Notes From the Health Care Debate Fascist Race War
Over at Alternet, indefatigable Nazi-hunter Sara Robinson offers her "7 Ways We Can Fight Back Against the Rising Fascist Threat: Why the right-wing extremism must be stopped in its tracks or else we face the threat of outright violence and goon rule." I am particularly fond of steps 3, 4, and 6:
Third: Brush up on our nonviolent resistance -- but leave the heavy lifting and rough enforcement to the cops. […]
Fourth: We need to make absolutely sure that the media get the story right. […]
Sixth: Shut down the hate talkers.
Confirming Robinson's diagnosis is self-described "actor/wise-ass" Steven Weber of The Huffington Post:
There are mad men in the house.
Stripped of power, backed into a corner, emasculated, mean. Mean and mad.
Dangerous mad.
Guns? Nazis? Euthanasia? Hey: you angry? Then express your anger like a civilized person, not a rake-wielding moron, foaming at the mouth, espousing quarter-baked beliefs of doom and death panels which have been injected into your malleable squash with all the subtlety of a turkey baster filled with cottage cheese shoved into a sheep's rectum.
A dispassionate observer might conclude that such a mentality is ultimately not worth the effort to rehabilitate; that the total immersion into the mob ideology as directed by its de facto leaders (who have more in common with the fascist/socialist dictators their opponents supposedly possess) renders such a person incapable of reason and devoid of sense, responding only to fight or flight, black and white, reward and punishment, good and evil.
Who agrees with the effete coastal elitist? Pitchfork Pat Buchanan!
Who are these folks? Why are they angry?
Ed Rubenstein, who has written for Forbes, National Review and the Wall Street Journal, blogs on VDARE.com that if one uses the household survey of job losses for June-July, Hispanics gained 150,000 positions, while non-Hispanics lost 679,000. Guess who got the stimulus jobs.
Going back to the beginning of the Bush presidency, Rubenstein says that "for every 100 Hispanics employed in January 2001, there are now 122.5. … (But) for every 100 non-Hispanics employed in January 2001, there are now 98.9."
And, just as Jesse Walker predicted, we are seeing the return of the militia scare, in the form of a new report by the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Bart McEntire, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told SPLC researchers that this is the most growth he's seen in more than a decade.
"All it's lacking is a spark," McEntire said in the report.
Meanwhile, conservative-mugged-by-George W. Bush economist Bruce Bartlett writes that "the Obama-hating town-hall mobs have it wrong—the person they should be angry with left the White House seven months ago."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Reality-based--ha!
"Rubenstein says that "for every 100 Hispanics employed in January 2001, there are now 122.5. ... (But) for every 100 non-Hispanics employed in January 2001, there are now 98.9."
question for the crowd: why do the BrownPeople take all our jobs? I forget - if only SomeOne could remind me...
Quoting an ATF agent for anything indicates using a falsehood.
"During the bleak days of Iraq, demonstrators carried swastikas and Hitler portraits of Bush habitually. Nicholson Baker wrote a novel in which characters are contemplating killing Bush. Films were praised imagining the assassination of the president. Michael Moore, courted by the Democratic elite, lamented that bin Laden on 9/11 had hit a blue state - and once compared the killers of Americans in Iraq to Minutemen.
Al Gore customarily used excessive language like "brown shirts." Senators Durbin, Kennedy, and others compared our soldiers to Saddamites, Pol Pot's killers, and Nazis. Ward Churchill compared the victims in the Twin Tower to "little Eichmanns." Sen. Robert Byrd likened Pres. George W. Bush's policies to what transpired in Nazi Germany. Linda Ronstadt, Harold Pinter, Scott Ritter, Ted Rall, and George Soros agreed with Fidel Castro, the Iranians, and North Koreans in comparing Bush to Hitler.
Jonathan Chait wrote in the New Republic on why "I hate George W. Bush." Garrison Keillor likened Bush's Republicans to "brown shirts in pinstripes." Even old hero Sen. John Glenn said of the Bush agenda: "It's the old Hitler business."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzMzYmFkNmEwZjcxOGViNDE2YWNjNzBkM2Y3YzdjMjM=
Now after the election of BO, a few old ladies in tennis shoes show up at some town halls and the opposition has gone over the edge. It is fascism I tell you.
I am particularly fond of steps 3, 6, and 7:
Do you mean 3,4 and 6? 'Cause that's what you showed.
And these town hall protesters...some of the ones I've seen sure seem like their questions have been fed to them. All they need to do, as someone else pointed out here, is bring in a selected excerpt of the bill in question, read it to the lawmaker(s) and ask them to explain what it means and why they support it.
Then they could get reallyIntrepid and upload TheirResponses to youTubE.
Hang 'em high.
Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that this may be a powder keg waiting to blow? The sides are getting more and more heated with each other.
This could be fun.
P.S.
I used to think you were cool Weber. Brian wouldn't act like this.
"Third: Brush up on our nonviolent resistance -- but leave the heavy lifting and rough enforcement to the cops. [...]"
Be sure to get our cops there to beat the shit out of anyone on the other side. Check
"Fourth: We need to make absolutely sure that the media get the story right. [...]"
Be sure the media only reports the government line. Check
"Sixth: Shut down the hate talkers."
Marginalize anyone who disagrees with us as "haters" and use whatever brute tactics we have to make sure they can't get their message.
That is a great concept of democracy and free speech they have here. But, it is the other side that are fascists. Gee, project much?
John,
Stop it. You're gonna give yourself a heart attack or stroke is you keep thinking like that. The idiot left have absolutely no desire and possibly, capacity, to not be utter hypocrites.
Both sides are so goddamn stupid that it's really fun to watch this grow and grow. We're so completely beyond the point of reason in politics here in the US that I think we may have to wait until it all burns and start over fresh at this point.
Time for some more "Life of Brian"...
Report Warns Of Rise In Reports Warning of Rise In Militia Groups Across U.S.
Shit, I wish I thought that point was coming. I'm worried that all this bullshit is more sustainable than most libertarians think.
Has anyone ever seen Buchanan and lonewhacko in the same room at the same time? Just wondering.
strike through16 years agoOver at Alternet...
...there's a blog that's craptastic even by blog standards.
Is the proprietor in the fourth grade or the fifth?
"Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that this may be a powder keg waiting to blow?
No, but that IS what these assholes want. That piece of shit Ed Schultz (of the Ed Show) had Ron Paul on last night in order to get his take on the guy who showed up with a (legally carried) gun. Unfortunately, I had to leave before he was on, but the implication was that the protesters want to shoot Obama. The Left has jumped the shark.
BTW, If G-d came down and said I could execute (humanely) any one person and not be held accountable, Ed Schultz would be on the short list.
Which side are the fascists on again?
The appropriate answer from everyone on the "right" (guess that includes us libertarian folk, too) is, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Thanks, sage, fixed.
"All it's lacking is a spark," McEntire said in the report.
Something like this?
Warty, you made me do it. 😉
"We're so completely beyond the point of reason in politics here in the US that I think we may have to wait until it all burns and start over fresh at this point."
The problem is that there is sort of a Newtonian law of politics in that every action by one side produces an equal reaction on the other. The Dems acted like complete children for 8 years. Now, a few people show up at town hall meetings and do exactly what the Left has been doing for 40 years or more and the left pees their pants and starts shouting racist and facist and militia.
It would be entertaining except that these lunatics have power. God help us if some nut ever takes a shot at the Obamasiah or some tweedle dee and tweedle dumb manage to set off another bomb at a federal building. You thought the Patriot Act was bad. These people will go insane.
"Shit, I wish I thought that point was coming. I'm worried that all this bullshit is more sustainable than most libertarians think."
I very much think that you could be correct here. The one think that gives me... (wait for it.....wait for it.....) hope... is that for as stupid as I feel Americans are, they are at least, and in my opinion, greedier than that. Once a large enough segment sees that they could be getting a "better" deal, they'll begin to really tip the scale towards the point of absurdity and we will be fairly close to an end/possible reboot.
Not the cheeriest outlook either way.
strike through16 years agoThat piece of shit Ed Schultz (of the Ed Show) had Ron Paul on last night in order to get his take on the guy who showed up with a (legally carried) gun. Unfortunately, I had to leave before he was on...
I'm happy to report that Ron Paul handed big Ed his ass on a platter.
Fuck yeah. Details?
We aren't past the point of absurdity? What do you see it as?
"It would be entertaining except that these lunatics have power. God help us if some nut ever takes a shot at the Obamasiah or some tweedle dee and tweedle dumb manage to set off another bomb at a federal building. You thought the Patriot Act was bad. These people will go insane."
Yep. I've said the same thing several times.
I guess I try not to think about it but fuck, things really look bad when it all is observed.
Why the fuck can't people just leave others alone?
Warty, you made me do it. 😉
Get it off my back.
Which side are the fascists on again?
We're all fascists, now, X-man.
We're past it. Right now it's going downhill. What I was saying is that the sheeple in my vagues scenario would do something that would ratchet up the pace quite a bit. Like going from a slide to a rolling tumble towards the cliff.
"I very much think that you could be correct here. The one think that gives me... (wait for it.....wait for it.....) hope... is that for as stupid as I feel Americans are, they are at least, and in my opinion, greedier than that. Once a large enough segment sees that they could be getting a "better" deal, they'll begin to really tip the scale towards the point of absurdity and we will be fairly close to an end/possible reboot."
I think people just want some peace and quiet. I think that is half the reason why independents voted for Obama. He seemed like a reasonable guy and letting the Dems have power for a while would get people to shut the fuck up and stop screaming all the time. A lot of people just wanted the arguments of the last 8 years to be done with.
Instead of taking that cue and telling the country, the last years are over, we are going to start again and try to get along with each other, the Dems ran around in their underwear all over the house screaming trying to restart all of the arguments everyone thought were finished. Now we have the tea party movement and the Dems are screaming just as long and just as loud about that even though they have all the power.
