Rand Paul's Policy Positions by Niki2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
you do not believe in liberty, freedom of thought or expression.. or you would not be advocating government supervision of peoples beliefs

100% wrong. I believe in freedom of thought or expression, and the expression part is SPECIFICALLY protected. The government does not supervise people's beliefs, it only constrains how they ACT UPON THEM in order to attempt to protect the LIBERTY of all, as opposed to the liberty of some to oppress others. You keep wanting to put it in terms which are fallacious, and refuse to debate the actual facts.

One last time: The government does not regulate what you eat, who you associate with, your thoughts, beliefs, or expression. It regulates how you BEHAVE with respect to the freedom of others. If you want to debate reality, that would be worthwhile. Debating claims that are patently fales is not.

To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President”

To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.”

...so much for "togetherness"...this, instead, weakens us...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 29, 2010 7:55 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
But to 'trash' America for things the government does is essential. Every dirty little deed that our government does and has done needs to be railed against with shame and righteousness, so that all such behavior stops and never starts again.

Wonderfully said, Anthony...sad that it can't have that result.

Raptor:

To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President”

To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.”

...so much for "togetherness"...this, instead, weakens us...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 29, 2010 12:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
One last time: The government does not regulate what you eat, who you associate with, your thoughts, beliefs, or expression. It regulates how you BEHAVE with respect to the freedom of others. If you want to debate reality, that would be worthwhile. Debating claims that are patently fales is not.

I disagree, mildly - but I do.

They *DO* regulate what you eat, various bans and abuse of tax codes are used, as well a certain level of "push" towards or against certain diets, which, coming from a combination of Koops outright lunacy and corp-gov collusion, the Gov-sponsored idea of "healthy eating" is anything but!

Remember, these were the folk who told us sugar was soooo bad for us, and Aspartame was perfectly safe, etc etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

And they do attempt to legislate what we consume, the war on tobacco, (some)drugs, and prohibition are pretty good examples of that kind of thing.

Were it not for folks willing to kick them in the teeth with pyschotic fury every time they try reachin over that line (and catching a damn lot of unjustified crap for it) that problem would be worse than it is.

I *DO* think the Gov has a point to enforce accurate labelling, and I mean accurate, no using Koops proven-false "studies" to attribute negative health effects - but rather an accurate list of the actual contents of a product in plain english, so that the customer can make an informed choice on whether to purchase and use it or not, but that is where it needs to stop.

Of course, actual enforcement instead of free passes in exchange for political money would be helpful, considering the way companies are allowed to weasel-word ingrediants lists to deliberately obfuscate them, particularly but not limited to, the presence of MSG, for example.

As for freedom of association, the Hutaree and other set-up cases are good examples of how the Gov does indeed try to regulate that, as is the malicious prosecution of folks who donate to charitable causes that the State Dept chooses to label terrorist because they happen to not care for our imperialism, or for other reasons...

Which brings us to the government regulation and sponsorship of religion, which it does, absolutely, in the malicous and hostile manner of most folks suffering from chronic theophilia.

If you practice a Gov sponsored religion, you get the tax break, and maybe even some poorly tracked(and thus easy to pocket) slush money for "faith based initiatives" where you can skim most of it off as "administrative costs" and pretend to be helping folks for PR points, a win-win for government sponsored religion.

But if you're *NOT* an approved religion, well then, you're a "dangerous cult" subject to legal harrassment, surveillence, attempts to kidnap and brainwash your kids, etc etc.

Then there's blue laws, the government enforcing a particular religions puritan morality upon folks who do not practice it, some of whom in fact despise it as inhuman and abusive, and those laws are still on the books and enforced.

And of course, one look at any federal reserve note will indicate that the government does sponsor religion, since the original currency motto of the USA was "Mind Your (own) Business" - but the McCarthyists shoved the religious one down our throats (along with mangling the pledge, which is itself in any form, an attempt to force ones thinking) and ain't much of no one really stood up to it cause the theophiles have such a presence in our government.

And that is just recent history - remember, we tried to force religion down the throat of those "heathen" native americans too.

Finally, freedom of expression is at times tenous at best, especially with the manipulation of the definition of "hate speech" to include calling out a certain so-called ally on their behavior or even in some states advocating a boycott of them being in fact a crime and capable of being prosecuted against you - while of course, advocating outright genocide against certain other countries is perfectly fine, even encouraged!

So the Gov does do these things, to a lesser or greater degree, and without the folks willing to draw a line in the sand and defend it so rabidly that some people might think em crazy, they'd most certainly overstep themselves further than they already have.

Of course, you also have the problem of a lotta folk having their own nefarious intentions, like corporations who wanna toss the truth in labelling act for reasons which got nothin to do with freedom and everything to do with deceiving folk about what's in their products - and of course folks who don't REALLY want to end the Gov prejudice for/against certain moral standards, religions, races or beliefs, but rather simply change WHICH ones, like them assholes in Arizona.

Stuff like this, well, it's like human rights, with me, for EVERYONE, or NO ONE, anything other than that is an act of tyranny - and yes, when the Gov protects one religion from prosecution for it's actual misdeeds, but attacks another and kidnaps their children on flimsy or false pretenses, what the hell can you call it ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Creek_raid

So that's also why I won't back up or support folk who simply wish to change what those prejudices ARE - cause I want em ELIMINATED, rather than playing musical chairs with em.

Anyhow, sayin the Gov doesn't stoop that low is perhaps a bit disingenius - they *shouldn't*, mind you, and in theory, legally can't - but they do, unfortunately, and we should own up to that one.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 29, 2010 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"you cannot gain liberty, by sacrificing the liberty of another"

Hello,

Actually, you can. That's all law is. Law is the process of sacrificing one liberty to assure a greater liberty. It is the role of government. Every law limits freedom and reduces a liberty. We hope to balance laws so that the greatest liberty is retained by the greatest number of people.

im sorry, but i disagree with your premise..

as individuals, we have the freedom, the right to life(Future), liberty(present) and property(past). every individual has these 'liberties'. i do not have the right to violate your liberties, and you do not have the right to violate mine. i have no control, or right to coerce you in your life, nor do you in mine. this works through self ownership, responsibility, coupled with cooperation by mutual consent. the government exists, by our authority, only to secure these liberties. its an act of aggression to use force, or coercion, by a collective(whether large or small), to take away any individuals life, liberty, or property.

you seem to suggest its a neccessary evil to compromise one liberty for another.. what youre actually doing is granting someone else the power to use force, to take another individual, or group of individuals liberties.

you are and should not be forced to do business with anyone

Quote:
For instance, in a completely free society, you could arbitrarily cave my skull in with a rock. In our society, it was determined that the freedom to exist free from violent assault exceeded the freedom to brain someone. Hence, a law sacrificed your liberty (to brain me) to gain mine (to live.)

no, because by killing you i would then be robbing you of your liberties.

Quote:
So you see, I love Freedom so much that I'm willing to lose the tiny Freedom to refuse service to a particular race in order to preserve the Freedom of that race to do business and get the things they need to live their lives.

so lets say you are a restuarant owner, and you happen to be a black guy(since theyve become the stereotypical victim in this whole hypothetical scenario). and in comes the Arian brotherhood, the KKK, Neo Nazis of America.. lets say it was just a big old get together.

is he required to serve them?

now its not illegal to form an association such as these, so long as they do not commit an act of aggression towards me and violate my liberties. what youre advocating is using government to coerce this individual, this black guy, to do business with the Klan. not by consent, but by force.

i just cannot agree to that, but i understand the position you take- its resulted in the dillemma we have today!! using coercion to take away the liberties of others

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 29, 2010 7:32 PM

dbl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 29, 2010 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

I believe in freedom of thought or expression, and the expression part is SPECIFICALLY protected.

so theres no such thing as 'hate speech legislation'? art, expression.. intellectual ideas are acts of speech. likewise, someones opinion is also protected by the 1st amendment, including the right of an individual to refuse to consent to an agreement which is not mutual

Quote:
The government does not supervise people's beliefs, it only constrains how they ACT UPON THEM in order to attempt to protect the LIBERTY of all, as opposed to the liberty of some to oppress others.

it most certainly does. you do not have the liberty to force me to do anything i do not want to; and yet politicians do it every time they pass a law takes away my life liberty or property without my consent. and i know you are for universal medicine, so its a bit hard to believe youre truly for personal liberty

Quote:
One last time: The government does not regulate what you eat, who you associate with, your thoughts, beliefs, or expression.

so im just imagining the FDA, the FCC, DEA.. the DOE?

Quote:
It regulates how you BEHAVE with respect to the freedom of others. If you want to debate reality, that would be worthwhile. Debating claims that are patently fales is not.

its hard to have a debate with someone who believes you can preserve or 'create' liberties, by stealing them from others

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 29, 2010 8:09 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"its hard to have a debate with someone who believes you can preserve or 'create' liberties, by stealing them from others"

Hello,

I would love to live in a world where laws were not necessary. It is a dream, a perfect jewel of thought.

