Posts by sargon

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • A ConservaTeen Thought of Alabama - warning, might be troublesome...

    12/14/2017 8:11:52 AM PST · 167 of 176
    sargon to Vision Thing
    Sargon is very heideggarian in promoting the emotional barbarism of the youth to destroy the wisdom and stabilty of successful prior generations

    Sargon knows what Freedom is, and doesn't accept Tyrannical shortcuts which seek to criminalize people who haven't infringed on the rights of anyone, and who are "guilty" only of possessing one of God's own plants, man-made liquid spirits, or medicine.

    Criminalizing those who have committed no crime—with the use of draconian Contraband Law—is the veritable epitome of barbarism.

    For all intents and purposes, you—and the Leftist nanny-state ilk whose logic you emulate—strive to create a State with the power to criminalize virtually anything. Such a concept of State power cannot possibly be compatible with true Liberty, inasmuch as any emotional mob or persuasive demagogue is can negate Freedom arbitrarily—based on emotion—and in total disregard of what rationally and morally constitutes an actual crime. Anyone who thinks the State can criminalize such things—in the absence of any infringement on another individual's rights—can't legitimately claim to believe in minimal government, for in fact they are attempting to justify its diametric opposite.

    The inevitable result of such Law is the "least common denominator" of Freedom—petty Tyrannies popping up everywhere—because there's always a justification to be found on the basis of nanny-state emotionalism. Such a state of affairs is entirely antithetical to true Liberty.

    Authoritarians—Left and Right—revel their nanny-state shortcuts. You don't determine what my pursuit of happiness consists of any more than I dictate what yours is. People have an Unalienable right to Privacy and to be left the f-ck alone. And any Tyrant—great or small—who infringes on those Rights—whether because they're evil, or just suffering from a pathological urge to dominate others—shouldn't be surprised when they encounter fierce resistance.

    "Spending wastefully" on social issues or anything else isn't something any libertarian advocates. Libertarians are far more fiscally conservative than the vast majority of "conservatives".

    The thread you references wasn't "pro-pothead"—a label which is an attempt at pure obfuscation—but rather it was unambiguously anti-authoritarian. Authoritarians' embrace of Tyranny can't be dismissed by the use of insulting and phony labels; such smear tactics are ever the purview of nanny-staters.

    All that "team pothead" is doing is pointing out the rank hypocrisy of those who claim to believe in minimal government while simultaneously and enthusiastically calling for an bloated nanny state—and the ever-expanding law enforcement apparatus (Police State) necessary to enforce its draconian edicts.

    "Heideggarian"? LOL! You can throw around all the fancy labels you want. They are aught but deflections. Happily, your ilk is in serious decline—and whatever society arises as a result of your repudiation will be infinitely preferable to the pathetic regime which preceded it—policies which have proven to be abject failures since the moment they were conceived—and, of course, Tyrannical to boot.

    This nation has been learning the harsh lessons of Prohibition—in all of its asinine forms—for decades. That's why thinking Americans are increasingly and categorically rejecting it. Moving forward, Americans are going to address society's ills without dispensing with so much of that pesky Freedom which seems to make things so difficult for the bullies who always want to take shortcuts. Authoritarians on the Right—and their analogs on the Left—can rationalize their attacks on Liberty only with emotion, deflection, and misrepresentation.

    Movies like Reefer Madness—which are now widely recognized as hysterical propaganda—seem to have had a lasting effect on some of the more impressionable and strident Drug War zealots around here. No matter. Such fear-mongering is seen precisely for what it is by the bulk of the populace at this point, and there will be no undoing the progress that's being steadily made against the oppressive and destructive Prohibitionist Mind.

    Just as with the unfortunate addicts, there will always be some parochial dinosaurs around to serve as cautionary examples which show the folly of blind reliance on arbitrary law, the horrid abuses which ensue which it is tolerated, and the reliance on hysterical emotion—rather than reason—in a futile attempt to justify it.

    So smear away...

  • A ConservaTeen Thought of Alabama - warning, might be troublesome...

    12/13/2017 10:17:20 PM PST · 150 of 176
    sargon to ConservaTeen
    You're right, CT.