After Clinton, Bush and Obam, the country desparately needs another President like Eisenhower or Ford. Just someone who doesn't have to be on TV every stinking day. Someone who doesn't feel the need to remake the country in their own image. Someone who isn't trying to write themselves into the history books. And most importantly, someone who doesn't think their domestic enemies are the agent of the devil. Sadly, I don't think our current political system can give us another Eisenhower or Ford. It can only give us maniacal narcissists.
Eh, I think our best hope of that is hyperinflation, not people, Kyle.
/Since when are things so fucked up that my best hope is food riots? Jesus.
Fuck that, John, give us another Coolidge. Just somebody who doesn't do shit for four years and lets everybody settle the fuck down.
We're all fascists, now, X-man.
Don't you force a label on me, you fascist.
Protesters on both sides have demonstrated their relative crazy with all the talk of Nazis and hatred/fear of the president. But while I am opposed to the health care overhaul (as I understand it to be evolving) I am not sure that it rises to the level of waging an unjustified war. Sure the dollar costs will be similar, and some people will liken the new system to being water-boarded, but absent actual "death panels" in which thousands are put down against their will, health care reform hardly rises to the level of the Iraq War.
Hey: you angry? Then express your anger like a civilized person, not a rake-wielding moron, foaming at the mouth, espousing quarter-baked beliefs of doom and death panels which have been injected into your malleable squash with all the subtlety of a turkey baster filled with cottage cheese shoved into a sheep's rectum.
he sez, as he plants his flag on the moral high ground.
Well said, John.
Spoonman,
Coolidge would be a dream. Of course, he would actually cut the size of government and the media would call him a radical nut mass murderer for it.
"Which side are the fascists on again?"
That was my question when I saw the title for this post. I read until the words "right-wing extremism" before I figured out who is being called fascists this time.
strike through16 years agoI'm happy to report that Ron Paul handed big Ed his ass on a platter.
Fuck yeah. Details?
Watch it here.
Here's how you know who the real fascists are: Whichever side claims that someone else burned down the Reichstag is the fascist side.
absent actual "death panels" in which thousands are put down against their will
Just wait 'til the film of predator drones blasting old folks' homes starts appearing on the Nightly News. They don't call him the "Surgeon General" for nothing.
@Warty: Sweet. FNM influence?
Don't laugh but Bush I would be okay. Bush I was an old guy. He didn't care about reforming the country. He got a few things done. He fixed the S&L mess and really laid the ground work for the surplus we got under Clinton. I remember during the 92 campaign the media was saying that he just didn't act like he wanted to be President. Looking back at the last 20 years, maybe we shouldn't have seen that as a bad thing.
I think we need to stop electing anyone under the age of 60. These guys in the 40s and 50s are just too shallow and insecure for the job. A grouchy old man who is sketpical of grand schemes would work nicely.
I actually agree that, as a general rule, these guys in their 40s (I count Bush II in that, because he acted like he was younger) seem to lack something in the role. Less action, more contemplation.
yes Pro. What kind of person sets a three month deadline to completely rework the most contenous and emotionally charged 15% of the economy? And then acts shocked when people get upset about it? Someone who has no self awareness or understanding of how things actually work, that is who.
History will look back on the 90s and the Aughts as the Era of the Juvenile Presidents.
Bush#1 wasn't bad. Not really sure the Panama invasion was quite appropriate even if Noriega was an ass.... Handled Iraq more sensibly that his son did. And he did the unpopular move of raising taxes to help close the deficit which cost him the next election but was the right thing to do, ultimately. And he also was more responsible for NAFTA than Clinton was, of which I approve. And he was a cool head when the Soviet Union collapsed. Had the US tried to press advantage there, hardliners would probably resurfaced and things could have turned out much much worse.
So I could go for another GHWB.
History will look back on the 90s and the Aughts as the Era of the Juvenile Presidents.
In other words, our two Boomer presidents.
I had forgotten about NAFTA. Bush I was kind of a work a day President who got a few significant things done that needed to be done but didn't overreach. That would be nice. He antagonized the nuts on both sides. Any man that can get Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and Ralph Nader to hate them can't be that bad.
Clinton, Bush, Obama. Meddling kids.
FNM influence?
Faith No More? Don't think so. Those dudes are a bunch of famous Swedish metal musicians who formed a punk band for some reason.
Which side are the fascists on again?
Why, the other side, of course.
"Third: Brush up on our nonviolent resistance -- but leave the heavy lifting and rough enforcement to the cops."
Cops? Who needs cops when you have SEIU thugs to do the rough stuff?
You know, a fair amount of commentators here drop the "fascists!" language pretty easily whenever they talk about their political opponents, so for those folks, wtf is up with you being upset at people comparing these angry yelling disruptive fuckers to brownshirts?
This stuff is just too funny.
The people who are opposed to the massive expansion of government power in virtually every aspect of existence being proposed by Obama and the Democrats are the "facists" instead of the supporters of it.
Down is the new up.
Dry is the new wet.
Etc. etc.
"when you have SEIU thugs to do the rough stuff?"
Yeah, just the other day a SEIU nut walked into an aerobics class and shot up several people. And a few months ago some SEIU nut holed up in his house and ambushed and shot some cops when they came out.
Oh, no, my bad, those were right-wing anti-liberals/anti-government types like the kind showing up at these events...
So no wonder people are a little more worried about such folks than they are SEIU thugs...
Like old faithful, Gilbert Martin shows up to make my point for me. Conservatives are incapable of being satirized, they are walking satire...
MNG, your fascism is showing again. Fascist.
Oh yeah Xeones, you're a TRIPLE FASCIST! So there!
The older presidents, imo, are past that "blind ambition" stage. They have reached the point where they know you can't race full steam ahead making huge wholesale changes to the country.
or maybe old age and treachery is more subtle?
Yeah MNG it is just terrible and unfair. SEUI members beat up one black guy and call him a nigger and they are marked for life. Isn't every union allowed at least one racial slur and beating every few years?
Are you honestly comparing the people who show up at townhalls to some nut who went bizerk and shot 14 people? If you are, you are a troll worse than Lonewacko. Do you really want to play that game? Because if you do, I guess we can talk about how environmentalists are the same as ELF and the Unibomber or how legitimate anti-war protesters are the same as the anti-semetic Hamas supporters who show up at their marches. If you don't want to play that game, shut the fuck up about it.
I thought my liberal friends who called Bush a fascist dictator were insane.
A fascist dictator does not have his major programs (Social Security reform) crushed. He does not barely win re-election. He does not have top ten movies made exclusively to mock him (Farenhheit 9/11). Etc.
This word fascist needs to be retired in our political discourse.
"Oh, no, my bad, those were right-wing anti-liberals/anti-government types like the kind showing up at these events..."
You can't be serious.
Nope, that's an even of probability zero. I'll bet you large sums of money that that won't happen. The perennial Marxist idea of "if we only lose too much, then things will suddenly swing back our way once the contradictions are heightened" never works. As a mental defense mechanism, it's a way to deal with a situation you don't like, but it never works for predicting the future.
Ah, so MNG is fine with associating liberals and progressives with Jim Jones and animal rights extremists, then?
Look John, the people being focused on at these events are espousing rhetoric very similar to that found on those recent right wing nuts who shot up people...People are going to make that connection.
"I thought my liberal friends who called Bush a fascist dictator were insane."
Do you include John Glenn ("its just that Hilter business") and Al Gore ("brown shirts") among the list of insane? Just wondering.
Except liberals don't even espouse the same basic points as the ELF, so there's that difference.
"Look John, the people being focused on at these events are espousing rhetoric very similar to that found on those recent right wing nuts who shot up people...People are going to make that connection."
Then I guess people are right to make the connection between people who criticize Israel and call it an Apartheid state and Islamic radicals calling for another Holocaust. I guess people are going to connect the Sierra Club with ELF and the unibomber.
Two can play that game. And it is a retarded and destructive game.
Al Gore called Bush a fascist dictator?
"Except liberals don't even espouse the same basic points as the ELF, so there's that difference"
No not at all. That is why liberal Congressional leaders call those who oppose cap and trade "traitors to the earth". If they really are traitors to the entire planet, can you blame people like ELF for acting violently on it?
I'm curious just how long it will be before the MSM trots out all the _______ supremacists and anti income tax folks and truthers and birthers and such and connects them to the Libertarian party through blogs and other very tenous associations. It will be closely followed by the connection between hard right republicans and libertarians. It is almost certainly gonna happen. Any bets on how soon?
Poor analogy. The Sierra Club is not acting in such an angry, unpredictable manner. And it's points differ a lot from the ELF's points.
The protestors are acting in an angry unpredictable manner, much like the shooters. And their points are pretty much the same ones.
"Al Gore called Bush a fascist dictator?"
He said George Bush and his supporters were brown shirts and used brown shirt tactics. That is calling someone a Nazi.
You are worse fraud than Joe MNG. You say that, you thought that liberals who called Bush a Nazi were insane. But then when you are confronted and asked to call specific liberals who did just that insane, you snivel and whine that that is not what they meant.
Just admit it that in your view no liberal is ever over the line. No liberal tactic or remark is ever objectionable. And stop insulting our intelligence by pretending that you have any standards whatsoever when it comes to your own side.
btw
I personally think it's an incorrect connection to make. Some of the protestors are nuts, sure, maybe even worrisome nuts, and actively disrupting things is just an asshole thing for anyone to do.
However, if you want to understand why so many people are afraid of these protestors I've just explained why.
"The protestors are acting in an angry unpredictable manner, much like the shooters. And their points are pretty much the same ones."
OMG they are unpredictable. Look it is a bunch of old people in tennis shoes. Run!! This from the same person who no doubt things the roving bands of protestors who go to G8 summits and break windows are just A-Ok. This is pathetic MNG. Even for you, this is pathetic.
You mean this SEIU thug?
Elston K. McCowan is a former organizer now the Public Service Director of SEIU Local 2000 and board member of the Walbridge Community Education Center, and is a Baptist minister, has been a community organizer for more than 23 years, and now, he is running for Mayor of the City of St. Louis under the Green Party.
He's like the perfect storm of asshole. Union leader + Baptist minister + community organizer + Green Party candidate. Impressive.
I hope the guy who got beat up, who apparently has no health insurance, sues the pants off the SEIU.