In my world, people's liberties sometimes clash. When that happens, someone is going to settle it.

We have authorized a government to settle it for us, and we have created laws to that end. It is true that all laws are backed at the point of a gun. Including the laws that protect me, my family, my property, etc.

I agree that the government sticks its hands in many pots it should not. Nobody should ever tell me what I can or can't do with my own body. The government does. That's a problem.

Nobody should ever tell me that I can't enter into mutually agreeable contracts. The government does. That's a problem.

I see these problems. This is why I am a Libertarian. I want these freedoms restored.

I don't want a community to trap or starve an undesirable group of people, though. The only way to keep that from happening, other than wishful thinking, is to make a law about it.

Can you think of an alternative, without creating a law, that would have prevented the WWII Japanese incident I described to you?

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 5:52 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
self ownership, responsibility, coupled with cooperation by mutual consent

Which would be great, if that worked. It doesn’t.

Quote:
its an act of aggression to use force, or coercion, by a collective(whether large or small), to take away any individuals life, liberty, or property.

you seem to suggest its a neccessary evil to compromise one liberty for another.. what youre actually doing is granting someone else the power to use force, to take another individual, or group of individuals liberties.

Which exactly describes what would happen by individuals if they had the freedom to do so.

Quote:
no, because by killing you i would then be robbing you of your liberties.

And who, precisely, would you have ENFORCE that? IF it’s all self-ownership and responsibility and mutual consent, there is nothing to stop anyone from killing anyone else...complete ”mutual consent” among humans is a fantasy; courts have enough trouble punishing people for infringing on others’ liberties with just twelve people...

Quote:
is he required to serve them?

I would say, as long as they behaved in a civil manner, “yes”.

I wasn’t aware there was such a thing as “hate speech legislation”. If there were, I think it would have caused an uproar, and I can’t find anything about it on the internet. If proposed, surely it wouldn’t have passed. Freedom of speech trumps almost everything in that regard.

Quote:
FDA, the FCC, DEA.. the DOE

Please give specifics as to how they “what you eat, who you associate with, your thoughts, beliefs, or expression”. If you are going to say the Civil Rights Act limits who you “associate with” by not allowing businesses to deny customers, it’s not an argument, to me. That’s not “association”. We owned a business...there were many customers we didn’t like individually and would never “associate” with; letting them buy our product had nothing to do with “associating” with them. The argument is fallacy as far as I’m concerned.

It’s equally hard to debate with someone who believes everyone should have the right to steal liberties from others because they insist only “self ownership, responsibility, coupled with cooperation by mutual consent” should constrain people, which they would not realistically. But I try and always will to discuss and debate with anyone who can be civil.

I’m with Anthony: “I don't want a community to trap or starve an undesirable group of people, though. The only way to keep that from happening, other than wishful thinking, is to make a law about it.” I also think the government overreaches and wish there were a more middle ground, but what the government did under Dumbya DEFINITELY encroached on our civil liberties, and that’s the worst example in recent times I can think of.

And I, too would like to hear a VIABLE alternative, not just one where people are personally responsible. The vast majority of people are NOT. To me, such a world is exactly as Anthony said: Eutopia, not realistic.

To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor

To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor

To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor

...so much for "togetherness"...this, instead, weakens us...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 7:04 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
By the way, in an interview with a Russian journalist, Paul just said he wants to block citizenship to children born in the States to illegal immigrant parents. Score one more for an illogical, bigoted ideology!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

Good

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 2:01 PM

Quote:
Anthonyt-

Hello,

I would love to live in a world where laws were not necessary. It is a dream, a perfect jewel of thought.

me too.. which ought to be the ideal, what we strive for.

Quote:
In my world, people's liberties sometimes clash. When that happens, someone is going to settle it.

We have authorized a government to settle it for us, and we have created laws to that end.

laws should only exist to protect an individuals life, liberty and property. i acknowledged that government exists for this purpose.. but this purpose ONLY

Quote:
It is true that all laws are backed at the point of a gun. Including the laws that protect me, my family, my property, etc.

i think to say that is misleading. is it true that if one individual, or group of people, violate your rights, the 'government' has the authority to defend your liberties? yes. but this government does not have the right to use force, in my defense, to violate the liberties of the group attempting to take mine. i wouldnt call the 2nd amendment liberty 'backed by the barrel of a gun'. 'gun', implies force.. when instead the government is being used to uphold liberties, in the event that an individual cannot protect his/her own property from unwanted aggression, coercion or fraud.

Quote:
I agree that the government sticks its hands in many pots it should not. Nobody should ever tell me what I can or can't do with my own body. The government does. That's a problem.

Nobody should ever tell me that I can't enter into mutually agreeable contracts. The government does. That's a problem.

and yet, you defend the governments unwarranted force in pursuing involuntary, coercive contracts- such as would exist if a black business owner were forced to do business with the Klan. the door swings both ways, so true liberty is protecting voluntary, mutual consent at all costs

Quote:
I see these problems. This is why I am a Libertarian. I want these freedoms restored.

I don't want a community to trap or starve an undesirable group of people, though. The only way to keep that from happening, other than wishful thinking, is to make a law about it.

a business is private property. lets say you weave baskets. these baskets, are a product of your time, your skills, and the property you have acquired to build them.

how can you claim that anyone has the right to demand baskets from you? do you not reserve the right to sale your product to whom you choose? by supporting that one little aspect of the Civil Rights Act, you are making the claim that the government, people other then yourself, have a greater claim to your time, your skills and your property then you yourself do. its antithetical to libertarianism

Quote:
Can you think of an alternative, without creating a law, that would have prevented the WWII Japanese incident I described to you?

voluntary, mutual consent and exchange. its a bit hard to address the matter when the government created the environment that had these people put into internment camps from the start. but ultimately, no one has a right to force me into a contract i do not consent to. the reality is somebody, somewhere would have done so. if not.. it is up to the individual to sustain himself. commerce is not a right, its a privelage, a luxury that exists due to civilization. its not something someone born in the wild is entitled to

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Which would be great, if that worked. It doesn’t.

if you buy a used car, is it not a voluntary, mutual exchange between two consenting individuals? neither individual would enter into the contract, if it were not mutually beneficial. it works, in concept. if it doesnt work, it is because some believe they have liberties beyond what someone as an individual is entitled to. these people, either personally or through the coercion of government, force some, against their will, to submit to whatever the demand might be

Quote:
And who, precisely, would you have ENFORCE that(voluntary cooperation)? IF it’s all self-ownership and responsibility and mutual consent, there is nothing to stop anyone from killing anyone else...complete ”mutual consent” among humans is a fantasy

oh please... thats a red herring and you know it. admittedly, THAT IS WHAT GOVERNMENT IS FOR! not food stamps and free housing and sex education, but protect life liberty and property. its simple, really

Quote:
]I would say, as long as they behaved in a civil manner, “yes” (require a black man to serve the Klan).

see, that is where we differ. government does not have any rights, that we as individuals do not possess ourselves. i dont have the right to force you to buy my product, nor do you have the right to force me to sale my product. what you advocate, is using aggression, through government coercion, to force people into contracts that they do not mutually consent to.

in other words... if prostitution were legal, a prostitute would not have the authority, over her own body, to deny service to anyone, for whatever reason. are you prepared to make that arguement for me?

Quote:
I wasn’t aware there was such a thing as “hate speech legislation”. If there were, I think it would have caused an uproar, and I can’t find anything about it on the internet. If proposed, surely it wouldn’t have passed. Freedom of speech trumps almost everything in that regard.

theyre called 'hate-crime' laws, they prohibit private individuals from engaging in discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion and sex orientation. Canada, a liberal haven, has hate-speech legislation based on this same concept, whereas people can actually go to JAIL for saying things which 'may' incite tensions within certain communities. you really need to look into it. what an individual believes, what he says, and who he chooses to associate with are all tied to what actually comes from his mouth; not just his actions

Quote:
If you are going to say the Civil Rights Act limits who you “associate with” by not allowing businesses to deny customers, it’s not an argument, to me. That’s not “association”.

yes ma'am it sure is. no one forces me to shop at wal-mart or eat at Mcdonadls. these are business i choose to asssociate with. if walmart put up a sign tomorrow saying 'absolutely no white guys allowed', i would take my money and go somewhere else! to say that walmart does not have right to deny me service, is to say that walmart is not a private entity, but is controlled by the government. thats the precedent you are settint

Quote:
We owned a business...there were many customers we didn’t like individually and would never “associate” with; letting them buy our product had nothing to do with “associating” with them.

so you mean you didnt need to be told to do business with these people?! amazing. too bad America is otherwise made up of racists, bigotts and xenophobes.. who would put privately held beliefs ahead of business. what you demostrated is precisely the argument i am making: we dont need the government to tell us who to buy from/sale to, or yes- ASSOCIATE WITH

Quote:
The argument is fallacy as far as I’m concerned.

maybe the government should mandate that you also give one days worth of goods/services away for free. would you be for that? probably not, unless you consent to doing so. so what is the difference? if i choose not to sale to you because i dont trust you, or because youre purple.. its the same difference

Quote:
It’s equally hard to debate with someone who believes everyone should have the right to steal liberties from others because they insist only “self ownership, responsibility, coupled with cooperation by mutual consent” should constrain people

what liberties am i allowing others to steal exactly? im an electrician, do you have a '
right' to my services? no. however, this is what you believe, because you claim the 'government' can can force me to serve anyone, without my consent. so whos really denying liberties here?

