23 Comments

Yep, it has never escaped me that political conservatives are for order and control over individual freedom and liberty. They demonstrate that with their vicious rhetoric at anyone who challenges law enforcement (government) abuse.

If we believed in fairness we would not be seeking to limit immigration to only those who will make some significant contribution to society, but would embrace our fellow human beings, no matter where they come from, seeking that same safety and security from harm we speak of.

As a libertarian, it is individual liberty and free markets that are central to my philosophy. Even at the risk of that safety and security political conservatives and nationalists seek to impose on us.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34188&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145594
----------------------

So you are happy to lose freedom ? the DPRK is a safe secure and fair nation. Safe because crime is dealt with in a summary way. Secure, because nobody is going to wander across its borders from the South and the DMZ is pretty effective in keeping the population from migrating elsewhere. Fair, because everyone is treated in the same way - if you happen to be one Kim Jing Un's buddies you have a great time, if you disagree with him, you wind up dead real quick, aside from the government treats everyone else like dirt. That's fair.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34188&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145595
----------------------

Sheesh - I had a response typed out to you, before the dog knocked my laptop outta my lap. Wish I could get as excited about the mailman! LOL

I agree that a lot of people declared victory over racism when Obama was elected, rightly so! The only racism we can really control is systemic and we've done a damned good job of leveling fields in our governments and institutions. Fully? Nope, but damned good and that ought be celebrated and appreciated. Individually, we have to allow the lovers to love and the haters to hate. Hoping good examples of calm, reasoned, productive lives will "infect" people who exist on hate.

Thanks for the interaction, I appreciate your thoughts and your time, my fellow American. :-)



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34188&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145603
----------------------

He's discrediting anyone who says anything bad about him. It's not a new tactic. It was used by Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Putin, basically every dictator we've ever had. So yeah, if you consider that good company then he's in a great place.

I mean you consider Obama to be a tyrant. How many tweets do you have from him saying the media is crooked. How many times did he ban FOX news from being in his pressroom?

Let's not forget he let his friends from Saudi Arabia kill an American journalist. Or we could talk about him encouraging violence at his rallies. He doesn't have to put journalists in jail to trample on the first amendment.

What's amazing is if a president attacked gun ownership the way he attacks the press you people would be jumping up and down over how the new president hates the constitution.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34188&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145602
----------------------

“Trump suggested one could find the funds for the wall by what we save with the new trade deal”. You are still dumb enough to listen to that liar? You have no proof that walls work in the middle of the desert, or nearly unnavigable land. Further, this is no crisis. It is only a crisis for Trump, not America. What changed to make it a crisis in the last 2 years? Or in the last month for that matter. The only thing significant that changed was conservative media attacking Trump for conceding the border wall funding. That means all this fight and the shutdown is about a political al crisis for Trump. I couldn’t be happier.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34188&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145613
----------------------

No Sam, when the willing minority are a sinister anti-American, anti-liberty bunch like you nationalists history has shown you fail every time.

Read up on the former Yugoslavia, the rhetoric of Slobodan Milosevic. Or, I could ask you to read up on the nationalism of early 20th century Germany and Italy and how all that turned out.

In all these cases, including yours and the Trumps, the rhetoric is all the same. We love our country and if you aren't with us you hate our country.

You are having your time right now. It isn't working at all and will end in 2020.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34188&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145615
----------------------

Too much hatred and partisan garbage to address all of it. So I'll take this one: "Why did Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer publicly call for a Wall just a few years ago?" That would be the Secure Fence Act of 2006 which was passed and funded. The barrier was made up of 299 miles of vehicle barriers and 350 miles of pedestrian fence. It's built. Obviously, there is need for more fencing. But, there is no real need for a wall you can't see through with a five billion dollar down payment. Also, the effectiveness of said wall is debatable. The Dems are not against border security. They are against the wall.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34188&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145606
----------------------

You are not serious - really. What a joke. You remember the pictures of kids in cages during the corrupt, lying obama regime? CNN used those pictures to manipulate you rubes into believing those pictures were from our current administration. And as far as kidnapping, I can only assume their parents needed to be vetted or jailed - or determined to actually be their parents if this is indeed what you are spouting about. And maybe if the press acted responsibly without bias as behaved like actual journalists, they would have no problem. But that is not a “human right”. So just like I figured - another grubered lib. Reeesssissst.....hahahaha. (This was good alright) hahaha



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34188&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145600
----------------------

"You sure do blather a lot of off topic BS."

What was off topic? You promote fake narratives which I addressed specifically by referencing the article.

"Good luck with your Clinton "stories".

It's more than just a "story" about the lies, corruption, malfeasance and felonious conduct by the Clintons. A simple search will provide you with the $2.35 million donation and the grand total $145 million in donations for the uranium deal. Hillary destroyed 33,000 emails after receiving a subpoena by Congress to turn them over. She proceeded to print out the emails she wanted and ran Bleach Bit to destroy the data and had mobile devices smashed with hammers and/or had SIM cards removed.

You support special committees and commissions. Instead of the silly witch hunt that can't prove any "collusion" (not even a crime), a legitimate investigation into the Clintons would actually have merit.

"Maybe, someday you'll acknowledge today's reality..."

That's amusingly hypocritical since you deny the facts I've illustrated.

"....but your silly post seems pretty lost & pointless.;-)"

Non responsive evasiveness. As for "silly post", you've done a good job of that.

"Thoughts & prayers, bro... THOUGHTS & PRAYERS!"

Talk about lost and pointless...Will you share your thoughts and prayers to Reggie Singh?

"PS- Libs in Ca started & own this site, are you comfortable enriching your enemies?"

Since I haven't donated any money to this site, I haven't enriched them at all.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34188&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145598
----------------------

"This is a CNN article. Personal commentary is not permitted when posting the OP. What the person may say within the comments is a different matter... Not sure why you are attacking an individual contributor...."

This entire thread consists of personal commentary, so your post is incoherent. The "contributor" posted the article under his name. Obviously he supports it, it matches his ideology and viewpoint, so he's fair game for what you refer to as "attack".

"...but I ask you to stop. Attack the message and not the person. That is a basic rule of survival on our channels."

Antagonizing and implying a threat to a poster. Not sure why, but I ask you to stop. Challenging viewpoints is the purpose of this thread, whether it's a CNN article or the poster who copied it.

"Carry on"

Please set the example by doing so. Thank you.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34188&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145599
----------------------