'm wrong, tell me why. You kee[ saying I'm wrong with nothing to back it up.

We have differing views cause I believe supporting a system of force in any way, is supporting force and is more morally reprehensible.

All your criticisms are based on the idea that my views help the elite, but you have no evidence behind that other than mainstream republicans likes the Tea Party. Ron Paul only received $200 from any corporation, while Obama and Romney got MILLIONS from the same elite bankers and corporations.

There's no evidence behind what you're saying. I'm saying we need to start following laws that are in place (even on the most elite industrialists) and they will trip on their shoelace. If their doing illegal things already, they would be jailed under a Constitutional government. I just don't hate all the rich because of the actions of a few, nor do I think more government is the answer (because of how the play favorites)

That's pretty clear. As I've said, you wo nt listen because you trust government so much, that you don't even take my views into consideration.

I never said you were wrong, you straight up said I was wrong. Maybe I said a statement was wrong; but, that's only because you assume my views only help the rich merely because I don't think we should have such a big and invasive federal government.

You don't have concerns about Americans Rights, our Constitution or, how they spend our tax money- you just have this assumption that if we became like Brittian, everyone would live in peace. The difference is, a lot of us understand that governments can get too powerful and, overstep it's bounds. Perhaps in the past Americans accepted Government overreach, but, I think today the majority of people are upset and angry at the government for their spying practices, and their use of force.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"~Howard Zinn~

I said I'm a patriot, cause I respect the founding principles of my country, but, believe we've gone too far astray.

You are all about government. You support disarmament, you support (sorts) of global governance and, more government power. /

You obviously support social security, right? Do you support them having enough hollow-point bullets to kill every American citizen?

And if potentially crazy government employees can have guns, why can't the law-abiding individual who is protecting his family?

It's not an irrational argument. You have defended government force and government actions, mainly because you trust the government and you think they do good.

You always claim you have "outstanding criticism,"

Although, all of them relate to you believing my views favor the wealthy, but supporting a government (who favors the wealthy) isn't.

No offense, but you're so biased you wont change your mind, because you believe the only way to peace, freedom and happiness- is through government. Whether or not you support force- you claim you don't. The only problem with that is that you have defended different aspects of government force. I'm not going to dig right now, but disarmament is one example- and didn't you defend Obama on the NDAA? Was that you?

 

What the hell do you mean " social security has enough hollow point bullets to kill every american citizen?" Who are you referring to exactly?

 

It's an over exaggerated myth. Social Security sought to buy 174,000 hollow point bullets. Which should raise a red flag certainly, but is hardly enough to kill every American.

Unless they hire Chuck Norris to do the shooting

 

I want a source for that. I don't believe it.

 

http://m.nationalreview.com/articles/342161/great-ammunition-myth-charles-c-w-cooke

 

Google Social Security ammunition and have your pick.

 

Sorry, the DHS bought enough ammo to shoot every America 5 times. Social security bought 174,000 hollow-point bullets. The premise of the question still stands. Liberals support disarmament, but, still believe it's okay and for the greater good for government to hold guns.

 

Your constant generalizations are annoying and counterproductive.

You talk about divide and conquer yet fall right in line.

Edit: and you should probably brush up on your math skills. Because you are either horrible at math or enjoy spewing propoganda

 

Ok. Now I believe it. Now I want to know how long this has been happening --with regularity--for example standard procedure --or something new. And thank you, Let lovin.