Quote:
I’m with Anthony: “I don't want a community to trap or starve an undesirable group of people, though. The only way to keep that from happening, other than wishful thinking, is to make a law about it.”

in my mind, that just shows your lack of faith in people, to make the correct decisions without being nannyied by the collective. once again, you believe in using force to take someones life liberty and property

Quote:
I also think the government overreaches and wish there were a more middle ground, but what the government did under Dumbya DEFINITELY encroached on our civil liberties, and that’s the worst example in recent times I can think of.

right, i criticized Bush for a million things- i hated the war in Iraq, i hated the Patriot act, i hated Medicare D. but Obama is NNOOOO different. still at war in the middle east, still have the Patriot act, and now we have a healthcare bill that mandates i pay for, and demand a service from someone else. so you are just as for violating peoples liberties as Bush was. whether youll be willing to admit this to yourself is entirely up to you

Quote:
And I, too would like to hear a VIABLE alternative, not just one where people are personally responsible. The vast majority of people are NOT.

the 'vast majority of people are not responsible?' well GEE, i wonder why? could it be that statists have taught people that they arent personally responsible for themselves, but are dependant/liable for the collective? its ironic coming from you, that you admit people are irresponsible. this coming from someone who advocates that I have the responsibility of paying for YOU, or someone elses healthcare

Quote:
To me, such a world is exactly as Anthony said: Eutopia, not realistic.

HAHAHHAHAAHHHAHAHAA!!!

dont get me started on 'Utopias'! if youre going to try and tell me that you on the left are not trying to create a socialist utopian society, then youre just being dishonest.

no, i would more correctly call mine a Paradise..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 4:11 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"in my mind, that just shows your lack of faith in people, to make the correct decisions without being nannyied by the collective."

Hello,

Mr. Mason, I understand what you are advocating, and I admit the ideal has appeal.

Just understand this: People have PROVEN what they are prepared to do to one another. It is not a GUESS. It is not a lack of FAITH. It is looking at what has happened ALREADY.

In your Paradise, entire regions have killed entire ethnicities. Races of people have been trapped by denying them gasoline, transportation, and perhaps even access to roads and pieces of property that they might try to cross on foot. They have been starved by denying them access to groceries and restaurants. Law abiding members of the race sat down and died. Others fought for what they needed and were stopped by the only intervention of government that you endorse. Those that died were not buried. Government has no such function, and the individuals who passively murdered them had no compunction.

Many of the dead had no inheritors. No one to claim them or their property. Even those that might like to make a claim couldn't get to them, for no one would let them use the gasoline, or cross the land.

Their bodies were often erected on stakes and displayed in wicker cages, along with signs that say, "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO NIGGERS, SPICS, CHINKS, AND DINKS!" Only the birds tended to them, and then only to eat their eyes.

This is your Paradise. No one broke any laws, or violated anyone's liberty. This country of yours may not be perfect, but hey, what country is?

I will enjoy a little bit less Paradise than you are prepared to live with. I have faith that mankind will do what it has already done. You have faith that mankind will spontaneously do something different.

Which of us is taking the greater leap?

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 5:46 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

hey, if Americas so bad, get the hell out

And there is the core of anti's entire philosophy: America is only for the Americans HE thinks are worthy. He's all about "freedom" and "liberty" and free speech and your freedom to believe what you want and do what you want - UNLESS you disagree with something that America does. THEN, you have to get the hell out. Love it or leave it, eh?

Anti, look back at some of your diatribes. You rant on and on and on about "leftists" and "liberals" and try to demean and belittle entire groups of people based solely on their political leanings, and then you go on long rants about how it's not fair that anyone should do the same to you or any of your particular groups.

Why on Earth would you expect us to live up to a standard you're completely unwilling and unable to live up to yourself? And why should we listen to any of your pablum about "freedom" when you'd have us "free" only insofar as we believe exactly what YOU say we should?

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 5:56 PM

Quote:

you know, the US constitution doesnt say anything about abortion.

You know, it also doesn't say anything about "god", either.

Obviously you'd have no problem outlawing religion then, right?

By the way, been out of town, so just catching up. Probably lots of replies to come...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

what like the south? they were called Jim Crow LAWS, as in 'the government instituted and inforced discrimination by way of law'. listen to what im saying.. private business were mandated, by government, TO DISCRIMINATE, whether they wanted to or not

are you familiar with the fugitive slave act? notice.. that was a LAW. people have been indoctrinated to think private citizens were responsible for segregation.. when in fact, it was by DECREE at the behest of GOVERNMENT

Anti, do you extend that renunciation of all LAWS to the Constitution as well? Have you ever heard of the Three-Fifths Compromise? That's in the document you say you want to hew so closely to. And, after all, all those pesky amendments you hate so much were just "LAWS" enacted by GOVERNMENT to tell you what you could and couldn't do.

Why do you proclaim such reverence for the Constitution, while you seem to actively hate and disdain certain portions of it?

Quote:
yes, you should have the liberty to decide what do to with your body, because its your property.

Until you become pregnant, anyway, right? You're real big on personal rights and property, until someone else (or some fetus) wants to lay claim on them, apparently...

Quote:

what about my friends? can i pick my friends? what about what i read or write? this is at the heart of this debate- do you have the right to discriminate who you choose to associate with? a business is private property! youre suggesting that i need the governments permission to make choices that are mine alone to make. im not a racist, but should i be told by the government that i need black friends?

I'm not saying you have to be friends with your customers, no. You seem to be conflating providing a service (such as sales) with being best buddies. I don't buy it. I'm not friends with very many of my customers. It's not a requirement that they be my friends in order for me to do my job and sell them what they want.

Quote:

It is absolutely true that what you put into your body is as much your own business as what you take out of it.

Again, why your cracks about abortion, then? Whose business is it if a woman takes a few live cells out of her body? Isn't it HER body, HER property? Shouldn't you be PRO-choice? You come across as being quite anti-choice. Maybe you're just not communicating your positions effectively.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

You ARE joking, aren’t you? It just wasn’t as accepted publicly, but believe me there were tons of abortions going on back then, too. Women just weren’t in a position to decide for themselves, so they either took concoctions to abort or went to the streets where prostitutes hung out where it was available, or did things to themselves that would prevent pregnancy, or left the baby on a doorstep. Sex has always been around and always will be; unplanned pregnancy has always and always will; we’re just more confused about it than some other societies.

if it has always happened, why did it need to become federal law? it didnt need to be federally acknowledged

Quote:
Saying Michelle Obama is bent on “prohibiting” you from anything is bad debate. Nobody’s outlawing salt, etc., they’re trying to EDUCATE us poor slobs and our deadly eating habits. Big difference.

i can educate myself, thank you. you know the body needs some salt.. right? this is the problem with you liberals... LET ME DECIDE FOR MYSELF! i dont need some do-gooder telling me that cigarettes, or trans fats are harfull to me, therefore should be prohibited. that is MY CHOICE! you cant tell me the left hasnt pursued these issues legislatively, just take a look at CA or NY

And I don't need some right-wing do-gooder telling me that religion is my savior, either, or that the ten commandments of some horsheshit religion belong enshrined in a courthouse, or that a woman can't have an abortion if she so chooses, either. And you can't tell me that the right hasn't pursued these issues legislatively; just take a look at Oklahoma or Alabama!

Quote:

Quote:
Oh, wow, I just got to the rest of the post. Obviously a waste of time to try to discuss or debate with you. “you claim to be soo concerned about” abortion, how many unwanted babies have YOU adopted lately?

i am against abortion.. its my opinion. the difference being, im not advocating making my opinion federal law, like you are. ive always said the states should decide.. since the issue of when a life begins, and when a person has legal rights, is actually a legitimate question

Will you let the states decide whether you can have freedom of speech as well, or freedom of religion, a free press, the right to own a gun, whether or not cruel and unusual punishments should be used? Why do you want only the states to decide the issues YOU want them to decide, and you're fine with the federal government guaranteeing your gun rights and your military protection?

As for when a person has "legal rights"... well, if you're going strictly by the Constitution, only once they're "natural-born citizens". So fetuses, not so much with the rights. Just sayin'.

Quote:

Quote:
Anyone who starts out in a discussion with “I think all this feigned outrage from all you guilt ridden white liberals is very telling” isn’t someone who has an open enough mind to discuss anything with.

its ok, ill sum it up in a nutshell. im not telling people what to think, but you are. if youre for government, youre for coercion. my ideas of liberty dont coerce anyone, i dont care what someone does to themself*. liberals however, DO

And if you're for the Constitution, you're for government.