"However, if you want to understand why so many people are afraid of these protestors I've just explained why."
Who is afraid of the protestors? The only person that has gotten beaten up at any of these things was that poor black guy in St. Louis. The only people who are afraid of the protestors are people who are terrified that somone besides them will actually get a say about anything. Free speech and assembly is just a bitch isn't it?
The protestors are acting in an angry unpredictable manner, much like the shooters.
Dear God, MNG. Do you really not see how stupid this makes you look?
The protestors are actually acting in a very angry, predictable manner. And none of them has been violent, unlike the Dem/SEIU operatives recruited to "keep order" at some of the town halls.
I mean, really, you're saying "Look, there's somebody who is angry, and non-violent. And over there is somebody who is angry, and violent. There's practically no difference!"
Let me see if I have this straight- the people opposing the expansion of the central gov't- they're the fascists?
From John Flynn, "As We Go Marching" (1944)
"When you can put your finger on the men or the groups that urge for America the debt-supported state, the autarchial corporative state, the state bent on the socialization of investment and the bureaucratic government of industry and society, the establishment of the institution of militarism as the great glamorous public-works project of the nation and the institution of imperialism udner which it proposes to regulate and rule the world and, along with this, proposes to alter the forms of our government to approach as closely as possible the unrestrained, absolute government- then you will know you have located the authentic fascist." p. 252
"He said George Bush and his supporters were brown shirts and used brown shirt tactics."
Let me see the quote.
I think he was talking about the asshole mob down in Florida. To the extent brownshirts intentionally disrupted opponent's meetings, to say brown shirt tactics were used is not totally wrong, though its hyperbole. The reason people hate the brownshirts is not just that they disrupted but that they beat the shit out of people.
walked into an aerobics class and shot up several people.
That's pathetically low, moron. Did you read the gym shooter's website, dumbass? He was happy that Obama won the election, retard. Not only that, shithead, but he WAS COMPLETELY OUT-OF-HIS-MIND CRAZY. Idiot.
The exercise class shooter seemed to think that if he couldn't have a woman, then it was OK to go shoot a bunch of them. The ex-husband thought he had the right to make his wife come back to him.
Linking these two fuckwads to the anti-Obamacare movement is disingenuous in the extreme.
I don't know what stooping to sub-Tony levels of bullshit is supposed to accomplish.
Yes MNG, Showing up in large numbers and demanding to be heard is just like brown shirts. Brown shirts showed up with ball bats and beat and killed people. They terrorized entire populations. It is not hyperbole. It is just lying.
RC
But the latter group is saying the same extreme things...That's "the hook."
MNG,
If you don't like the protestors fine. If you think they are jerks and are not representative of what they country actually represents, fine. If you think they should be ignored, fine. But shut up with the "they are unpredictable and dangerous" bullshit. That is sub moronic.
He's like the perfect storm of asshole.
Genetic engineering will eventually create the perfect asshole. We need to find a way to add the "journalist" gene somehow.
MNG,
Are the mobs who routinely show up and shout down unPC speakers at universities "unpredictable and dangerous"?
Leftists say the say thing as Stalin... That's "the hook."
"Genetic engineering will eventually create the perfect asshole. We need to find a way to add the "journalist" gene somehow."
I bet he writes an opinion collmn for some local rag. There is real chance that the asshole singularity has been reached.
Johnny Longtorso, the journalist gene is now obsolete due to universal access to the interweb. We're all journos now.
Ezra Klein comes close. There is nothing he can't misunderstand.
I bet he writes an opinion collmn for some local rag.
No, he writes a political column for a college newspaper, and he dates the paper's sororitute "sex columnist". They go to Take Back The Night rallies together.
Why the FUCK would anyone bring a gun to a presidential appearance? Who gives a shit if it's legal. It's also legal to take a shit on the dinner table, but you don't do it because it's insane. The guy carrying the gun claimed it was for self defense (paranoid much?) yet carried a sign that read "water the tree of liberty" [with the blood of tyrants and patriots].
There's always someone crazier out there. If this guy is somehow representative of a mainstream, then we really have to worry about what the actual nuts are itching to do.
I'd like to see how long it would take before I could make Klein cry.
People who disagree with me are, by definition, dangerous lunatics.
Faaaaaaasciiiiiists!11
Your crazy ideas oppress me.
"I'd like to see how long it would take before I could make Klein cry."
About two mintues. He would be snivelling and talking about how you are redneck and just don't understand what enlightened people like him and his buddies on the journolist do.
MNG, you're INFINITY a fascist. By the rules of today's political discourse, this means i win the debate.
Tony, shut the fuck up.
I'd like to see how long it would take before I could make Klein cry.
Fascist, homophobe.
Klein's sole purpose in life is to make people think that maybe Glen Greenwald isn't such a dousche after all.
"Are the mobs who routinely show up and shout down unPC speakers at universities "unpredictable and dangerous"?"
Lord yes. The worst is BAMM.
A weepy little emo douche was stalking one of my student workers a few years ago. I asked her if she want me to talk him into committing suicide. She was too soft-hearted.
Tony, in NH it's not only legal to open carry, but quite common which is why the police and secret service didn't bat an eye. Only Chris Matthews went ape shit.
That said, we'll probably never know if or for how long the SS sniper was trained on him.
SugarFree, all it takes to make a grown man cry is an ankle lock. It would be trivial on a half-man like him.
"However, if you want to understand why so many people are afraid of these protestors I've just explained why."
False assertion. No one is afraid of the protesters. It is a media-generated canard.
Xeones,
You're a serial accuser and, therefore, an unreliable witness. You're an ISTIST!
Is Klein gay? I figured he dated some hatchet-faced harridan with vulvodynia he met in Gender Studies class.
I asked her if she want me to talk him into committing suicide. She was too soft-hearted.
You asked? You soft-hearted weenie.
Atlas is going to shrug.
Warty, I mean with just words. I'll even take the handicapped of avoiding jokes about Judaism.
It would be trivial on a half-man like him.
Get right in his face, use a slightly raised voice, punctuate with light pushes on his chest. It will break him.
Vulvodynia? Why am I so afraid and yet intrigued in a tingling kinda way?
That's pathetically low, moron. Did you read the gym shooter's website, dumbass? He was happy that Obama won the election, retard. Not only that, shithead, but he WAS COMPLETELY OUT-OF-HIS-MIND CRAZY. Idiot.
Every leftist man has a gym class shooter on the inside. They may even claim to be feminist, but their passive aggressive hatred for women eats away at their insides with the only respite from that pain due to their fear of women is to lash out at those who are not their ideological kin. That solvent is only effective for so long.
You asked? You soft-hearted weenie.
No, I'm polite. Unlike you, farthuffer.
"No one is afraid of the protesters. It is a media-generated canard."
That statement is like Algernon retarded.
"Why the FUCK would anyone bring a gun to a presidential appearance?"
Second Ammendment, dipshit.
Is Klein gay?
Who knows? I doubt he scores with ANYBODY.
You're still a fascist, though. Fascist.
"The worst is BAMM."
Boozers Against Mad Mothers?
When a guy shows up at a public event with a gun and a sign saying in effect "it's time to start killing people" that's a little disturbing to many folks...
Vulvodynia
It's something the Feministing gals complain about all the time. Shooting pains in the sculch that totally have nothing to do with not being attracted to the beta male "feminists" they force themselves to date.
I bet he writes an opinion collmn for some local rag. There is real chance that the asshole singularity has been reached.
A True Asshole (tm) would write for something that could qualify as the MSM. Fred Clark (blogs under the name 'Slacktivist') is an evangelical and a 'journalist' for a mainstream paper, and does acting. He may be a better candidate for The Bionic Asshole ("We have the technology. We can make him faster, stronger, more asshole-y...").
I think telling Klein that I ran over a kitten would do the trick.
That statement is like Algernon retarded.
Algernon was the mouse, retard.
I agree with MNG (I know, holy shit, right?) that many people are afraid of the protesters. Let's see, there's the people who think guns are magic, Democratic politicians who worry about re-election, and Chris Matthews.
I'm sure there are others, but MNG is right that little bitches are afraid of the protesters.
Sorry, it's BAMN (by any means necessary). When I worked with Ward Connerly's group fighting affirmative action this student group would show up and shout down speakers. Assholes.
Warty,
He meant to say "Mrs. Frisby."
that's a little disturbing to many folks...
As long as those folks are the ones in power, i'm completely ok with that. A government SHOULD fear its people, fascist.
"That statement is like Algernon retarded."
Hey fuckwad, go link me a quote of someone saying, "I am afraid of the protesters."
You're like fucking Tony Lite.
"Why the FUCK would anyone bring a gun to a presidential appearance?"
To defend yourself from union goons.
subtlety of a turkey baster filled with cottage cheese shoved into a sheep's rectum
Do you need to attend an Ivy school to learn such rich prose?
Someone who doesn't feel the need to remake the country in their own image. Someone who isn't trying to write themselves into the history books. And most importantly, someone who doesn't think their domestic enemies are the agent of the devil.
Only people like that on the national stage are Ron Paul and Joe Biden.
P Brooks FTW!
Is there anyway with INCIF to tag a commenter's handle to change it to another handle instead of just filtering them?
Tony doesn't like guns because he knows what he would do with one if he ever had one. That is, shoot women for all the years of rejection and slow twisting lies he has to tell himself.
MNG is happy in his relationship, but it is a beta male one, and so he too is aware of the shadow that lingers in the darker depths. Don't give in, Mr. MNG. You too can remain a relatively healthy minded and happy person, just not to the extent of a non leftist man.
"Tony doesn't like guns because he knows what he would do with one if he ever had one. That is, shoot women for all the years of rejection and slow twisting lies he has to tell himself."
FTR, Tony is openly gay (NTTAWWT).
But the latter group is saying the same extreme things...That's "the hook."
What are you talking about, MNG? So far, the discussion has covered two groups that have used violence - the Dem/SEIU operatives, and the nutbars who can't get laid. Exactly what "same extreme things" are they saying that the anti-Obamacare people are also saying?
But your assessment of MNG is spot on.