    Authoritarian Republicans—just like authoritarian Democrats—need to overcome their shortcut nanny-state impulses and accept the fact that not everyone who is fiscally conservative is necessarily socially conservative.

    One cannot simultaneously be a nanny-stater and believe in minimal government. The concepts are almost mutually exclusive, for once nanny-state policies are implemented, there must necessarily be an ever-expanding regulatory and enforcement apparatus—and that apparatus will invariably start trampling on Constitutional Rights.

    Thus, many traditional conservatives—by resorting to the same authoritarian nanny-state impulses that the Left indulges—alienate members of the younger generation, and they reinforce stereotypes regarding Republicans and intrusive government.

    Any American who is aware enough to repudiate marxism and socialism should naturally gravitate towards the GOP, and the gratuitous antagonism that more doctrinaire Republicans display towards the libertarian crowd couldn't possibly be more counterproductive.

    People who oppose socialism should band together based on the 80+ percent that they agree on, rather than try to antagonize one another about the other 20%.

    Demographically, the GOP tent is shrinking, so it stands to reason that the appeal of the GOP—if it is to broaden—must do so based on things like ideological commonalities, with greater tolerance regarding differences.

    With respect to Liberty—beyond issues of force, fraud, and negligence which infringe on individual rights—any additional authoritarianism is gratuitous, and should not be part of the GOP's core ideology. Why? Because such compromises—the embrace of arbitrary law—are precisely what creates the slippery slope which leads to a government with practically unlimited power to destroy.

    I, for one, reject such Statism categorically, regardless of which side of the fake Left/Right political spectrum it emanates from. Make no mistake: in America, Freedom flows from an ideologically consistent understanding of Authority vs. Liberty, and cherry-picking shortcuts will always represent a threat—and whether the shortcuts come from the "Right" or the "Left" is totally irrelevant.

    Barring bona fide infringement on another individual's rights, the "Pursuit of Happiness" is what the Individual decides—it should never depend on the whims of any other person or mob...

  • 19th-century weapon found in whale

    12/13/2017 9:00:01 PM PST · 75 of 80
    sargon to EQAndyBuzz
    Killed an 130 year old whale. Just something wrong with that. Not the hunt itself.

    No, there's not anything wrong with that...

  • Buck Sexton: If police can execute an innocent man on video, none of us are safe

    12/12/2017 12:23:59 PM PST · 223 of 240
    sargon to Bob434
    I must say that your apologism for a clearly out-of-control police officer—one who, as has been pointed out, was removed from the force for incompetence unrelated to this incident—is absolutely shameful, and a chilling indication of how totalitarian attitudes can seep into a culture and become acceptable.

    This despite the fact that there are numerous police supporters on this thread—people who tend to give officers the benefit of the doubt in almost all instances—who have rightly declared that this incident constituted nothing less than an execution of an unarmed man.

    When any unarmed man is killed, the police had better have a very well-founded justification. Only a coward shoots someone using the flimsy basis cited in this case.

    To claim that some officer couldn't have gone up an cuffed this guy because of the presence of a doorway is just ridiculous.

    If cops can get away with shoots like this, they can get away with anything, including the murder that they got away with in this case.

    You're attempts to justify this completely unacceptable behavior are extremely disturbing, and demonstrate the fact that the police can do no wrong in the eyes of some. Just disgusting...

  • Buck Sexton: If police can execute an innocent man on video, none of us are safe

    12/11/2017 3:45:43 PM PST · 100 of 240
    sargon to fr_freak
    Most of you arguing this case don't even realize how far you've been suckered into accepting totalitarianism.

    Well said and well reasoned, as is your entire comment...

  • Video Shows Daniel Shaver Pleading for His Life Before Being Shot by Officer

    12/10/2017 1:48:43 PM PST · 120 of 134
    sargon to Washi
    The jury should have been allowed to see the video, and the cop should be doing time for AT LEAST manslaughter.

    The jury wasn't allowed to see the video?

  • Video of Cowboys Players Baptized at The Star Goes Viral

    12/08/2017 11:38:09 AM PST · 3 of 32
    sargon to nickcarraway


  • NAACP: Trump should not attend Mississippi Civil Rights Museum opening

    12/06/2017 10:46:31 PM PST · 35 of 39
    sargon to Zakeet
    Trump has repeatedly faced backlash for making inflammatory statements about minority groups

    Orly? Please, elaborate.