Quote:

Quote:
Nonetheless, I’ll debate a couple of your points: “The Jim Crow laws were state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1876 and 1965. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities.” The argument Rand Paul was making was about FEDERAL laws, and the fact that some places were racist and instituted the Crow laws locally and statewide was WHY the federal government had to step in. To ensure equal treatment across the country. I reject your argument.

it was state and local governments that instituted segregation. hypothetically, if your holy government hadnt segregated society, its possible we would have never needed the civil rights act.

But you JUST SAID you wanted the state and local governments to be the sole arbiters of what was allowed in the states! So you admit that state and local governments instituted segregation, and then you endorse state and local governments setting the laws, and no federal oversight at all. Right?

It wasn't *MY* "holy government" which segregated society; it was YOUR state and local governments which did that. And you're saying that they were the ones in the right.

Quote:

Quote:
Businesses provide something, the owner doesn’t have to “associate” with his customers, in fact few do, relatively speaking. They can “associate” with anyone they choose. I reject your argument.

no they cant.. the civil rights act prevents them from reserving the right to serve whomever they choose.

Again, you're conflating "serve" with "associate". I can sell you an item without becoming your friend.

Quote:

Quote:
Businesses thrived for a long, long time when there was discrimination. I saw no sign they were suffering because they didn’t allow black people in their establishments; I reject that argument.

did it occur to you that its because whites couldnt shop at block stores, and vice versa? do you doubt that once segregation was eliminated, that blacks shopped at stores they otherwise could not have? understand, that it was the government which intervened in an otherwise free market

That makes no sense at all. What were you hoping to say here? Yes, once segregation was ended, blacks were free to shop at stores where they earlier were not allowed to even enter, much less shop. You seem to be saying that you believe this to be a bad thing.

And it's ludicrous to call it a "free market" if you're deliberately excluding entire groups of people from shopping in your "free market" stores. It's "free" to shop there only for prescribed ethnic groups, which you seem to be advocating.

Quote:

Quote:

Oh Jezus, a rabid ideologue Tea Bagger. Heaven help us.

hey Niki, remind me how great socialisms working over in Europe. Greece anyone

About as well as capitalism's working here, it seems. Massive debt, huge deficits under "conservative" leadership of the last 8 years, financial collapse, disappearing middle class, disparity of wealth distribution not seen since before the Great Depression... Yeah, we're a real model of a modern booming economy!

Meanwhile, the powerhouse economies right now seem to be India and Chine, both heavily socialized economies, far more socialist than America's. But hey, when it comes to accidental oil spills, our free market competition is gunning for NUMBER ONE!

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:
So you see, I love Freedom so much that I'm willing to lose the tiny Freedom to refuse service to a particular race in order to preserve the Freedom of that race to do business and get the things they need to live their lives.

so lets say you are a restuarant owner, and you happen to be a black guy(since theyve become the stereotypical victim in this whole hypothetical scenario). and in comes the Arian brotherhood, the KKK, Neo Nazis of America.. lets say it was just a big old get together.

is he required to serve them?

now its not illegal to form an association such as these, so long as they do not commit an act of aggression towards me and violate my liberties. what youre advocating is using government to coerce this individual, this black guy, to do business with the Klan. not by consent, but by force.

i just cannot agree to that, but i understand the position you take- its resulted in the dillemma we have today!! using coercion to take away the liberties of others

Is he required to serve them? Yes.

To say otherwise is to deny their liberty to eat where they want.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 7:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

I believe in freedom of thought or expression, and the expression part is SPECIFICALLY protected.

so theres no such thing as 'hate speech legislation'? art, expression.. intellectual ideas are acts of speech. likewise, someones opinion is also protected by the 1st amendment, including the right of an individual to refuse to consent to an agreement which is not mutual

Broadly speaking, no, there really isn't much in the way of "hate speech legislation" that I can find. Can you provide some cites to show what you're talking about?

I found this in Wiki:

Quote:
The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[33] and incitement to riot.[34] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[35] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[36] See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).
In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[37] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[38]

So there's some mention of not having to tolerate hate speech in the workplace, and a lot of places that tried to enact "codes" (NOT "laws", you'll note), which fare really poorly in the courts.

Quote:

Quote:
The government does not supervise people's beliefs, it only constrains how they ACT UPON THEM in order to attempt to protect the LIBERTY of all, as opposed to the liberty of some to oppress others.

it most certainly does. you do not have the liberty to force me to do anything i do not want to; and yet politicians do it every time they pass a law takes away my life liberty or property without my consent. and i know you are for universal medicine, so its a bit hard to believe youre truly for personal liberty

Quote:
One last time: The government does not regulate what you eat, who you associate with, your thoughts, beliefs, or expression.

so im just imagining the FDA, the FCC, DEA.. the DOE?

The FDA doesn't tell you what you can eat; it tells businesses what they CAN'T put in your food without telling you. If you want to eat lead, by all means, go right ahead. Really. Give it a shot. The FDA will NOT kick in your door and stop you.

Is the FCC stopping your viewpoints from being heard on the airwaves? Rush Limbaugh constantly refers to President Obama as "boy" and "black boy". Has the FCC pulled him off the air?

Not sure why you mentioned the Department of Energy, unless you're planning on eating some radioactive waste.

Do you have the right to put poison in food? Pollute the air or the water? Do you? If not, why not? (Hint: Don't say "Because it's against the law." Remember, you're AGAINST having laws to tell you what you can't do!) Do I have the liberty to pollute a river? It doesn't keep you from swimming in it, or drinking from it; it just makes it unhealthy to do so. Are you regulating health and telling people what they can and can't eat and drink now?

Quote:

Quote:
It regulates how you BEHAVE with respect to the freedom of others. If you want to debate reality, that would be worthwhile. Debating claims that are patently fales is not.

its hard to have a debate with someone who believes you can preserve or 'create' liberties, by stealing them from others

And it's hard to have a debate with someone who believes that all government is evil, and then quotes the document outlining our government's creation as the sole source of all that's good in this country.

You're a "Convenience Constitutionalist", much like you're a "Convenience Christian"; you only believe in the parts you like to pick and choose, and you disregard the rest. The Constitution, like the Bible, is a prickly document, and you can't wade through it without getting stuck a few times.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Anthonyt-

Hello,

I would love to live in a world where laws were not necessary. It is a dream, a perfect jewel of thought.

me too.. which ought to be the ideal, what we strive for.

Quote:
In my world, people's liberties sometimes clash. When that happens, someone is going to settle it.

We have authorized a government to settle it for us, and we have created laws to that end.

laws should only exist to protect an individuals life, liberty and property. i acknowledged that government exists for this purpose.. but this purpose ONLY

Where do you get that? That wording is
not in the Constitution.

Quote:
Quote:
It is true that all laws are backed at the point of a gun. Including the laws that protect me, my family, my property, etc.

i think to say that is misleading. is it true that if one individual, or group of people, violate your rights, the 'government' has the authority to defend your liberties? yes. but this government does not have the right to use force, in my defense, to violate the liberties of the group attempting to take mine. i wouldnt call the 2nd amendment liberty 'backed by the barrel of a gun'. 'gun', implies force.. when instead the government is being used to uphold liberties, in the event that an individual cannot protect his/her own property from unwanted aggression, coercion or fraud.

You really couldn't have picked a worse argument than trying to say that the 2nd Amendment isn't "liberty backed by the barrel of a gun." The 2nd IS EXACTLY liberty backed by the barrel of a gun! It's liberty TO OWN THE BARREL OF A GUN, to back that liberty!

Now, you say that the government does not have the right to violate the liberties of some group that's attempting to take your liberties. 235 years of war says you're dead wrong. War is all about denying the liberties of groups of people who are trying to take your liberty. When we bomb a city in another nation - say, Hiroshima or Nagasaki - we take away the liberty of all of those people to live their lives unmolested by us. THEY didn't personally inflict harm on us, yet we have denied them life, liberty, AND property, because their group (the nation of Japan) tried to deny us the same.

And it's hilarious how out of touch you are with your own arguments: You maintain that one of the ONLY purposes of a federal government is national defense - specifically, denying life, liberty, and property to those groups who would deny us the same! How can you sit here and say that government does not have that right?

And every law IS backed with the barrel of a gun. Several guns, in point of fact. Try disobeying them, and then not complying when a cop tells you to. See what happens.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 30, 2010 7:31 PM

Quote:

theyre called 'hate-crime' laws, they prohibit private individuals from engaging in discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion and sex orientation. Canada, a liberal haven, has hate-speech legislation based on this same concept, whereas people can actually go to JAIL for saying things which 'may' incite tensions within certain communities. you really need to look into it. what an individual believes, what he says, and who he chooses to associate with are all tied to what actually comes from his mouth; not just his actions

So now you're arguing about U.S. law by citing Canadian law as your source?