Only people like that on the national stage are Ron Paul and Joe Biden.
Retard Joe isn't trying to write himself into the history books because he's illiterate, and can't.
Ron Paul would just have somebody ghostwrite the history books.
The absolute worst though is Steve Smith. If he doesn't have a woman tied up in his basement with a few missing fingers, it would be surprising to say the least.
X, hopefully not the same ghostwriter that did his newsletter thingy.
If he doesn't have a woman tied up in his basement
Does Bigfoot have the manual dexterity to work knots?
Just because you have a right doesn't make it necessary to practice it at all times in the most obnoxious way possible.
It is scary to me that the people most concerned about their 2nd amendment rights are also the craziest and stupidest.
Xeones, I generally agree, but the ones in power ain't sweating it, it's the other citizens who have come to the event. It's just bad form at the least...
Does Bigfoot have the manual dexterity to work knots?
He developed it after the folly of trying to use duct tape.
EWWW EWWW EWWW GUNS EWWW EWW
Shut the fuck up, Tony.
Steve Smith is a Super Mutant, SugarFree. Get your facts straight.
"Why the FUCK would anyone bring a gun to a presidential appearance?"
Why the fuck do you care? More people need to learn to mind their own business.
Just because you have a right doesn't mean you should be allowed to exercise it.
MNG, an awful lot of town-hall-having congressthings have been squawking over these disruptions, famously including Speaker of the Motherfucking House Nancy "They Had Swastikas" Pelosi. I'd say there's some sweating going on.
Ben
People care when angry men with extreme right wing views bring guns to events because of all the recent news stories about angry men with extreme right wing views shooting people.
Most commentators come here to engage in thoughts with like minded souls. That is what a normal person does. Some moderate to liberal types come here for constructive debate and general amusement, like New Mejican, Elemenope, and MNG on most days. That too is normal.
Than there are the lefty trolls who come to the site day in and day out to spit spite at those of whom they have nothing in common. That is double Y territory because the only purpose for that sort of behavior is to feed a pathology. Get to a shrink Tony, Edward/Leftiti/William, and Steve Smith.
"But your assessment of MNG is spot on."
Look GD, you said something retarded, I called you on it, it happens. No need to get your panties in a twist over it.
Just because you have a right doesn't make it necessary to practice it at all times in the most obnoxious way possible.
I mean, that dopey "First Amendment" shouldn't include the right to make politicians fell unloved or uncomfortable. It's wrong, and hurtful.
I have a right to spit in my grandmother's face. That doesn't make it polite.
You have a right to carry a gun. That doesn't make it appropriate to do so at a presidential appearance while holding a sign implying you want him dead. I don't want you arrested for exercising your right, I want you ridiculed and shamed for doing so in an obnoxious and threatening way.
Second amendment fanatics are the strongest argument against the second amendment.
Is BB Charles Krauthammer?
FTR, Tony is openly gay (NTTAWWT).
I'll have to recalibrate my super computer used for micro-psychohistory for that bit of information.
Run for the hills, everybody, Tony has the bomb!
I have a right to spit in my grandmother's face. That doesn't make it polite.
And politicians who want to take money from one group of citizens and redistribute it "fairly" amongst another group are exactly the same as your kindly old Granny.
Can you pull the tablecloth out from under the dishes without breakinhg anything, too?
I'll help you out. Rejection is not as much of a psychological motivator since if I ever get rejected it's pretty easy to find someone else to fuck in short order.
Straight guys suffering a pussy drought have a scary tendency to become terrorists, though.
"Just because you have a right doesn't make it necessary to practice it at all times in the most obnoxious way possible."
Epic. Fail.
Look, certainly many liberals have to get over their "guns are magic" mentality (usually born from ignorance I find). But those of us more comfortable with firearms should also be able to understand why people would be nervous about someone carrying a gun with a sign indicating that it is time to start killing people.
When a neo-Nazi exercises his 1st Amendment rights in an asshole way we can agree he has the right to do so but that he still is bothering people.
Straight guys suffering a pussy drought have a scary tendency to become terrorists, though.
This makes no sense. It's single guys doing the killing. If you were correct, it would be married men that were going postal.
Steve Smith is the gentle forest ape of the Pacific Northwest, not a Super Mutant.
"Look GD, you said something retarded, I called you on it, it happens. No need to get your panties in a twist over it."
Still waiting for that link, bitch. You knmow, the one where the person is quoted saying, "The scared me."
Belicose@Bradenberg,
You forgot Chad.
The = They
To be honest, I'm more bothered by people who aim to be disruptive than the guy carrying the gun in NH. He seemed to just be registering his opinion to me.
I can see why some people would be made nervous of course, but he's just being obnoxious at worst, an active citizen at best.
Gunboat,
You can't possibly disagree with that sentence. I want to know why he felt it necessary to bring a gun to a presidential appearance, and saying because he has the right is not a reason.
"Still waiting for that link, bitch."
Hey GD, no reason to badger your mother. She's, er, busy with me at the minute anways. Doesn't have a free hand to look up a link for ya if ya understand.
Well, thanks for the assistance, Tony. Just to make the data more complete so we can better gauge when to duck, answer this:
Does your hatred of women stem from the fact that you will never be as pretty as even an average looking woman? (ducks)
Alert: Liberulz, get your smelling salts ready!
Q: What do JFK and Obama have in common?
A: Nothing, yet.
Straight guys suffering a pussy drought have a scary tendency to become terrorists, though.
Can you explain this to MNG, please.
I love women, and I'm prettier than most.
Bradenberg is like some strange cross between Jung and a retarded woman.
It's your side that's been going out and shooting people lately, not ours. If anyone should be breaking out the psychology...
I want to know why he felt it necessary to bring a gun to a presidential appearance
Probably because he always carries a gun everywhere he goes. We exist, shithead.
Fuck you, close italics tag.
SugarFree | August 13, 2009, 12:19pm | #
Belicose@Bradenberg,
You forgot Chad.
In my defense, he is very forgettable.
P Brooks
I know you don't much about liberals, but this liberal never expected Obama to be JFK, and for that matter I'm no big fan of JFK...As for Obama, he's better than Bush is about what I can say, which I hope you can get is not exactly high praise from me...
Warty
If you want or feel the need to carry a gun everywhere you go I don't have any real beef with you. But certainly you can respect and acknowledge that your doing so at a public event might make people around you nervous or upset?
And please don't say "well of course they might, but fuck them, I have a right to do that." Because that's what people who smell funny say when its pointed out that people might be bothered by their smell...
Tony, the rest of the statement is "with the blood of tyrants and patriots." Maybe he was saying, by bringing his loaded gun, that if he wants to end his life he'll do it himself, rather than by govt doctor counseling.
In far more important news, Les Paul died.
"But certainly you can respect and acknowledge that your doing so at a public event might make people around you nervous or upset?"
Especially if you're carrying a sign about killing people...
It's your side that's been going out and shooting people lately, not ours. If anyone should be breaking out the psychology...
On a scale of 8 to 10, MNG, how much sympathy do you feel for the gym class shooter? Come on, breath in, relax a little, let it out. Admitting it will do you some good.
MNG, I don't carry a gun very often, mostly because it's a big pain in the ass. I do, however, like to go barefoot outside. Draw your own conclusions.
This comment thread, racists, amuses me greatly, fucktards. However the seemingly willful, fascists, miss-characterization of people, libtards, attempting to peaceably engage their representatives, bitches, is saddening.
Wow, where'd those extra words come from? Ah well, whatever, I guess it fits with the tone of the thread.
I'd like to add that saying that just because it's my right to do a thing doesn't mean I should be allowed to do it, is about the most silly and ignorant thing I've heard in a while.
I think aelhues might be a fascist, but i'm not sure.
Hey if you want to live in your paranoid version of a Rambo movie that's your business.
Had a conversation with a friend about this yesterday. He said to forget about the moron with the gun because during the Bush admin., if a plane carrying Bush and Cheney crashed into a mountain he'd probably have champagne and nibblies to celebrate.
But am I wrong to feel there's something just a little frightening about redneck guy + gun + sign advocating killing public officials + presidential appearance + American presidents' habit of getting their heads blown off?
I think anyone who goes on a shooting spree is, pretty much by definition, pro gun.
And I wouldn't be surprised if most abortions are provided by folks who are pro-abortion, and most folks who are sentenced to death are sentenced by those who are pro death-penality.
I have a right to spit in my grandmother's face.
Actually, no you dont. That is assualt and/or battery.
"In far more important news, Les Paul died."
FUCK THAT!!!!! FUCK THAT SHIT!
Damnit! This sucks.
I love women, and I'm prettier than most.
Tony, come on now, if you really loved women, wouldn't you throw some dick their way?
I guess it fits with the tone of the thread.
Fuck off, you menses drinker.
Nobody said that. Being allowed to do something doesn't always mean you should. Anyone who practices good manners understands this.
American presidents' habit of getting their heads blown off?
Lincoln
McKinley
Kennedy.
Am I missing any, because that doesnt sound like neough to call a "habit". And, yes, I even went loose with "head blown off".
But am I wrong to feel there's something just a little frightening about redneck guy + gun + sign advocating killing public officials + presidential appearance + American presidents' habit of getting their heads blown off?
Yes. But then, you're wrong about pretty much everything, with the exception of drugs. You're alright on drugs, fascist.
But am I wrong to feel there's something just a little frightening about redneck guy + gun + sign advocating killing public officials + presidential appearance + American presidents' habit of getting their heads blown off?
Yes. Now choke yourself.
In far more important news, Les Paul died.
Wow. I was just at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame yesterday -- they've got an interesting exhibit detailing his fight with Gibson to finally produce the solid body electric guitar.
Lincoln
McKinley
Kennedy.
I thought McKinley was shot in the torso.
The problem is my dick wouldn't be aerodynamic enough if it were aimed at a woman.
As was James Garfield.
But am I wrong to feel there's something just a little frightening about redneck guy + gun + sign advocating killing public officials + presidential appearance + American presidents' habit of getting their heads blown off?
Only if you're an elected official, should you be frightened, and that is precisely the point.