    ...and sparked controversy after the deadly white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., for saying that "both sides" were to blame.

    The President didn't spark controversy, The race-baiters and Fake News Media fanned the flames of racial division based on totally erroneous characterizations of what the President said in the aftermath of the Charlottesville incident.

    To reiterate: the Left is a bunch of lying, propagandist sh!t-stirrers, and nothing more. The Left has absolutely nothing constructive to contribute to any debate which this country is engaging in, and they can do nothing but resort to blind hatred.

    Consequently, the extremist Left is being increasingly dismissed and isolated—by intelligent, thinking, Patriotic Americans of all races, creeds, and ethnicities—and the People are rightly seeing these hysterical, unhinged elements as driving the nation towards a needless and bloody civil war...

  • Net Neutrality Advocates Are Modern-Day Snake Oil Salesmen

    12/06/2017 10:37:25 PM PST · 58 of 60
    sargon to FreedomNotSafety
    Name one [monopoly that wasn't created by government]

    No. Who cares? We're supposed to be talking about net neutrality here, not your novel, whimsical, and irrelevant theory that every monopoly that has ever existed throughout history has come about as a result of government.

    Are you not aware of the topic of this thread? If you'd like to post another thread discussing the all-important question of where monopolies come from, you're at liberty to do so, but what the ostensible reason for posting this article was, is to engage in a thoughtful debate about net neutrality policy, and whether it is needed to protect against unfair business practices which can occur due to the fact that de facto monopolies do exist in the wired broadband industry.

    You seem to be interested in going off on some tangent related to a pet theory about which I couldn't care less at this moment, and whose premise is absurd on its face. Either that, you're doing it in a deliberate effort to deflect from the salient point of this thread...

  • Net Neutrality Advocates Are Modern-Day Snake Oil Salesmen

    12/06/2017 10:04:42 PM PST · 56 of 60
    sargon to FreedomNotSafety
    Local cable companies are Monopolies because of government.

    You're implication seemed to be that all monopolies arise due to government, which is patently false. In some cases, monopolies may arise due to the direct actions of government, while in others—such as, say, your local power company or cable provider—it can at least be argued that monopolies arise as a result of practicality more so than as a direct consequence of government action.

    For example, just how many power poles and associated wiring—subterranean cables—can exist as a sheer practical matter?

    Regardless, it has effectively been established that these monopolies do in fact exist—whether as a result of government action or not.

    Given that fact—that in reality, not theoretically, de facto monopolies currently exist with respect to wired broadband—it's rather difficult to argue that any private company enjoying such an advantage should be allowed to engage in unfair business practices which are enabled as a direct consequence of that advantage.

    I would note that your response doesn't even begin to address the bona fide issues I raised with respect to removing the anti-monopoly protections I cited. A company like Comcast—while possessing a monopoly—certainly shouldn't be able to degrade the quality of a third party service (e.g. Netflix) with which they directly compete (by offering a similar service).

    The vast majority of fair-minded people—whether conservative, liberal, or lbertarian—would agree that conditions should not exist which would permit a corporation like Comcast to abuse their monopoly power in the way that I described.

    Thus, no matter what you want to call it—"Net Neutrality" or something else—I don't agree that a company like Comcast should be able to pull such a stunt.

    As I mentioned earlier, it's really none of Comcast's business what data I'm receiving. They are contracted to deliver me a certain amount of bandwidth on an on-demand and monthly basis, and they shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily degrade the quality of services with which they offer competitive products.

    So at least in this particular case, that's not selling "snake oil"—quite the contrary—it's a concrete example of a patently unfair business practice enabled by de facto monopoly power which exists as a practical matter. Thus, I'd like to hear precisely how such an abuse—which, to my mind, borders on outright fraud—can be prevented in the absence of so-called "Net Neutrality" policy, or whatever label people would like to slap on it...

  • Net Neutrality Advocates Are Modern-Day Snake Oil Salesmen

    12/06/2017 8:29:19 PM PST · 54 of 60
    sargon to FreedomNotSafety
    Governments create monopolies.