Didn't someone mention "red herrings" and straw men? You want to state as fact hate-SPEECH, and then backtrack and obfuscate when what you tried to pass off as fact was so quickly refuted. You overstepped without checking your "facts", and you got bit in the ass by it, and now you're trying to claim that you REALLY meant Canada, not the U.S.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 9:00 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

The time it would take to debate--obviously uselessly--Anti on this position is definitely not worth having. I assume Mike and Anthony made the same arguments I would, given Anti's positions are so obviously fallacious and either incredible or disingenous. I'll just respond to those things directed at me specifically:

"Associate" does not mean the same as "do business with". You ignored completely my explanation that the people we served in our establishment who we disliked we did not "associate" with, we merely served them food and associated with people we LIKED.

I will merely quote Webster, in the vain hope you can grasp the concept:

Quote:
transitive senses:

1 : to join as a partner, friend, or companion
2 : to keep company with : ATTEND
3 : to join or connect together : COMBINE
4 : to bring together or into relationship in any of various intangible ways (as in memory or imagination)

intransitive senses :

1 : to come or be together as partners, friends, or companions
2 : to combine or join with

Nowhere there does it say "to serve food" or "to provide service to". "Associate" as you use it has been prostituted into meaning what the word does NOT mean.

Quote:
but that was the exception, not the rule. once again.. you do not believe in liberty, freedom of thought or expression..

To extrapolate the latter by excusing the former because it was “the exception” is fallacious on its face; and does the fact that it happened MORE to one group than to another excuse it?

Quote:
which ought to be the ideal, what we strive for

Totally agree; but does that mean we completely ignore the world AS IT IS, rather than “striving” to make it better through whatever reasonable means we can? The used car analogy is way out in left field. I was referring to actual HARM people have done in the name of “personal liberty”, which has nothing to do with your response.

Quote:
theyre called 'hate-crime' laws, they prohibit private individuals from engaging in discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion and sex orientation

That is so far away from what you stated, “hate speech laws” as to be outside reality. The difference between hate CRIMEs and hate SPEECH are vast, and THERE IS NO LAW LITIGATING WHAT YOU SAY, with a few exceptions which do not include what you are claiming. What Canada does has nothing to do with America; that’s a fallacious argument. In fact so is the first; you are EXTRAPOLATING from what the law actually says.

Quote:
” I don't want a community to trap or starve an undesirable group of people, though.” that just shows your lack of faith in people, to make the correct decisions without being nannyied by the collective. once again, you believe in using force to take someones life liberty and property.

Lack of faith in people?!?! No, historic REALITY, for heaven’s sake. Your belief that everyone would take responsibility is downright delusional!

Comparing the health-care bill to the things Dumbya did is incredibly disingenuous, and again show that to you, the entire world and everything in it can be categorized unquestioningly into mere BLACK and WHITE (which is ironic, but I don’t mean it that way). “All or nothing”; that denies reality, pure and simple.

Quote:
the 'vast majority of people are not responsible?' well GEE, i wonder why? could it be that statists have taught people that they arent personally responsible for themselves

Again outside reality. Throughout history, some segments of human society have most definitely NOT been personally responsible all over the world, have persecuted and done horrific things to their fellow man. That has NOTHING to do with “statists” or anything else other than the human proclivity for lack of conscience in some humans. Your argument is incredibly disingenuous if you can ignore that!

Quote:
i would more correctly call mine a Paradise.

Omigawd...you ARE delusional! We don’t live in paradise; your way of INSISTING WE SHOULD LIVE would not create it in a million years.

I’m beginning to wonder if you might be someone’s sock puppet, or if you, too, are only here to make outrageous statements in order to get attention and trigger responses. What you insist as should be the way the world is, is just so completely in a parallel universe that it’s hard to accept a rational human being would take such a stance and truly believe it, despite all evidence to the contrary.

To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor

To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor

To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor

...so much for "togetherness"...this, instead, weakens us...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 10:16 AM

By the way, Anti, can you point me to the specific parts of the Constitution you refer to when you discuss your alleged "freedom of association"? I cannot find it explicitly mentioned in the document. Maybe my copy of the Constitution is flawed, or missing that part.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 10:22 AM

Quote:
no, i would more correctly call mine a Paradise..

So did Stalin, Lenin, and Mao...

Quoth the Eagles,

Quote:
And you can see them there,
On Sunday morning
They stand up and sing about
what it's like up there
They call it Paradise
I don't know why
You call someplace Paradise,
kiss it goodbye

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

Mr. Mason, I understand what you are advocating, and I admit the ideal has appeal.

Just understand this: People have PROVEN what they are prepared to do to one another. It is not a GUESS. It is not a lack of FAITH. It is looking at what has happened ALREADY.

In your Paradise, entire regions have killed entire ethnicities. Races of people have been trapped by denying them gasoline, transportation, and perhaps even access to roads and pieces of property that they might try to cross on foot. They have been starved by denying them access to groceries and restaurants. Law abiding members of the race sat down and died. Others fought for what they needed and were stopped by the only intervention of government that you endorse. Those that died were not buried. Government has no such function, and the individuals who passively murdered them had no compunction.

Many of the dead had no inheritors. No one to claim them or their property. Even those that might like to make a claim couldn't get to them, for no one would let them use the gasoline, or cross the land.

Their bodies were often erected on stakes and displayed in wicker cages, along with signs that say, "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO NIGGERS, SPICS, CHINKS, AND DINKS!" Only the birds tended to them, and then only to eat their eyes.

This is your Paradise. No one broke any laws, or violated anyone's liberty. This country of yours may not be perfect, but hey, what country is?

I will enjoy a little bit less Paradise than you are prepared to live with. I have faith that mankind will do what it has already done. You have faith that mankind will spontaneously do something different.

Which of us is taking the greater leap?

--Anthony

thats true, it has happened all throughout human history. but there has also never been a true libertarian society. do you know why? because when you kill someone, you violate their right to 'life'. as i said, you have the right to life, liberty and property, no matter who you are. when an individual, or a group of people, commit acts of aggression, they violate someone elses right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 2:30 PM

DREAMTROVE

Anthony

In general, populations have been exterminated by highly organized socialist societies. It's the simpleminded origin of my animosity towards socialism, but the number of genocal socialist states outnumber non-genocidal ones, which is a pretty bad record, worse if you weight it by population.

The worse libertarian societies have been america and Australia, which both basically exterminated their indigenous populations. But I don't think a govt. stops this, I think it speeds it along, or maybe makes it happen at all where it wouldn't otherwise.

I think that all other things being equal, people recognize each others right to exist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And there is the core of anti's entire philosophy: America is only for the Americans HE thinks are worthy. He's all about "freedom" and "liberty" and free speech and your freedom to believe what you want and do what you want - UNLESS you disagree with something that America does. THEN, you have to get the hell out. Love it or leave it, eh?

no, im all for dissent. id welcome any constructive criticism to government anarchists could provide

Quote:
Anti, look back at some of your diatribes. You rant on and on and on about "leftists" and "liberals" and try to demean and belittle entire groups of people based solely on their political leanings, and then you go on long rants about how it's not fair that anyone should do the same to you or any of your particular groups.

i do go on rants sometimes, and im guilty of that. but im not going to apologize for describing liberal behavior.. just as you dont have to refrain from detailing 'conservative' behavior. i know however, that ive never said its not 'fair' that you on the left come after me for my views. 'fair' is not a word i use often, because i accept that circumstances are different for everybody.

Quote:
Why on Earth would you expect us to live up to a standard your completely unwilling and unable to live up to yourself? And why should we listen to any of your pablum about "freedom" when you'd have us "free" only insofar as we believe exactly what YOU say we should?

tell me how my advocating your right and responsibility to life, liberty, and property, is an imposition to you? you ARE responsible for yourself, no one else

people who are not religious constantly get up in arms about 'separation of church and state!'.. that religious peoples beliefs are being 'imposed' on them. yet, under the guise of 'compassion', liberals actually do impose their moral/political beliefs on me, while not recognizing that theyre doing exactly that which they abhor. my opinions dont coerce anyone. in my extreme, if i cant be responsible for myself, thats my problem. however, you advocate that if i cant take care of myself, someone else should. that may be your moral belief, but it isnt mine. government doesnt create wealth, or security, government doesnt create anything. it only HAS by taking away from others who HAVE. if someone wants to voluntary give up what they have, it is their right. but no one one has the right to take from someone without their consent. you cannot tell me that doesnt happen, because its fundemental to the redistribution of wealth, which liberals ADMIT to being in favor of

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You know, it also doesn't say anything about "god", either.

its right there in the declaration of independence, that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator(capital C) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

Quote:
Obviously you'd have no problem outlawing religion then, right?