I thought McKinley was shot in the torso.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm sick of your McKinley conspiracy bullshit.
Citizen Nothing, that depends on ones definition of pro-gun. Mine involves pushing for our second amendment rights. If I were a criminal, or thinking of becoming a criminal, I'd much prefer more strict gun controls, making my illegal violent act much safer. So, I'd likely consider myself in support of anti-gun legislation.
I'd likely consider myself in support of anti-gun legislation.
You would, fascist.
"Come on, breath in, relax a little, let it out."
I'm pretty relaxed GD, as I said up thread your mom saw to that.
And curiously "let it out" is what she said to me to...
The problem is my dick wouldn't be aerodynamic enough if it were aimed at a woman.
There's a feminist joke in there somewhere.
Do you know there's a huge monument on the Antietem battlefield, commemorating (then Sergeant) McKinley's ability to get coffee and grub to Union troops under fire?
True story.
Bullshit. Elected officials should not have to live in fear of being shot. They should have to live in fear of not being reelected.
These protesters don't like the party in charge. The responsible citizenshippy thing to do is work on getting your guys elected next time. Not threaten social unrest. These are all policy differences, but some have turned it into a battle for civilization itself, which is crazy talk since civilization barely survived the last time their guys were in charge.
That's really the best reason I've ever heard for voting for a president who actually got elected.
"Do you know there's a huge monument on the Antietem battlefield, commemorating (then Sergeant) McKinley's ability to get coffee and grub to Union troops under fire?"
By any chance was it built during the McKinley administration?
But am I wrong to feel there's something just a little frightening about redneck guy + gun + sign advocating killing public officials + presidential appearance + American presidents' habit of getting their heads blown off?
Here's a little thought experiment. If you had any intention of offing the president, would you be the guy standing there with a pistol openly displayed and holding a sign? Really, even somebody as bedbug crazy as Squeaky Fromme knew better than that.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm sick of your McKinley conspiracy bullshit.
You can't keep the truth buried forever, you fascist!
Shorter Tony:
The majority is always right, so shut the fuck up you wingnuts.
"These are all policy differences, but some have turned it into a battle for civilization itself, which is crazy talk since civilization barely survived the last time their guys were in charge."
Tony, this was a great comment until after the second comma, where you essentially do the same over the top hyperbole-mindset you denounced so well earlier.
By any chance was it built during the McKinley administration?
I'm willing to bet on it!
People who go on "shooting sprees" are more likely to be anti-people than anything else.
(NTTAWT)
The problem is my dick wouldn't be aerodynamic enough if it were aimed at a woman.
Just because it is tethered doesn't mean you can't pop it around the court a few times before it inevitably snaps back.
"You can't keep the truth buried forever, you fascist!"
The truth maybe, but we can keep McKinley buried forever. Face it X, he ain't coming back to save you, "we've" seen to that...
but some have turned it into a battle for civilization itself, which is crazy talk since civilization barely survived the last time their guys were in charge.
Once again, pot and kettle are hanging out on either side of a comma in one of Tony's sentences, not speaking to each other.
The responsible citizenshippy thing to do is work on getting your guys elected next time. Not threaten social unrest.
So, civil disobedience is never justified?
Yes, Tony, there is something wrong about feeling terrified just because another, upon whom is hung the amorphous moniker "redneck," shows up with a gun at the site of a presidential appearance.
Tony, even if some person gunned down Obama, so what?
I thought McKinley was shot in the torso.
I even went loose with "head blown off".
^^^I already covered that.
Garfield was the one I couldnt remember. So, two to head, two to torso?
Not exactly an epidemic.
MNG, Zombie McKinley would like to have a few words with you.
2 things:
1. CBS ran a story yesterday (it was their #2 story) on its morning show on the rise of scary right-wing militias, based entirely on the SPLC report. In fact, it was an SPLC press release with better production values.
2. On the Steven Weber/Huffpo piece quoted above: Nothing says "those people are crazy!" like an unhinged, spittle-flecked blog post about the crazies.
Zombie Coolidge for Emperor!
Now with even less talking.
^^^I already covered that.
Criticizing my pedantry is a very fascist thing to do, robc. You sure you wanna go down that road?
MNG, the aerobics class shooter was a 48yo virgin whole took out his rage on a class full of women, how exactly does that relate to being antigovernment. Please get your damn facts straight dumbfuck.
They should have to live in fear of not being reelected.
So you're on board with us in scrapping McCain-Feingold, and all the other incumbent protection measures currently in place?
There's a huge statue of McKinley within sight of my office. We just need David Blain to bring him to life.
Blaine
Tony does not appear to understand that the position he takes, as usual, supports mob rule and violence.
Of course, giant McKinley would probably just be shot by giant Leon Czolgosz.
Just because you have a right doesn't make it necessary to practice it at all times in the most obnoxious way possible.
And yet, you keep exercising your freedom of speech, don't you?
But am I wrong to feel there's something just a little frightening about redneck guy + gun + sign advocating killing public officials + presidential appearance + American presidents' habit of getting their heads blown off?
Well, since the poster made referense to the quote about the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants, and since we can safely assume that the gentleman with the poster and the pistol considers himself a patriot, then what concern would Obama have? I mean, unless you consider him a tyrrant.
Zombie Coolidge for Emperor!
If I get invited for dinner at the White House, I think I'll decline.
And Czolgosz was...wait for it... an anarchist.
See where this is going?
I don't use it to shout down speakers at town halls. Human social interaction is governed by more things than the law, you know.
Bullshit. Elected officials should not have to live in fear of being shot. They should have to live in fear of not being reelected.
This would be all well and good if it wasn't eminently clear that in the last big election, many, many people voted for someone they knew little about, and much of what they knew was false. Not only that, but despite many of our best, civil efforts, criminal nut-jobs are re-elected, while small government proponents, looking out for our rights, are maligned, and voted out. Eventually you have to acknowledge that the "civil" efforts aren't working, and the system is broken. Where does that leave freedom loving people? What should we do when we see our rights and freedoms being bargained away? Call our congress critter for the umpteenth time?
Yes, it is. But just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to do it, right? I mean, that's your whole argument against carrying a firearm to Obama's town hall after all.
"Hey GD, no reason to badger your mother. She's, er, busy with me at the minute anways. Doesn't have a free hand to look up a link for ya if ya understand."
Epic, Epic. Fail.
"how exactly does that relate to being antigovernment. Please get your damn facts straight dumbfuck."
Enyap
Go read the guy's diary you dumbfuck. Or have someone read it to you.
I'm in favor of public financing of elections, yes.
""Come on, breath in, relax a little, let it out."
I'm pretty relaxed GD, as I said up thread your mom saw to that."
Belicose@Bradenberg is not me, dumbass.
i.e., Tony cares no more for the First Amendment than the Second.
Because your guys weren't elected?
"Tony does not appear to understand that the position he takes, as usual, supports mob rule and violence."
Uhh, LM, didn't you just say "so what if someone shoots the President?" That seems a bit more supportive of violence to me. I mean, WTF buddy?
"Just because you have a right doesn't make it necessary to practice it at all times in the most obnoxious way possible."
And just because citizens have the "right to petition the Government for redress of grievances", doesn't mean they should be allowed to actually, like, do it.
Or, more fairly, Tony's understanding of the First is as flawed as is his understanding of the Second.
"These protesters don't like the party in charge."
These AMERICANS don't like the PRESIDENT in charge (FIFY):
RASMUSSEN POLL: Obama Approval Rating Falls to New Low: 47 %...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
It is certainly justified when an injustice is being perpetrated on you and there are no institutional recourses. A president trying to enact an agenda that was part of his campaign platform isn't quite the same thing.
I'm in favor of public financing of elections, yes.
No potential for fraud, waste, or abuse there!
MNG, I don't carry a gun very often, mostly because it's a big pain in the ass
Try using a holster. (It's a lot less painful.)
From the Pittsuburgh shooter's online diary: "Good luck to Obama! He will be successful. The liberal media LOVES him. Amerika has chosen The Black Man."
Later he remarks that he got a raise "even in this Obama economy."
Most killing sprees are done by guys who got raises.
It's true.
It is certainly justified when an injustice is being perpetrated on you and there are no institutional recourses. A president trying to enact an agenda that was part of his campaign platform isn't quite the same thing.
Bullshit. That logic indicates that if a President, as part of his campaign platform, tried to reinstate segregation (yes, it's a hypothetical), that civil disobedience wouldn't be appropriate.
Civil disobedience is appropriate whenever you are trying to fight a perceived injustice. It doesn't matter if you're trying to stop a war (that could also have been part of a campaign platform) or trying to prevent a healthcare package that they feel will only make the problems worse.
A simple case of buyer's remorse. Obama promised hope and change and people said "Yes Change!" Now the change they voted for is suddenly scary and holy shit, it's expensive too. Everybody wants something different, but very few want to change.
First, let me say i really liked the posts about interests rates, and almost got sidetracked by that douche bag state legislator. But i saw 200+ comments and figured there may be a few good chucks in here. I should have skipped it as i have the clones due to the tacit "Rethuglican" support that's prevalent throughout the posts and comment section. My curiosity got the better of me. I trekked through fifty, and i couldn't take it anymore.
Hence,
JOHN stop getting all your news from Fox news, NRO, or TOWNHALL . com. Seriously, it has really fucked up your logic in your pursuit of perpetually gotcha leftist games. Check you closet, im sure there's a Che wearing smoking homo in there ready to quote some MArx on your ass or something.
Try The Economist, it's a lot smarter, but still has a hint of that bias you so crave. After that who knows, maybe you can read American Prospect and form a counter opinion absent the racist lefty boogie mans that Sean Hannity et al have drilled into your big retarded head.
Thank you for reading about my day here at HIt and run
PS
STFU until further notice
Sincerely,
someone who's tired of scrolling through drivel.
Liberals weren't very happy under Republican rule. And we protested all the time. Peacefully for the most part. In fact some of the biggest protests in the history of the world occurred under Bush. But we knew what we were protesting. Teabaggers don't appear to be acquainted with a single fact in this debate. They're protesting phantom bogeymen Glenn Beck invented out of thin air. Such as:
Obama will take our guns!
