Namutree

Same reason why we have eminent domain and government bailouts, we aren't a capitalist country anymore. We are a dysfunctional hybrid of contradicting ideas whose remaining prosperity is due to the infrastructure and systems established by classical liberals that have YET to fully removed. Don't worry though; it's on it's last legs.

You're right that it could be referring to the issue of undocumented workers specifically and not using it as a euphemism for illegal aliens, but that would be extremely strange considering there is no angst in the US regarding undocumented workers. There is, however, a lot regarding illegal aliens.

Better get rid of this then since "undocumented *workers" is misinformation. EDIT: Word error, now fixed.

I'm no expert on Nigel, but wasn't his primary political goal to achieve Brexit?

Was Nigel Farage a part of the UK government at the time?

Well we've never tried democracy without a monetary system, so we don't really know. Might work better without it.As for your last point, interesting a similar argument could be laid against capitalism. You cannot not participate, as capitalism in general relies on private ownership of property - and since all property has basically been apropriated, non particupation is practically impossible. Either you're free by work and ownership - or you starve. You mean a the free trade system that pilgrims and native indians did? That could be good. It would highlight people's specialties and talents. Lol.

No.

I could beat Hillary Clinton, that's like taking a nap and masturbating to jav. I know 1 person who couldn't beat Hillary Clinton... :^)

Is this supposed to be funny, or is this guy legitimately an idiot?

Best post.You preach no discrimination and equality with that mouth?Yes. What of it?Nothing, I'm starting to develop indifference to hypocrisy on this forum, but sometimes it resurfaces. Carry on.It's a joke, Sharp_one. You didn't use the color font. That's for sarcasm. That was legit the best post. Very funny.

Best post. You preach no discrimination and equality with that mouth? Yes. What of it? Nothing, I'm starting to develop indifference to hypocrisy on this forum, but sometimes it resurfaces. Carry on. It's a joke, Sharp_one.

Best post. You preach no discrimination and equality with that mouth? Yes. What of it?

Best post.

Prior to the civil rights act the state governments were making economic integration illegal. Then the federal government flipped the switch and made economic segregation illegal. Neither is appropriate. The proper solution was to put an end to any laws regarding segregation in business. Those that wanted integrated business would have it, and those didn't wouldn't. No one's rights are violated, and the government's oppression of blacks would be ended. It was not "one race over another". It was an institution over everyone. If total segregation was the will of whites across the board then segregation laws would need not exist since everyone would do that anyway. In fact, they were conceived because businesses that do not discriminate against other races out compete those that do. The market will resolve the matter on it's own. The solution to the race issue was to change hearts and minds; not impose the governments will. All state mandated interaction does is foster resentment. I'll go even further and suggest that if not for the government imposing integration on business; race relations would be MUCH better than they are now. Who's racist and who isn't would be clear as day, and not obscured as it is now which is a big part of the problem. Light is a disinfectant. Forced integration does not solve the problem; it merely covers it up.

Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public. Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own. As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination. I've said it before and I will say it again: freedom a d equality can only go hand in hand. If I leave one with the ability, or the freedom if you will, to take others freedom through whatever form of, let's be honest, more or less randomly created social hierarchy (race, sex, wealth, inheritance, faith,...), nothing is won. Wut?

Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public. Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own. As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination.

Recently? Trying to exist in the long term.

I can help you with RPG Maker if you want it. I know a lot about it regarding how to set up a decent story, good area design, etc...

If mandatory DNA collection became a thing, they'd likely ignore those already around and focus on taking DNA samples from infants from that point on.

It has got to be one of the worst demonstrations of ignorance to still suggest in 2017 that 9/11 is a conspiracy theory committed by the USA to itself Appeals to [current year] are worse.

He didn't condemn anyone. He said that they are condemned; not that he condemns them. Apples to oranges comparison. A Christian saying some one is condemned is not an insult, he's saying that they've been sentenced. An athiest calling Christians "idoits" or is simply an insult. There is nothing wrong with that. Infidel just means non-Muslim (in Islam). I know that wasn't precisely your point, but I figured people should know this. You're right, his religion should have no bearing on his religious views. Totally lame excuse. What's next? Is going to say he believes in God? I bet he'll use that lame "Well, as a Christian...", excuse again; as if Christianity means anything, has any dogma of any kind, or that being a Christian is supposed inform your views. Regardless, there shall be no religious test. Sander's questioning was extremely inappropriate. What was expressed were strictly theological views. The only question Bernie should have asked is if he was referring to his religious beliefs or his political beliefs. As soon as it was made clear that it was the former; the questioning should have stopped. Good thing he didn't do that. He was referring to their condemned status; not that he was condemning them. God does the condemning. This is Christianity 101. No. The notion that people can put their religious views aside is understood as secularism. If you want a government where people with certain religious views are not allowed to hold office, that's fine, but that isn't America. Sanders should move elsewhere if he thinks evangelical Christians should not be allowed to hold office if they express their religious beliefs. So far we lack blasphemy laws, have freedom of religion, and have no religious test for office; gotta admit, I like it that way.

Yes, the old fashioned way was just perfect. Getting my literal ass kicked when the teacher said I had trouble paying attention in school totally did something to fix that problem. It didn't leave me a crippled, suicidal adult that needs several types of medication and major therapy just to survive, let alone function. Not at all. Something bad happened to you, but that wasn't it.... Let's not pretend we know TrueNeutral or what did or did not happen to him.

They do the best attacks, really great attacks, just fantastic.

The Orb will give them the power to finally defeat the free people's and the world shall fall.

America is a representative republic; not a democracy (thankfully). In republics it is normal for representatives to be among the higher ups in a society. Why would you want an incompetent to represent you? Also, Trump is a billionaire, not millionaire.