1st amendment- 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble'

actually, sounds to me like government goes too far in prohibiting the excercise of religion

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 3:47 PM

Quote:
Kwicko-

(on abortion)

Until you become pregnant, anyway, right? You're real big on personal rights and property, until someone else (or some fetus) wants to lay claim on them, apparently...

when does that fetus have legal rights? its a legitimate question.

if a doctor, through malpractice whatever, harms or accidentally kills the fetus of a pregnant woman, that doctor can be held legally liable. now why is that? if its not considered living, under the law,(until whatever arbitrary date YOU decide), there would be no repercussions. but there are. so people inherently know that a fetus is a living person. deciding where the Law should come down is a perfectly legitimate question.

if there were a farm of fetus' being grown outside of actual female wombs, are the fetus' entitled to any legal representation? or are they free to be experimented with? the question may sound rediculous to some, but its the slippery slope that we ought to consider

Quote:
I'm not saying you have to be friends with your customers, no. You seem to be conflating providing a service (such as sales) with being best buddies. I don't buy it. I'm not friends with very many of my customers. It's not a requirement that they be my friends in order for me to do my job and sell them what they want.

EXACTLY! so why dont you apply that to what im saying: why would a racist, private business person need to be 'buddies' with a customer? they dont. im not conflating, im revealing the reality of things- that hypothetical racist store owner, that your soo worried about, would likely consent and make the transaction or contract anyway, regardless of their opinions. you seem to want the government in the middle anyways, even when they violate the liberties of the private businessman and his/her property rights

Quote:
Again, why your cracks about abortion, then? Whose business is it if a woman takes a few live cells out of her body? Isn't it HER body, HER property? Shouldn't you be PRO-choice? You come across as being quite anti-choice. Maybe you're just not communicating your positions effectively.

what ive said is that i dont believe Roe v. wade should be federal law. yes, i am against abortion, but if a state or community want to set a precedent, under the 10th amendment they should have the right to decide.

something no one seems to ask in this is what about the fathers rights? save for the virgin Mary, a woman cannot have a baby solely by divine intervention- generally, it takes two consenting individuals to create that life. can the father choose to terminate the baby without the mothers consent? most certainly not.. but i suppose its ok the other way around? beyond that, will that fetus not become an individual itself? when does a childs garauntee to life begin? its a bit different then telling someone they can destroy their life if they choose to do drugs or ride without a seat belt, because there is another life at stake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

thats true, it has happened all throughout human history. but there has also never been a true libertarian society. do you know why? because when you kill someone, you violate their right to 'life'. as i said, you have the right to life, liberty and property, no matter who you are. when an individual, or a group of people, commit acts of aggression, they violate someone elses right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property

There has also never been a true socialist society or a true communist society, either. So I could claim that THOSE would indeed be paradises if only people would leave everyone alone and let them create their ideal world. It *SOUNDS* great, but it just doesn't work when you try to put it into practice. And the funny thing is, you all but ADMIT that libertarianism doesn't work any better than socialism or communism, and for the same reasons: there's no "true", ideal, perfect example of any of them ever existing, and the only ones that have even been tried haven't exactly lived up to the hope or promise, have they?

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 4:34 PM

Quote:
Kwicko-

And I don't need some right-wing do-gooder telling me that religion is my savior, either, or that the ten commandments of some horsheshit religion belong enshrined in a courthouse, or that a woman can't have an abortion if she so chooses, either. And you can't tell me that the right hasn't pursued these issues legislatively; just take a look at Oklahoma or Alabama!

in regards to the courthouse, it just so happens that American and British common law was based on the ten commandments, just as it was the basis for the US bill of rights and constitution.

im not saying the right doesnt use government to impose social conservative views, like a ban on gay marriage, the drug war, gays in the military etc. what im saying is that using government to impose personal beliefs is a leftist concept. libertarians dont care about those things, this is why the founders wrote the first amendment saying 'nor shall government prohibit the free expression of religion'

Quote:
Will you let the states decide whether you can have freedom of speech as well, or freedom of religion, a free press, the right to own a gun, whether or not cruel and unusual punishments should be used?

its an issue of LIFE! as in 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'! its an intrinsic human right, just as free speech and freedom of religion. its obviously quite consequential to define when LIFE begins

Quote:
Why do you want only the states to decide the issues YOU want them to decide, and you're fine with the federal government guaranteeing your gun rights and your military protection?

once again, its an issue of LIFE. when does the 2nd amendment apply to a fetus?

Quote:
As for when a person has "legal rights"... well, if you're going strictly by the Constitution, only once they're "natural-born citizens". So fetuses, not so much with the rights. Just sayin'.

id expect you to say that. next time you get a chance, ask a pregnant mother if she thinks her baby has a right to life. maybe preface it by saying 'if a criminal were to stab you in the belly, killing only your baby', whether that would be murder or not. i dont know if by Law, we should view life subjective, merely relative to time and circumstance

Quote:
But you JUST SAID you wanted the state and local governments to be the sole arbiters of what was allowed in the states! So you admit that state and local governments instituted segregation, and then you endorse state and local governments setting the laws, and no federal oversight at all. Right?

yes, but the states violated the individual liberties of the african-americans, brought over as slaves. they were violating their own crede that every individual, under our Creator, is endowed with the right to life, liberty and pursuit have happiness/property. its no secret that the colonies were split over slavery, they new it was anethema to the bill of rights. but that in and of itself doesnt negate the concept of the constitution and bill of rights

Quote:
It wasn't *MY* "holy government" which segregated society; it was YOUR state and local governments which did that. And you're saying that they were the ones in the right.

no, listen to what im saying.. GOVERNMENT instituted segregation. a law was passed violating the principles of liberty. im saying 'congress shall pass no law...' infringing on any of our 3 basic liberties. its irrelevant whether its state or federal government- except that its probably more oppressive to decree nationally

Quote:
Again, you're conflating "serve" with "associate". I can sell you an item without becoming your friend.

so do it! put your money where your mouth is! quit saying you can, but someone else, this hypothetical biggot racist, cant, or wont. you dont think they want these 'evil profits' too? stop demanding a federal beauracrat enforce something that you admit people are capable of doing themselves

Quote:
Yes, once segregation was ended, blacks were free to shop at stores where they earlier were not allowed to even enter, much less shop

exactly. those poor white store owners, all the extra profits by serving minorities.. all because we lifted government mandated segregation

Quote:
And it's ludicrous to call it a "free market" if you're deliberately excluding entire groups of people from shopping in your "free market" stores. It's "free" to shop there only for prescribed ethnic groups, which you seem to be advocating

this is what i mean by people on the left being obsessed with race. is it guilt Kwicko? why would you be so inclined to discriminate if the government wasnt there to watch over you? the insinuation is that most Americans would discriminate, and i think that says a lot about your views. in a free market, profit IS the incentive. a racist diner, in todays world, would not do well compared to an indescriminate diner. maybe it would actually be a good thing to weed those out, rather then cover up and mask these problems under the guise of politically correct legislation

Quote:
About as well as capitalism's working here, it seems. Massive debt, huge deficits under "conservative" leadership of the last 8 years, financial collapse, disappearing middle class, disparity of wealth distribution not seen since before the Great Depression... Yeah, we're a real model of a modern booming economy!

capitalism has provided the wealth that IS FUNDING your socialism, and thats why we have the debts and deficits. if you think Bushs deficits are bad, which i do.. go crack open a newspaper sometime- apparently Obama didnt get the memo

and how about the Federal Reserve? you dont think they have more to do with creating bubbles the the presidents do?

Quote:
Meanwhile, the powerhouse economies right now seem to be India and Chine, both heavily socialized economies, far more socialist than America's.

their governments are socialized, yes. but wheres the wealth coming from? the PRIVATE SECTOR! in that regard, we could learn a little bit about CAPITALISM from the indians and chinese. and i never thought id have to say that

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You know, it also doesn't say anything about "god", either.

its right there in the declaration of independence, that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator(capital C) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

1) Do you often confuse the Declaration of Independence with the United States Constitution? It's okay; I see conservatives conflate the two all the time.

2) You have no idea what anyone means when they say "creator", even if they write it with a capital "C". I refer to my Dad quite a bit, who is quite literally (along with my Mom) my "creator"; that doesn't mean they are my gods.

You want to argue about what's in the Constitution by talking about what's in the Declaration of Independence. Great. I can argue about what's in the Bible by citing the Sears catalog, too, okay?

Quote:

Quote:
Obviously you'd have no problem outlawing religion then, right?

1st amendment- 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble'

actually, sounds to me like government goes too far in prohibiting the excercise of religion

So there ARE parts of the Constitution you wouldn't just toss out when they become a thorn in your side, eh? I had to check, because you seem to be dismissing lots of it out whenever it disagrees with your narrow world view.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Kwicko-

(on abortion)

Until you become pregnant, anyway, right? You're real big on personal rights and property, until someone else (or some fetus) wants to lay claim on them, apparently...

when does that fetus have legal rights? its a legitimate question.

if a doctor, through malpractice whatever, harms or accidentally kills the fetus of a pregnant woman, that doctor can be held legally liable. now why is that? if its not considered living, under the law,(until whatever arbitrary date YOU decide), there would be no repercussions. but there are. so people inherently know that a fetus is a living person. deciding where the Law should come down is a perfectly legitimate question.