Obama will kill my granny!
Obama will set up concentration camps for white people!
Keep your government hands off my medicare!
Again, I'm not telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I'm saying that if there's any pragmatic point to protesting, it is best to be informed by facts and not mere hysteria.
Richard Poplawski, who weeks ago lured police to his home and killed several of them "feared "the Obama gun ban" that he felt was "on its way." Poplawski also "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."
The progressive mind has now been explained.
Zombie Ants Controlled by Fungus
I suppose it depends on how you define civil disobedience. Are you talking about illegal acts? Merely protesting an item of policy is one thing. Not understanding the difference between a policy change and the end of civilization as we know it is another.
"Motivated by a desire to kill liberals and Democrats, gunman Jim David Adkisson fired a shotgun at members of the congregation during a youth performance of a musical, killing two people and wounding seven others."
"During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office."
Dear Oh no,
You really should have read through to the Zombie Cavlin Cooledge.
That is all.
Twit.
Poster "Oh no" @ 1:13 is so tired of scrolling through drivel, that he felt the need to add his own. Thanks for the irrelevant mental masturbation, yo. Next time, do it in a private place.
Tony, even if some person gunned down Obama, so what?
Sorry to interupt, but you do realize if that was to happen, what would rise from the ashes would be stronger, scarier, and definitly more socialist than before, don't you?
DISCLAIMER: I no own gun, and yes i'm guilty of not voting for him, but love his cute ass just the same. Those ears are so sexy just want to give em a pinch on the cheek.
No, Obama won't kill my granny. He will, however, kill any Indian chiefs he gets his hands on.
MNG, really, do you know how breathtakingly dishonest it is for you to try to tie lone gunmen and protesters together?
This is way beneath you.
"Poplawski also "didn't like our rights being infringed upon.""
Most guys who do killing sprees don't like their rights being infringed upon.
It's true.
So you know, when folks angry at liberals show up to public events with a gun and a sign proclaiming it's time to start killing people in the name of some right wing cause, it just might make some folks a lil' nervous...
"Like old faithful, Gilbert Martin shows up to make my point for me. Conservatives are incapable of being satirized, they are walking satire..."
That's funny coming from someone who has been a walking parody his whole life.
MNG, I think they'd have to show up with a egg whisk or something, wouldn't they?
Sorry, MNG, I completely misread your post. I though you said "when liberals show up...with a gun."
TAO
Try to pay attention. My point all thread has been to try to point out why it is some people are nervous or upset about the actions of some of the protestors.
So you have no frame of reference here, TAO. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...
By the way, that one was for you, 'Oh no not this again'. With your hard on for the Fox, I knew you would apreesh.
No need to thank me, just drink your chamomile and stop sulking already.
As I said upthread, personally I thought the dude in NH seemed like a concerned and active citizen. Eccentric, yes.
But given recent history, I can see why some people were made nervous by him, or any angry right wing person coming to a public event and getting all loudly angry.
Did I type Cavlin Cooledge? I picked the wrong day to give up sniffing glue.
Tony, who are my guys? As far as I can tell, I only have a couple people in the whole of the federal government, that actually attempt to uphold the constitution, let alone are "my guys". We have a system in which people have been voting themselves goodies for years, which is slowly eroding our independence. People don't realize the full impact (or even a small portion) of their votes.
I ask, where are those of us who just want to be left alone to manage our own affairs in peace to go as government becomes more and more invasive? What are we to do when it is apparent that a large portion of the population is intent on seeing us all enslaved for their misguided utopian visions?
Or, when will people in this country wake up to the fact that punishing the rich, and taxing/regulating companies into moving out, is a sure way to not having, first the rich, and second, any jobs? When will people realize that we shouldn't have what we can't pay for? When will politicians finally admit that much of the past 100 years of legislation has been misguided and unconstitutional, and should have been enacted by states, or localities, not the federal government?
I just don't see it happening until we have something sufficiently impactful, to cause a complete restructure, but even then I have little hope that it will turn out better.
/rant off
CN
Pussies sniff, men huff.
it just might make some folks a lil' nervous...
Wel, put yer Big Girl panties on, Granny!
Right, MNG, so when you said this:
It was to merely make the benign point that "people" (WHO? - Get a link!) are "afraid" of protesters because lone gunmen talk like they do.
Get real. I'm not buying that horseshit.
Just as a hypothetical, is it the fact that he had a gun or the fact that he displayed it openly? Where I live, we only have concealed carry (of handguns, anyway) so if I show up at a protest with my TJ quotes on a sign, you folks have no clue if I'm packing.
Are you still disturbed by the idea? Or is it just that it was visible? Honestly, I'm confused here. Help me out.
If I was at a Nixon rally in 1969 and an armed Black Panther looking dude came up to the event I'd be a little nervous too...It amazes me how people cannot even fucking understand other people's motivations and mindsets...
TAO,
But i enjoyed myself so much, i decided to stay and wank again.
Are you worried that you all sound the same?
Sorry if you want to equate lefty protesters with what's going on now, but that requires a prescription which due to recent celebrity death jacking can no be filled.
If i remember correctly, which may be a stretch. They were protesting things like murder, torture, killing civilians, and unjust war. Much different than the false assertion that grandma is gonna get her plug cranked then tanked down the toilet because only good socialists get to stay buried.
But you go ahead and be crude, shrill, and otherwise irrelevent. Enjoy yourself, i hope your anger holds out a good long time.
In other words, MNG, your real point here was to smear your opponents and defend the unions by saying "hey, you guys talk like the lone gunmen did!"
Yeah, and we also talk like Thomas Jefferson, so shut up.
Poster "Oh no" - yeah, we get it. The things your side was protesting were valid. These aren't, because they are on the other side.
Not exactly an insight.
I almost forgot. No hit and run thread is complete without
TEH UNIONS......ARGLKEBARGLEARGLE
TAO
Someone tried to equate a fear of SEIU goons with a fear of right wing extremists.
But that's a bad analogy as I pointed out.
Don't make me school you again and have you go all "waah, you're a dishonest debater I'm leaving." It was worse than your "waaah, you just want to tear down but never build up" nervous breakdown. Seeing grown men cry makes me uncomfortable, so why don't you run along and re-read The Fountainhead...
TAO,
I never said that, but how interesting you went for the easy way out. Oh there's lots of things to not like about the lastest episode of health reform. I just like to make fun of people who act like dumbasses in public. It's easy to kick and scream, but will that be enough to win though?
you only "school" me in your own small mind, tiny stuff. Maybe you want to reiterate how you don't mind punching people to "temporarily enslave" them?
Your comparison was transparent. And I note that you still haven't provided any evidence that people are actually afraid. Last time you were asked for it, you resorted to "I FUCKED YOUR MOM", which is MNGspeak for "I don't have any evidence".
Hey guys. What are we talking about this time?
Ohhh... some idiot's blog. Sweet. Tony's here I see. Good, good times. Also - let me just say that William Kosick or whatever the hell his polish last name was did an appearance on Chris Matthews of all places and made me very very proud.
On national TV a man was allowed to say he carried a gun because it was his right to do so and essentially, "use it or lose it". Makes me want to go buy a handgun.
I never protested with the lefties
That is all
You see, SEIU "goons" haven't run out and shot up places recently, while right wing extremists have.
And SO when a right wing extremist shows up at a public event with a gun and a sign saying in effect "people have to be killed every now and then" yes, people might be upset and nervous.
So the analogy is pretty piss-poor as we used to say.
Gee I wonder why the Dems and their talking head puppets in the main-stream media didn't scream "terrorist" at all those ACORN operatives who were staking out the homes of financial executives and ginning up death threats against them.
Come now TAO I explained this on the other thread. You had no answer so you made a one sentence assertion and ran away crying....Go back and read the thread and do the best you can, this one is about something else.
I suppose it depends on how you define civil disobedience. Are you talking about illegal acts?
You know, things like the sit in's in the 60's? While technically illegal, no one is harmed in any way. Shit just gets disrupted.
Yeah, I know what it means.
Merely protesting an item of policy is one thing. Not understanding the difference between a policy change and the end of civilization as we know it is another.
No shit. What you're not getting is that people are pissed, not just because of the bill, but the method in which it's being rammed down the nation's throat. The Democratic leadership's reponse hasn't exactly helped engender trust with a soul. Calling people who oppose these bills "nazis" sure as hell doesn't make me want to talk nice. I'll do it, but I don't fault others for taking offense.
Democrats and Republicans both look the other way when "their guy" tries this shit. It's wrong no matter who's doing it.
What people?
Like John said, you're playing the guilt by association game and claiming you're making a benign point. It was dishonest when Dunphy did it with the "full of holes" comment, and it's dishonest when you do it.
Oh was it just last February and early March, it seems so long ago on this hazy August day that the liberals were quite pleased with the mobs that gathered to lynch AIG executives and all the riffraff on Wall Street.
Yes, quite pleased with the mobs doing their bidding, even though the actions of these liberal legislatures were crony capitalist to the gills, they enjoyed the extra 'hand' the unruly mobs gave them.
Obama declared to the men of Wall Street, 'I am the only thing between you and the pitchforks.'
Now the pitchforks are turned to the liberal democrats. Not so much fun now is it.
Oh-ho-ho, laughing my ass off, you are not going to get your way, and you are pissed. Kick all the sand you want, just adds to the funny.
How long until Team Constitutional Scholar finds a way to use the Patriot Act to "protect" right-thinking Americans from the scourge of delusional cranks?
Sorry, MNG, I can't read that thread because I'm hungry, and it's your fault for not sending me food. I'm IN NEED!
Right MNG, he was driven to kill by his anti government views, not his relationship troubles. That's why he shot up a Obama rally instead of a women's fitness class. Any other incidents you wish to connect to right wing extremist, even though anyone outside of a partisan dickhead like yourself could see it was not a motive.
What right wing extremists are you referring to MNG? Those peaceably protesting unconstitutional, unread, unfinished legislation which will reduce choice, and increase costs and national debt? Yeah, they're much worse than people following orders of their union leaders, trying to block regular folks trying to express their concerns to their representatives.
