Supreme Court strikes down most of the Arizona Immigration law

I absolutely refute your claim that NDAA is the "biggest threat to liberty we have seen. " I have already posted the Heritage analysis, and identified numerous bigger affronts to liberty that are real and not imagined in the mind of an old guy..

And your hyperbole is an embarrassment to thoughtful Libertarians.

And the Heritage analysis is wrong, as I have already shown. And again, you fail to answer my question. But if you ask me a question, I get ALL CAPS demanding a response.

You are embarrassing even to hypocrites.

I did answer your question, take your geritol, or whatever your using to fight senility.

Your a phony demanding answers to questions but your own response (to questions put to you) is "do your own homework ".

You haven't shown shit. But bloviate about the Gop and Heritage Foundation.

Your an embarrassment to well informed Libertarians everywhere.

And the Heritage analysis is wrong, as I have already shown. And again, you fail to answer my question. But if you ask me a question, I get ALL CAPS demanding a response.

You are embarrassing even to hypocrites. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You two get a room!

WW, so the fact that the NDAA gives the military and President the authority to pick anyone up for any reason, imprison them indefinitely, and deny them any sort of court review, is not a threat to freedom. Where in the hell do you come up that bullshit?

Oh, yeah. The Republibots don't believe it, even though that is the clear language of the law.

You are an embarrassment.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I think they used to call that "disappearing" people in Pinochet's Chile, as in, he got disappeared. If Pinochet thought you were an enemy, he'd have you arrested and executed without a trial . Sting wrote a song about it called "They Dance Alone"

Why are there women here dancing on their own?
Why is there this sadness in their eyes?
Why are the soldiers here
Their faces fixed like stone?
I can't see what it is that they dispise
They're dancing with the missing
They're dancing with the dead
They dance with the invisible ones
Their anguish is unsaid
They're dancing with their fathers
They're dancing with their sons
They're dancing with their husbands
They dance alone They dance alone

You two get a room! Originally Posted by WTF

now I'll have nightmares fer sure

I think they used to call that "disappearing" people in Pinochet's Chile, as in, he got disappeared. If Pinochet thought you were an enemy, he'd have you arrested and executed without a trial . Sting wrote a song about it called "They Dance Alone"

Why are there women here dancing on their own?
Why is there this sadness in their eyes?
Why are the soldiers here
Their faces fixed like stone?
I can't see what it is that they dispise
They're dancing with the missing
They're dancing with the dead
They dance with the invisible ones
Their anguish is unsaid
They're dancing with their fathers
They're dancing with their sons
They're dancing with their husbands
They dance alone They dance alone Originally Posted by joe bloe

Augusto Pinochet and Milton Friedman

Of course, bringing a reign of terror to Chile wasn not why the CIA had sponsored him. The reason he was there was to reverse the gains of the Allende social democracy and return control of the country's economic and political assets to the oligarchy. Pinochet was convinced, through supporters among the academics in the elite Chilean universities, to try a new series of economic policies, called "neoliberal" by their founders, the economists of the University of Chicago, led by an economist by the name of Milton Friedman, who three years later would go on to win a Nobel Prize in Economics for what he was about to unleash upon Chile.

Friedman and his colleagues were referred to by the Chileans as "the Chicago Boys." The term originally meant the economists from the University of Chicago, but as time went on, as their policies began to disliquidate the middle class and poor, it took on a perjorative meaning. That was because as the reforms were implemented, and began to take hold, the results were not what Friedman and company had been predicting. But what were the reforms? The reforms were what has come to be called "neoliberalism." To understand what "neoliberal" economics is, one must first understand what "liberal" economics are, and so we'll digress briefly from our look at Chile for a quick introduction to the term

http://www.bidstrup.com/economics.htm

No, the indefinite detention provisions were specifically asked for by Obama. Democrats, Republicans and Tea Partiers overwhelmingly supported the provision.

And even if it did exist under the Bush administration, it was wrong, unconstitutional and anti-American. It also means we should be even quicker to overturn it.

What is this fetish you have, CBJ7, that requires you to compare everything to Bush? He is not president! Are you saying W is the standard by which we must assess all Presidents? That if the Bush administration got away with something, we can never demand that future Presidents adhere to a higher standard? Please clarify if wrong. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

its no fetish, just the facts

Obies version of detaining citizens doesnt differ from W's, do yourself a favor and look it up (hint post 911) ... and for the record, I didnt mention bush

Fuck dictators and hellicopter rides with them. http://www.enotes.com/pinochet-augus...nochet-augusto

CBJ7, you are ignorant. And you are wrong. And even if they were the same, they are still repugnant, and should be repealed. Unless you like being indefinitely detained without counsel.

Well, at least now we've heard from the right wing statist point of view.

The only reason the LP hasn't gotten more traction is because the media keeps telling people the LP has no traction. If people looked seriously into the LP, they'd find a lot of common ground and common sense, along with a very principled dedication to freedom. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

no to mention costly and time consuming hurdles to get on the ballot.

Same can be said fo the LP; there is no guarantee that once in power they will keep their pledges......to think otherwise is foolish.

Like I asked you before; what was the Wisconsin LP position on the Walker recall vote?

The LP is an impotent bunch of loons; even in heavily libertarian minded states like Alaska they can't get enough traction to implement "right to work" rules....

The LP means well; but it is a joke with respect to political power. In 2 short years the Tea Party movement has neutered libertarian politics....people are interested in results, and the Tea Party can deliver, but the LP can't....Sad but true. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Ahem..

the Tea Party is not a party

"Opponents said it unfairly criminalizes otherwise law-abiding people...."

I have to laugh at their reasoning.... law abiding... right!