If you read the Constitution and go by the explicitly narrow views taken by not only the Bush administration, but the state of Arizona, as well as Rand Paul and several other "libertarians", you'll see that THEY claim that any legal or citizenship rights are ONLY for legal United States citizens. So, by the narrow view YOUR people want to hold to, that fetus has no legal rights until it's born. Sorry, but that's the way they want to interpret it. Until birth, that fetus is not a citizen, and has none of the rights and protections afforded citizens by the Constitution. Sucks to be a fetus, I s'pose.

Quote:

if there were a farm of fetus' being grown outside of actual female wombs, are the fetus' entitled to any legal representation? or are they free to be experimented with? the question may sound rediculous to some, but its the slippery slope that we ought to consider

What if they're fetuses taken from illegal aliens? What rights do they have then?

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not saying you have to be friends with your customers, no. You seem to be conflating providing a service (such as sales) with being best buddies. I don't buy it. I'm not friends with very many of my customers. It's not a requirement that they be my friends in order for me to do my job and sell them what they want.

EXACTLY! so why dont you apply that to what im saying: why would a racist, private business person need to be 'buddies' with a customer? they dont. im not conflating, im revealing the reality of things- that hypothetical racist store owner, that your soo worried about, would likely consent and make the transaction or contract anyway, regardless of their opinions. you seem to want the government in the middle anyways, even when they violate the liberties of the private businessman and his/her property rights

History is calling you a liar and an idiot. You say this would never happen, except for all those years and uncounted thousands of times it DID happen.

Quote:

Quote:
Again, why your cracks about abortion, then? Whose business is it if a woman takes a few live cells out of her body? Isn't it HER body, HER property? Shouldn't you be PRO-choice? You come across as being quite anti-choice. Maybe you're just not communicating your positions effectively.

what ive said is that i dont believe Roe v. wade should be federal law. yes, i am against abortion, but if a state or community want to set a precedent, under the 10th amendment they should have the right to decide.

something no one seems to ask in this is what about the fathers rights? save for the virgin Mary, a woman cannot have a baby solely by divine intervention- generally, it takes two consenting individuals to create that life. can the father choose to terminate the baby without the mothers consent? most certainly not.. but i suppose its ok the other way around? beyond that, will that fetus not become an individual itself? when does a childs garauntee to life begin? its a bit different then telling someone they can destroy their life if they choose to do drugs or ride without a seat belt, because there is another life at stake

Take the fetus out of the mother and implant it in the father, then. See how that works out. Or maybe raise it in that fetus farm you have out in FantasyLand™!

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 4:45 PM

Quote:
Kwicko-

1) Do you often confuse the Declaration of Independence with the United States Constitution? It's okay; I see conservatives conflate the two all the time.

do you not know of the prerequisite document that led to the bill of rights and constitution?

Quote:
2) You have no idea what anyone means when they say "creator", even if they write it with a capital "C". I refer to my Dad quite a bit, who is quite literally (along with my Mom) my "creator"; that doesn't mean they are my gods.

thats true, i believe ive made that very same point before. however, youre parents are not MY Creator. therefore, you have no more say over my life, or my liberties, then i do over yours

Quote:
You want to argue about what's in the Constitution by talking about what's in the Declaration of Independence. Great. I can argue about what's in the Bible by citing the Sears catalog, too, okay?

youre blinding yourself if you dont think its relevant. its like denying that christianity was the dominant religion of our founders

Quote:
So there ARE parts of the Constitution you wouldn't just toss out when they become a thorn in your side, eh? I had to check, because you seem to be dismissing lots of it out whenever it disagrees with your narrow world view.

you make me laugh. you probably think the commerce clause gives you permission to tax me for someone elses healthcare. give me a break

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

If you read the Constitution and go by the explicitly narrow views taken by not only the Bush administration, but the state of Arizona, as well as Rand Paul and several other "libertarians", you'll see that THEY claim that any legal or citizenship rights are ONLY for legal United States citizens.

and yet.. we cannot indefinately detain an illegal, hold him without trial, bail. they still have rights

Quote:
So, by the narrow view YOUR people want to hold to, that fetus has no legal rights until it's born. Sorry, but that's the way they want to interpret it. Until birth, that fetus is not a citizen, and has none of the rights and protections afforded citizens by the Constitution. Sucks to be a fetus, I s'pose.

all human beings have rights, citizens or not

Quote:

What if they're fetuses taken from illegal aliens? What rights do they have then?

same as you would. the right to citizenship is different

Quote:

History is calling you a liar and an idiot. You say this would never happen, except for all those years and uncounted thousands of times it DID happen.

it happened most recently under government supervision. it was a government mandate friend. look back at the private business which were forced to segregate against their will. and i know youve been away, but its 2010, its not 1850 anymore- things have changed a bit thank you

Quote:

Take the fetus out of the mother and implant it in the father, then. See how that works out. Or maybe raise it in that fetus farm you have out in FantasyLand™!

is it just over your head? ok ill stop

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Kwicko-

1) Do you often confuse the Declaration of Independence with the United States Constitution? It's okay; I see conservatives conflate the two all the time.

do you not know of the prerequisite document that led to the bill of rights and constitution?

Yes, I know of it quite well. I also know that it ISN'T the document that the nation and the government were founded on. It was an inflammatory treasonous treatise, intended to foment rebellion and revolution. The Constitution is an attempt to be the OPPOSITE of that. I get that that's over your head, though.;)

Quote:

Quote:
2) You have no idea what anyone means when they say "creator", even if they write it with a capital "C". I refer to my Dad quite a bit, who is quite literally (along with my Mom) my "creator"; that doesn't mean they are my gods.

thats true, i believe ive made that very same point before. however, youre parents are not MY Creator. therefore, you have no more say over my life, or my liberties, then i do over yours

And YOUR "god" has fuck-all to do with me and MY world. And YOUR "creator" is not the same creator the founders believed in.

Quote:

Quote:
You want to argue about what's in the Constitution by talking about what's in the Declaration of Independence. Great. I can argue about what's in the Bible by citing the Sears catalog, too, okay?

youre blinding yourself if you dont think its relevant. its like denying that christianity was the dominant religion of our founders

You're blind if you think the Founding Fathers were hardcore religious fanatics, too. They rarely went to church services, Washington disdained them and quit going entirely, and others railed about the idiocy of believing in Jesus as anyone's personal god or savior. They didn't believe what you think they believed.

Quote:

Quote:
So there ARE parts of the Constitution you wouldn't just toss out when they become a thorn in your side, eh? I had to check, because you seem to be dismissing lots of it out whenever it disagrees with your narrow world view.

you make me laugh. you probably think the commerce clause gives you permission to tax me for someone elses healthcare. give me a break

Not nearly as much as you make others laugh, trust me. You think the Civil Rights Act says you have to have black friends! And, of course, you think there's something WRONG with the very idea of having any black friends in the first place!

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 31, 2010 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

If you read the Constitution and go by the explicitly narrow views taken by not only the Bush administration, but the state of Arizona, as well as Rand Paul and several other "libertarians", you'll see that THEY claim that any legal or citizenship rights are ONLY for legal United States citizens.

and yet.. we cannot indefinately detain an illegal, hold him without trial, bail. they still have rights

Not according to the Justice Department, they don't. If non-citizens had rights, we couldn't torture them. They don't, so we do. If they had rights, we couldn't assassinate them. They don't; so we do. Hell, now we even greenlight assassinations OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, so you can't even argue that a citizen really has those rights, can you?

Quote:

Quote:
So, by the narrow view YOUR people want to hold to, that fetus has no legal rights until it's born. Sorry, but that's the way they want to interpret it. Until birth, that fetus is not a citizen, and has none of the rights and protections afforded citizens by the Constitution. Sucks to be a fetus, I s'pose.

all human beings have rights, citizens or not

Again, not so much. Look at the recent history of places like Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo Bay, and you'll see that people indeed DO NOT have rights. Show me one "human right" you believe to be universal, and I'll show you where we've outright violated that right by legal decree and/or supported regimes as "allies" who violate such rights on a daily basis. For all your Utopian ideals of what should be, you have a less-than-firm grasp on what IS.

Quote:

Quote:

What if they're fetuses taken from illegal aliens? What rights do they have then?

same as you would. the right to citizenship is different

Again, you're wrong. You'd HOPE they'd have rights, but you wouldn't want to grant them those rights, would you? Hell, I think it would make life a whole lot easier if we treated EVERYONE the way we're supposed to treat our citizens. We say it's what makes us the greatest nation on Earth; we just won't extend such treatment to others. Guess we're not great, we're just okay.

Quote:

Quote:

History is calling you a liar and an idiot. You say this would never happen, except for all those years and uncounted thousands of times it DID happen.

it happened most recently under government supervision. it was a government mandate friend. look back at the private business which were forced to segregate against their will. and i know youve been away, but its 2010, its not 1850 anymore- things have changed a bit thank you

Actually, it STOPPED happening under government supervision. You missed that part, or you like to conveniently gloss over it and obfuscate the obvious. You love states' rights and laud the states' perfection in deciding their own destinies, and then you want to slam the states for enacting such discriminatory laws, which it took the FEDERAL government to override and do away with. Segregation was your beloved states exercising their "rights" the way they felt their people wanted them to. The big bad federal government telling them to knock that shit off was the part you really can't take.