You know i've only head of ACORN once or twice before 2008 as a voter mobility org. aimed at the poor. Big scary boogie man right there. Did it take you all of ten minutes picking that group's name out of a hat as your new pet librul demon? Good job (clapping sounds, but not the Clap)
I've only heard of the SEIU thugs at two places, HERE and FOX NEWS. Big surprise.
Guys, word up (hand twanging), if you don't want to mistakenly called Republicans you have to do a much better job of seperating.
"Some guy whose politics weren't really known shot up some women, so I am therefore justified in being afraid of a calm man with a pistol on his hip."
What fucking nonsense.
Alright, if you want your ass handed to you again. I noticed your pussy ass ran off yesterday during our debate, and then came back and had no answer even hours later.
"MNG | August 12, 2009, 12:59pm | #
SO TAO what you are saying is that it is OK to enslave someone when they are not in the right, or when they violate someone's rights?
Which is of course what I've said all along. The doctor is doing something wrong, is violating the rights of the dying man.
Thanks for playing!"
That was my last word for you. Live the dream bigshot.
"Again, I'm not telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I'm saying that if there's any pragmatic point to protesting, it is best to be informed by facts and not mere hysteria."
The science is settled...
But Belicose,
Did they barge in and shout down the poor oppressed bankers. Was their voice diminshed at all? Or did the crowds outside, stay outside holding their signs looking all sad and stuff?
Enyap
Er, did you read my posts above? Like the shooter of the cops, or at the church? Like I said, get someone to read them for you or act them out with puppets if you're not getting it.
Dude, that is a terrible argument, for the reasons that Fluffy outlined. I didn't need to add anything to that. Bottom line, you should sell all of your worldly possessions and ship the money to Africa, you murderer.
Leftists keep pushing and backing freedom-loving Americans into a corner. They have plenty of socialist paradises to choose from, but freedom-loving Americans have nowhere to go.
I predict push-back will happen at some point, and the Leftists should get out before that happens.
I don't get it - a man has a gun on his hip with a sign, and that's justification for being nervous, but we're supposed to be A-OK with the Secret Service and the guns on their hips?
Um, why?
Oh no not this again | August 13, 2009, 1:38pm | #
But Belicose,
Did they barge in and shout down the poor oppressed bankers. Was their voice diminshed at all? Or did the crowds outside, stay outside holding their signs looking all sad and stuff?
Poor fell, victim of the 48 hour news cycle. Unaware of any greater context. Blame it all on Fox, and rock on, gold dust woman!
"Motivated by a desire to kill liberals and Democrats, gunman Jim David Adkisson fired a shotgun at members of the congregation during a youth performance of a musical, killing two people and wounding seven others."
The faith-based thugs of Oakland's Your Black Muslim Bakery
Here is the situation regarding the enterprise known as Your Black Muslim Bakery, located on San Pablo Avenue in Oakland, Calif. Its founder, a man named Yusuf Bey, was arrested in 2002 and charged with forcing an underage girl to have sex. Subsequent investigation suggested that he had a long history of rape and abuse of his followers and had by this means fathered numerous children out of wedlock. Bey died in September 2003 before his case could come to trial. His son Yusuf Bey IV has since been arrested twice, first on suspicion of leading a gang that had trashed two Oakland liquor stores and intimidated their owners, and second (and perhaps less Islamically) for running over a San Francisco bouncer with his car. Nedir Bey, one of Yusuf Bey's "spiritually adopted" sons, is also alleged to have beaten a possible business rival with a flashlight, while another member of the gang tortured the victim with a heated knife.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171745/
I wonder who they voted for?
JB,
Hasn't the "push back" to some extent already started? I don't want to see civil war really, but let's be honest, when the alternative to freedom is a jackboot up your ass (and to all you liberals/socialists out there right now, I'm referring to you most of all here), what choices really remain?
At some point, we are going to have to either take back the country and reaffirm its Constitution or get the hell out. Where we might go is anyone's guess at this point though... I vote some place warm. Or alternatively, space. And by "we", I mean people who actually give a shit about liberty.
Jb. What leftists are pushing and why.
TAO
You guys think you're cute with the "enslavement" thing, but it's built on shabby foundations that a freshman philosophy student could notice.
You guys say "enslavement=coercion" because when you enslave someone, you make them do things you want them to do but they don't want them to do. And so, making a doctor help when he doesn't want to, that's ENSLAVEMENT!
But then, you guys believe in making people do things they don't want to do via force too. For example, you support using force to make a thief put that apple he stole back.
But then you say "but that's different, we only support using force to make someone do something when the person is doing something wrong!"
Well no shit Sgt. Brilliance. Of course so does my side. We think that in withholding his skills from the dying man the doctor is doing something wrong. We think this is wrong because the consequences of his action or inaction are human suffering and/or death.
This is hardly some new fucking concept or widely discredited one. In fact, utilitarianism has a longer history than your goofy objectivism and is more widely respected in more philosophy departments and law schools.
But you're "response" is to say "bad faith arguing, I'm going home, mommy!" A typical thing for a cocky adolescent whose skills and knowledge didn't match, when challenged, the confidence he had in his black-and-white worldview...
Right - I'll wait for notice that you sold all of your stuff and sent the money to Africa.
Murderer.
Do you know the difference between "WAAAH!" and "MNG, you're a fucking waste of time"?
Maybe not, not that I particularly care. your opinion of me matters not.
"Try to pay attention. My point all thread has been to try to point out why it is some people are nervous or upset about the actions of some of the protestors" by posting lone gunman stories in lieu of providing a shred of evidence.
FIFY
Ooh, and in other news, clearly [Top 40 Artist[ is the best musician on the planet.
Any other appeals to popularity/authority you wish to make?
"I don't get it - a man has a gun on his hip with a sign, and that's justification for being nervous, but we're supposed to be A-OK with the Secret Service and the guns on their hips?"
Maybe because we haven't had Secret Servicemen opened fire on groups of people lately?
Well, I know you are terrible at the analogy game, but what makes an analogy apt or not involves many of the characterstics at play; the more that match the stronger the analogy, see? And you left out that it was not just "a man with a gun" it was a man with a gun with at a public event most people would think a gun doesn't belong holding a sign with a rightwing oriented message about killing people.
Jesus, are you on crack or something today?
MNG = Ed Schultz?
Trying to link Poplawski a neonazi to the healthcare protesters is every bit as retarded as trying to link them to a angry 48yo virgins.
But Belicose,
Was i wrong? DId they storm in and stop wall street from functioning? Did someone get trampled or shouted down? I don't remember hearing about it? Oh wait there was some pitchfork comment wasn't there, but even that was said at a conversational level. Oh no corporate accountability to the MAX.
I don't get my news from the tee bee, sorry.
MNG - it was man openly carrying a weapon. BFD. Try not to wet your panties over it.
In other news, you still haven't provided any evidence that people were even "afraid" of the guy.
People with one undergraduate class in logic are stupider than people with none, because they think they've got some handle on the matter. "Oh, that's one of those argument ad populum my prof talked about, I so got you dude!"
But it's not, is it TAO? Look at it again. I don't mention utilitarianism is true because it is so widely respected and accepted, I argue that it is absurd to say someone is arguing from bad faith when he invokes utilitarianism, seeing as how utilitarianism is so widely respected and accepted.
Summer school is now in session. Sit up straight Mr. Optimist, and spit out that gum!
But i did see him on TV. He looked retarded and starved for attention.
Sean, I'm thinking some kind of sea-stedding is the most likely possible course other than taking back the country. Of course by saying that I'm sure that some on here consider me a right-wing extremist. Fits I guess since I fit quite well into the definitions provided by both my state MO, and Nopolitano.
Of course, as my office mates inform me, the constitution is an old, moldy document that is completely irrelevant anymore anyway.
"Last time you were asked for it, you resorted to "I FUCKED YOUR MOM", which is MNGspeak for "I don't have any evidence"."
Thank you TAO.
The invocation of utilitarianism was not what made your argument bad faith. It was the fact that you knew that you were totally distorting and were full of shit and still persisted.
Kind of like now. Kind of like always.
Er, even the right wing guys upthread noted that surely someone out there is afraid of what the guy did. It's not rocket science.
You don't think some people are afraid of even just a guy carrying a gun in public? I mean, even if the people who were afraid are the pussy liberals that roam your fantasies, they are out there right? I mean, WTF what a terrible argument!
But my point has been all along that given the widely reported news stories of shooters motivated by right-wing anger, an angry right wing guy with a gun at a public event might make folks afraid or nervous. Again, you don't have to be Sigmund Freud to understand this...
Hasn't the "push back" to some extent already started?
Not really. This stuff is all minor. I predict a lot more violence in the days to come.
The only way I see forestalling that is these three things happening:
1. Democrats like Obama, Pelosi, and their ilk calm down and stop trying to push awful legislation. Stick to a few, small targeted reforms in certain areas and include some that actually involve reform instead of making things worse and handing out free money to all their crooked buddies.
2. Cutting the deficit and debt by cutting spending. Raising taxes to do this would be a very, very bad idea.
3. Avoiding inflation by doing #1 and #2 fast enough.
Honestly, I don't see any of those happening. People are very pissed because they see the current spending and know that their taxes are going to go up tremendously. Every Tom, Dick, and Bob I talk to understands this and it doesn't matter how much Obama lies about it.
The Democrats are calling Americans 'Nazis' for understanding basic math and that is infuriating people.
This was the most retarded straw-man I've ever seen. In my life.
Well done MNG. You fucktard.
"We" favor the NON-INITIATION of force you twat. If someone is beating you up, you can hit back! If someone's stolen from you, you may reclaim your stolen property.
The reason it's ok to use force against a thief or a murderer is because that's a correction - a defense - against the initiation of force. The fact that a thief doesn't want to give the stolen goods back has no bearing on that point.
Any freshman philosophy student could find the holes in what you just said - because what you said is the most idiotic failure to understand basic tenants of libertarian philosophy I've ever seen. A strawman like that deserves kudos... And possibly a medal for dumbest thing I've read today.