    That's ridiculous. Governments might protect or help sustain monopolies, but monopolies can certainly come into existence without relying on governments to do so. Governments might help create some monopolies, but they certainly aren't the only origin of them.

    The fact is, local cable providers do have de facto monopolies, just like power companies do.

    Under such conditions, I am not impressed by the free market purists who are speaking theoretically about a situation which does not in fact exist on the ground.

    As a Comcast customer, for example, I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth. Period. That applies on a monthly basis as well as an on-demand basis. There's certainly an implication there that I shouldn't expect them to selectively degrade the service from a third party (e.g. Netflix) in such as way as to destroy competition—the better to "steer" me towards purchasing Comcast's own streaming service.

    As long as there is a situation where entities like Comcast possess de facto monopolies on things like wired bandwidth, it's reasonable for government to prevent them from selectively throttling services provides by third parties to customers such as myself. As I mentioned, I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth, and someone like Netflix should be able to deliver that data to me at whatever speed I'm paying for it to be delivered at. It's frankly none of Comcast's business who is sending me data, as long as I'm not breaking the law.

    What if Comcast suddenly decided not to deliver FR-based data packets to my residence? Without some kind of protection, would they theoretically be able to do that—because they have a monopoly on wired broadband in my region? Should I then be forced to use an inferior bandwidth provider because of that policy?

    What if all service providers—whose corporate boards are consistently run by Leftists, let's not forget—decide not to deliver any FR packets—and only FR packets? My current opinion is that such a situation should not be able to occur, even theoretically. If that means I agree with some aspects of "Net Neutrality", then I'm guilty as charged...

  • Schumer Told Franken Wednesday Morning That He Needed to Go

    12/06/2017 7:53:31 PM PST · 49 of 56
    sargon to Sarah Barracuda
    Its also about President Trump..this way leftists can say “See we got rid of our perverts now GOP you get rid of yours” this is ALL about getting rid of President Trump

    Of course, the Democrats suffer from the disadvantage actually being guilty of these acts—as opposed to the false accusations which have been leveled at President Trump, and apparently Roy Moore as well...

  • ...'scromiting' hits weed smokers across the US and causes them to vomit AND scream

    12/06/2017 8:50:37 AM PST · 87 of 149
    sargon to apostoli
    Hummm, interesting... i wonder your views on smoking cigarettes.

    My views on cigarettes—which I despise and never have smoked—is that people should educate themselves on the health risks, and then be free to make an informed choice as to whether they want to smoke them or not.

    I don't believe in the arbitrary and Tyrannical contraband laws which nanny-staters—whether on the Left or Right—seek to impose on others.

    It's absurd for someone who calls himself a "minimal government conservative" to support arbitrary government power—along with the ever-expanding police state and trampling of Constitutional rights which are an integral part of any enforcement apparatus.

    Authoritarians on the Left and Right would have the rest of us choose whose version of Tyranny is most palatable. I reject that false choice. I choose actual Liberty, with all of its warts, difficulties, and inconveniences. Education and rehabilitation—not incarceration—is the only legitimate way to address such challenges in a truly Free society...

  • Jeff Flake Takes His Condemnation of Moore a Step Further

    12/06/2017 7:41:22 AM PST · 25 of 30
    sargon to Oshkalaboomboom

    Who cares what Jeff Flake does? He’s a flake...

  • ...'scromiting' hits weed smokers across the US and causes them to vomit AND scream

    12/06/2017 7:39:45 AM PST · 50 of 149
    sargon to Mom MD
    Cyclic vomiting disorder has long been known as a consequence of marijuana use.

    It's a veritable epidemic. It just hasn't been widely reported until now.

    Hey, at least alcohol doesn't cause vomiting, disorientation, screaming, violent assaults, domestic abuse, vehicular homicides, and chronic health problems. Oh, wait...

  • Prosecutors shared recorded attorney-client jail phone calls with defense in NV Bunkerville case

    12/06/2017 7:27:42 AM PST · 4 of 5
    sargon to Nextrush
    Breathtaking abuse of federal power in this case.

    And Sessions has applauded these clowns...