And it wasn't 1850, either. I know you're desperate and you feel backed into a corner, so you're trying to paint a picture that just isn't coming into focus for you, but that was in the 1960s. Not exactly ancient history. And the REASON things have changed was because the federal government changed them! How can you not pound that through your head?

Quote:

Quote:

Take the fetus out of the mother and implant it in the father, then. See how that works out. Or maybe raise it in that fetus farm you have out in FantasyLand™!

is it just over your head? ok ill stop

It seems to be over YOUR head. Hey, if you want to sue your babymomma in court and get her to not have an abortion, go for it. And good luck. Really. You tried to present this as something that really happens, and I think you're full of crap. I don't buy it. You want to throw out these ludicrous hypotheticals ("We need to do this because of the fetus farms! Think of the fetus farms! What about the rights of the farmed fetuses?!"); you just don't like it when someone throws something just as ludicrous back in your face.

That's the part that seems to go over your head. Well, that, reason, and logic.

I still think my favorite argument of yours was, "I'm an individual! Quit lumping me in with all these other groups! All you liberals are the same! You always try to put me into a group! That's the problem with all liberals!"

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 1, 2010 5:57 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike, dear, you're debating rationally with him... by now you KNOW he's only good for

don't you?

I swear he must be someone's sickpuppet...I find it hard to believe anyone is that determined to be that insanely disingenuous!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 1, 2010 6:30 AM

Oh, hell, Niki - You think that's funny, you should see Mal4Prez go to it with him on evolution! At some point he got so flustered he just flat disappeared for a number of months.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 1, 2010 7:47 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Not that I agree with everything written in this article... but.... heres something of an olive branch.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/28/in-defense-of-libertarianism

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 1, 2010 7:47 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Not that I agree with everything written in this article... but.... heres something of an olive branch.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/28/in-defense-of-libertarianism

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 1, 2010 8:11 AM

What is it that you disagree with in that article?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 1, 2010 8:13 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
"Paul lives in Libertarian La-La Land, where a purist philosophy leads people to believe in the purest nonsense.” Surely, Mr. Robinson, you know the difference between capital L Libertarian Party members, and those of us who are members of the two major parties, or of no party at all. The Tea Party is not a libertarian movement. It’s a hodgepodge of populist beliefs, like those always accompanying economic downturns.

Classical liberalism, on the other hand, has lasted centuries. It was a natural fit for an Agrarian Era, with self-sustaining farmers, frontiersmen, and shop keepers. When the Industrial Era arrived, these individualists railed against “wage labor.” They wanted no part of centralized industry and its abuses. Corporate excesses fed Progressive Era reformers, who promoted one-size-fits-all government to address the sins of the Robber Barons.

But we know you make common cause with us on cultural concerns like gay rights, and you share our non-interventionist views on foreign policy—though many of you avert your eyes as Barack Obama places young men and women in harm’s way in Afghanistan.

Of course, Rand Paul was ridiculous questioning four-decade-old settled law that recognized slavery and segregation as conditions justifying the coercive power of the state to prohibit discrimination. We libertarians could give you a long list of things, like fighting crime and enforcing contracts, we regard as appropriate for state intrusion. We just insist the use of government power be minimal, consistent with individual liberty and responsibility.

If you want a short explanation of a what a libertarian really is, here’s one from a self-described “libertarian Democrat” who used to be one of you: Get the government out of my bank account, out of my bedroom, away from my body, and out of the backyards of the rest of the world (we should lead by example, not military force.)

(excerpted from article posted)

Okay, if that's libertarianism, I'm more libertarian than liberal. I agree with most of what he wrote, especially the quoted part. But Kaneman is not, not by that explanation, not at all. He's Rand Paul, no problem with corporate, excesses and all, anti-government in virtually every single way, and in my opinion existing in the same kind of La-La Land.

Anyone who thinks the Tea Party represents libertarian values has their head up their ass. "Gay rights"?? You gotta be kidding. And I maintain that their leaders, and many of the followers, ARE racist, whether they recognize it or not. Kaneman is a prime example.

But if he means STATE POWER by "power of the state", then I disagree. It was individual STATES which fostered segregation, and in things such as that, I'm quite willing to recognize the FEDERAL government to intervene.

That's where I stand. And I don't avert my eyes about Obama sending soldiers to Afghanistan...many here know I'm torn; because of having lived there, I abhor the idea of the Taliban ruling the country, while at the same time I don't want our soldiers over there, or anywhere else. Essentially, I abhor both, and think we're going about it the wrong way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 2, 2010 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And YOUR "god" has fuck-all to do with me and MY world. And YOUR "creator" is not the same creator the founders believed in.

right. no they believed in evolution.. before Darwin did. at the least they were Deists, which hello, shares a common philosophy with judeo/christianity, so what's your point?

Quote:
You're blind if you think the Founding Fathers were hardcore religious fanatics, too. They rarely went to church services, Washington disdained them and quit going entirely, and others railed about the idiocy of believing in Jesus as anyone's personal god or savior. They didn't believe what you think they believed.

oh no? enlighten me then

Quote:
Not nearly as much as you make others laugh, trust me. You think the Civil Rights Act says you have to have black friends!

clearly that argument was over your head. a business is the owners property, and its only a business if it makes money! people like you needed laws to tell them, to help them understand, that they couldn't make those 'evil profits' by turning customers away.

otherwise, the Law simply overturned previous government laws which were in place(mostly at the state levels). but thats my point! it was government that violated peoples liberties

Quote:
And, of course, you think there's something WRONG with the very idea of having any black friends in the first place!

if you had black friends, you'd have (potentially) black customers. its called freedom of association. if the black panthers wanted to start making hamburgers and frenchfries, they'd be subject to your rediculous government interventions- who would probably demand they include whites, asians and latinos!

but why stop there? why do they have to be making a profit to be subject to the civil rights act.. who says that they should be able to assemble at all? im not for the KKK or the Black Panthers, but that falls under freedom of speech and association. as long as they do not harm me or violate my liberties, its none of my busines.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 2, 2010 7:02 PM

Quote:
KWICKO-

Not according to the Justice Department, they don't. If non-citizens had rights, we couldn't torture them. They don't, so we do. If they had rights, we couldn't assassinate them. They don't; so we do. Hell, now we even greenlight assassinations OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, so you can't even argue that a citizen really has those rights, can you?

hey, do you listen at all when i type? im for personal liberty!! ive never been for those practices. im not a partisan apologist, everyone knows the 'war on terror' and gitmo are a violation of the constitution. that only supports my point that liberty is protected under the constitution, if we had the faith to return to it

Quote:
Actually, it STOPPED happening under government supervision. You missed that part, or you like to conveniently gloss over it and obfuscate the obvious. You love states' rights and laud the states' perfection in deciding their own destinies, and then you want to slam the states for enacting such discriminatory laws, which it took the FEDERAL government to override and do away with. Segregation was your beloved states exercising their "rights" the way they felt their people wanted them to. The big bad federal government telling them to knock that shit off was the part you really can't take.

i hope other people with some scope are reading this. i know what the Law accomplished, and why it was neccessary. what im telling you is, the segregation laws were instituted by GOVERNMENT! it doesnt matter whether its state or federal law! do you get that? we have certain rights inalienable, by ANY GOVERNMENT. thats my whole point. you miss that because your brain struggles to comprehend a world without big brother staring over your shoulder. if the state GOVERNMENTS had never passed the laws, we wouldn't have needed the C.R.A.; they were violations of liberty from the beginning. government violations. man already

Quote:
And it wasn't 1850, either. I know you're desperate and you feel backed into a corner, so you're trying to paint a picture that just isn't coming into focus for you, but that was in the 1960s. Not exactly ancient history. And the REASON things have changed was because the federal government changed them! How can you not pound that through your head?

yayy!! government solved a problem government created! and in the process they took away the right of a private business owner to associate with whomever they choose. good for you

Quote:
still think my favorite argument of yours was, "I'm an individual! Quit lumping me in with all these other groups! All you liberals are the same! You always try to put me into a group! That's the problem with all liberals!"

a modern day liberal, politically, is a collectivist. people such as yourself dont believe in liberty and individualism. its perfectly accurate for me to describe you as a liberal, and that liberals share common beliefs, when liberalism today is by definition a collectivist ideology. and i know that you were an advocate of national healthcare.

i support individualism. my political beliefs, if put into effect, would not coerce anyone into doing anything they did not consent to, nor taking from them their life liberty or property. your political beliefs, as a collectivist, do affect me because inherently youre for redistribution, which is theft or coercion by government force.

so describing collectivists as liberals does not seem contradictory to me

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 2, 2010 7:14 PM