  • Should Be Impeached Now, Say Blacks, Hispanics; Only White Americans Want President to Stick Around

    12/05/2017 9:08:50 PM PST · 46 of 102
    sargon to HiTech RedNeck
    For what it’s worth, this still smells like a biased survey.

    Ya think?

    Polls—especially polls of this ilk—exist only for purposes of propaganda, and their pathetic, laughable inaccuracy was definitively proven in early November of 2016.

    Anyone who places credence in such abject manipulation is an utter fool, and, indeed an ever-increasing majority of Americans are well aware of these transparent, clumsy attempts—on the part of the Establishment Swamp— to manipulate public opinion...

  • House Democrat will force vote to impeach Trump on Wednesday

    12/05/2017 9:01:56 PM PST · 71 of 72
    sargon to Logical me
    Trump is still asleep! He has no idea that he might be impeached and is just doing nothing. Oh, but he is willing to destroy North Korea but just hasn’t the brains that he just might be one to get hurt. What is going on in his mind. Isn’t he listening?

    Put the crack pipe down. What on God's green Earth makes you think that this President will be impeached? You seem to have no awareness whatsoever of the political realities involved in such a process. You do understand that the President's party control both Houses of Congress, don't you? And you are aware of the fact that the President stands accused of exactly zero impeachable offenses, are you not?

    The President is wide awake, which is more than can be said for you, given the illogical and hysterical content which you're posting. It might be time for you to change your screen name...

  • Gregg Jarrett: How an FBI official with a political agenda corrupted both Mueller, Comey...

    12/05/2017 7:34:46 PM PST · 70 of 90
    sargon to Pontiac
    Trump has never been a conservative or Republican until he ran for office.

    Bull crap. No less than the owner of this site—among others—thoroughly documented Donald Trump's many conservative policy positions, positions which have been there for all to see, if one is willing to actually check the record.

    So—issues of party affiliation notwithstanding—it's simply not accurate to say Donald Trump "has never been a conservative until he ran for office", or to imply that he merely goes whichever way the wind blows. The man does have core conservative principles—especially fiscally speaking—which have been consistent for many decades of public life.

    Quite frankly, you're selling him short—and sounding like a cynic—to adopt the establishment line that President Trump is a late-comer to his conservative beliefs.

    Time to make the popcorn and settle in for a show.

    This isn't a game. It's dead serious, and the future of the Republic hangs in the balance. Rather than sitting back like some detached observer, anyone who really cares about the future of this country needs to join with this President and fight hard with everything they've got to help him implement his #MAGA and #DrainTheSwamp agenda.

    The incredible odds which Donald Trump overcame to become President of the United States—a task made even more difficult by blatant criminality, corruption, media bias, and relentless character assassination—place him in the pantheon of the greatest Americans who have ever lived—in this century or any other.

    So give the man some credit for accomplishing what he has already, and maybe don't be so quick to dismiss his core beliefs and instincts...

  • Gregg Jarrett: How an FBI official with a political agenda corrupted both Mueller, Comey...

    12/05/2017 5:25:02 PM PST · 43 of 90
    sargon to MinuteGal
    I'm really impressed by the work Gregg Jarrett is doing.

    I agree. I can remember Gregg Jarrett all the way back during the OJ trial when he worked for CourtTV, if I recall correctly.

    Back then, he came off as rather "liberal" to me, but during the last couple of years—what I'm calling "The Dawn of the Trump Era"—Jarrett has been an absolute bulldog on legal matters relating to government corruption and accountability, "Draining the Swamp", etc.

    I keep expecting Jarrett to start showing the typical Left-wing Establishment bias prevalent on Fox News—after all, Fox News has been no friend to Donald Trump in general—but instead, he is consistently "clean", meaning that he does good reporting on legal matters without injecting Establishment or personal bias into everything.

    I wonder if Gregg Jarrett has undergone some kind of political transformation or an epiphany, because—as I mentioned—it seems like he used to be a lot more Left wing than he is nowadays.

    If the mainstream media had about a thousand more principled journalists and analysts in the mold of Gregg Jarrett, it might actually treat President Trump with a modicum of balance and fairness, and consequently start to rehabilitate its totally shattered reputation...