Is JB John, no wait, he's a pinch smarter so he can't be him. He does have that Fox news smell to him though.
MNG,
I'm not one to throw "facist" or "Nazi" around trivially, largely because it make the person doing so seem shrill and lacking perspective, but there's an in-kind difference between when protestors do it to heckle the authorities and when the authorities do it to try to shut down debate. What the Dems are doing now is more analogous to the Republicans accusations that people who don't agree with them sympathize with terrorists in order to circumscribe the "acceptable" debate, and much worse than the everyday name calling that's common to any group of sufficiently excitable dissenters.
First of all, you said that people "are" worried, not "might be" - an assertion you have still failed to provide any evidence for.
Second of all, what proof do you have that he was "angry"? This is just you attempting to paint the man as an "angry right-wing nutcase, just like those lone shooters".
It's obvious to everybody, including you, and yet you persist in claiming a benign motivation. Nobody believes you.
And I'll note that you still haven't tried to offer some principle for distinguishing your "enslavement" from mine and hell you've had over a day to do so.
Because you don't have one, which is typical.
"You know i've only head of ACORN once or twice before 2008 as a voter mobility org. aimed at the poor."
Flaunting your ignorance becomes you.
But then, you guys believe in making people do things they don't want to do via force too. For example, you support using force to make a thief put that apple he stole back.
It takes an amazing display of dishonesty to pretend not to understand the difference between forcing a doctor to do something against his will and punishing a criminal. Who do you think is fooled by this blatant false equivalency?
Forcing people to work for you or the benefit of someone else is slavery. All the bullshit you want to shovel is not going to change that. A slave doesn't give a fuck why he's a slave, so being a slave for the sake of your defintion of fairness is not sufficient.
Utilitarianism is widely respected. By people who are comfortable with sacrificing the individual. Who gives fuck what collectivist assholes think about anything?
Utilitarianism supports slavery. Utilitarianism is comfortable killing 50 random people to save 51 random people. It's a monstrous philosophy adhered to by moral midgets.
"holding a sign with a rightwing oriented message about killing people.
So now Thomas Jefferson is "right wing"? Shit... I must be confused about my history entirely.
Over these last ten years or so, i still haven't learned which is worse being a called a Nazi or being called a Nazi enabler. I guess the world will never know.
Well i've abused this lunch break for all it's worth. Be good Ye all, i think im hooked for another day.
You betcha.
"That was my last word for you."
Another broken MNG promise. I wonder who he gets that from?
Gunboat,
Don't be pretending Acorn was all the rage a few years ago. Your dementia is showing.
Smooches
Where TAO pussies out Mr. Malone steps up.
Mr. Malone
Why is using force to make the theif put the apple back OK or not "enslavement" but my forcing the doctor to treat the dying man is not OK and is enslavement? You offer that one is done as a "correction", by which you mean that it is done to right a wrong.
Well, the withholding of needed treatment is a wrong. I'm correcting it.
Thanks for playing!
I live in the ghetto, dipshit. I have seern this racist organization in action for more than 8 years.
This is such a blatant lie. Fluffy argued it. I argued it. SugarFree is showing it to you now.
This version of "What argument?" is a tiring game and it's why I told you fuck off yesterday - because you're arguing in bad faith.
Did you (MNG) actually even watch this?
William Kostric on Hardball
"Second of all, what proof do you have that he was "angry"?"
Uh, the sign about killing people?
"you said that people "are" worried, not "might be" - an assertion you have still failed to provide any evidence for. "
Jesus you are dumb. OK, Tony is worried, he said so upthread. The people on tv are worried. Etc. They are people.
You lose.
Universalize that. Every withholding of everything "needed" is wrong, and is therefore correctable by force.
What kind of world is that, MNG? It's a world of slaves. The fact that you refuse to recognize that your principle is not universalizable is appalling.
"But then, you guys believe in making people do things they don't want to do via force too. For example, you support using force to make a thief put that apple he stole back."
LOL
What nonsense.
The thief was the one who instituted force against the victim to begin with.
That's not evidence of anger.
"Forcing people to work for you or the benefit of someone else is slavery."
So if I vandalize your house, and I am forced to clean the paint off, that's slavery?
Hmm, all the elements are there.
Force? Check.
Making someone do something for the benefit of another? Check.
Are you going to fall on the "correction" thing? Addressed it upthread.
TAO
See how easy this is? Bad faith huh?
"Was i wrong? DId they storm in and stop wall street from functioning?"
Have the protestes stop Washington from functioning?
Fish in a barrel.
Is JB John, no wait, he's a pinch smarter so he can't be him. He does have that Fox news smell to him though.
And you know what is 'fishy' right?
You would know being such a fishy cunt.
I get most of my news from reason and the internets. I don't watch tv news at all and I'm a hardcore libertarian. I do hate Leftists more than Rightists because they are much more dangerous currently and throughout history.
Also, if I could keep even 90% of my income, I could buy all the social freedom I want. I would much rather have economic freedom over social freedom because you can always buy social freedom (just look at the current status of drugs and prostitution).
Wow, MNG, you are retarded aren't you?
"Why is using force to make the theif put the apple back OK or not "enslavement" but my forcing the doctor to treat the dying man is not OK and is enslavement? You offer that one is done as a "correction", by which you mean that it is done to right a wrong."
Because the DOCTOR IS A FREE GODDAMN HUMAN BEING WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO USE HIS SKILLS AS HE SEES FIT! AND NOT IN WHATEVER WAY YOU THINK IS "RIGHT".
Do you have no understanding of force? Do you have not the slightest ability to make a distinction between someone who is violating another person's right to personal sovereignty by harming their physical person or stealing their property and someone who is or might refuse service to someone else?
Do you not realize that if you are forcing someone to do something with their time, their property or their life that is against their will - to whatever extent - it is YOU who are the fucking aggressor!?
A doctor is a human being you piece of shit, not a health-care providing machine for you to point at whoever you want and who should be bound by your concept of "wrong".
I note that you keep falling back on acts, not on failures to act.
When are you selling your stuff to send the money to Africa?
Gun boat I live in south Chicago and take trips to Roseland and other ghetto places for work and I've never seen this racist acorn in action. In conclusion mines bigger than yours stfu
God god you are an idiot MNG... What the fuck!?
You used to be semi-reasonable... An idiot, but semi-reasonable, and now you've gone completely off the deep end.
Can you please at least fucking TRY to make a distinction between someone who initiates force against another person and someone who uses force to stop a crime?
To MNG, "forcing" someone to make amends for the force they initiated is the same thing as "forcing" someone to work for free, without any notion of responsibility.
1:52 - "I don't get my news from the tee bee, sorry."
1:55 - "But i did see him on TV. He looked retarded and starved for attention."
Dude can't last 3 minutes.
Epic, Epic, Epic. Fail.
In a stable democracy you "take your country back" by influencing public thought via free speech and assembly and work to get representatives who share your views elected to office.
Just because you assert that things the government is doing violates the constitution doesn't make it so. We have people whose job it is to determine whether that's the case, and it's not yours.
And I dearly hope our courts eventually get around to deciding that imprisonment and torture by presidential fiat is unconstitutional.
Returning taxation to Clinton levels and enacting a social program that is nearly a century in the making is hardly the end of American civilization.
My problem here is this ahistorical, propaganda-fueled hysteria that actually subverts all of the goals of pragmatic democracy. Rightwingers and libertarians alike have a real problem with assuming that their fringe beliefs are some sort of default and that any policy that doesn't accord with their idea of utopia is treason.
Ha ha TAO, you play the Kantian very poorly...I know you better.
But I don't have to universalize it that way, now do I? I can do it this way:
"Any person who has something that would directly save the life or decrease the suffering of another human being is morally bound to give that thing."
But even better, I can just do what you asked. Yes, everyone should do whatever they can to provide what they have to reduce human death and suffering. That's hardly unthinkable (note, if you gave so much that you, or your dependents, would suffer, then you have to factor that against doing it; also utilitarians take human psychology as important, if actual humans could not live saving other people 24 hours a day without collapsing or going insane, then they should do less, because in doing so they would, you got it, maximize the good, which is their ultimate criteria overall)
Well no shit Sgt. Brilliance. Of course so does my side. We think that in withholding his skills from the dying man the doctor is doing something wrong. We think this is wrong because the consequences of his action or inaction are human suffering and/or death.
Of course you pick the example most conducive to your argument, when that isn't even at argument. The Hippocratic oath, provides this, and is agreed upon by people on both sides, at least until it's a baby not quite born yet, or someone who has too little quality of life.
But what about people who don't want to have their money, time, and choice forcibly taken from them, to support things that not only don't agree with but are morally opposed to? Why is it that I have to provide money for corrupt and wasteful programs that I believe are harmful, in the long run, to their supposed benefactors? Why do polititians think it is their right to take my earnings to do things which I otherwise would have the freedom to choose or not as I see fit? Why do we think the government can decide better how to invest for my retirement? Why do we think they can decide better how to care for my health? And even if they could, what right do they have to take my choices away from me? If I want to eat steak and cake for dinner every night, that should be my choice. If I elect to not have health insurance, that also should be within my rights. These things are in no way analogous to theft. Unless you turn it around, and talk about how the government is legally stealing from me.
Shorter TAO
To MNG, forcing someone to do something when its right to force someone to do something is the same as forcing someone to do something when it is right to force someone to do something.
You stupid fuck, you can't even see it, can you?
"The Democrats are calling Americans 'Nazis' for understanding basic math and that is infuriating people."
Maybe they just mean that the Germans have better schools.
That's so fucking arbitrary it makes me laugh. Really, what it is, is a way for you to not have to give up your comfortable existence for the children of Africa, because it would "make you suffer" -100 "happiness points" and (according to your made up fairyland measurements), the children of Africa would only benefit +99.
What a joke.
In a stable democracy you "take your country back" by influencing public thought via free speech and assembly and work to get representatives who share your views elected to office.
Just because you assert that things the government is doing violates the constitution doesn't make it so. We have people whose job it is to determine whether that's the case, and it's not yours.
Fuck you, Tony. I don't care how many of you vote to take away my fundamental rights. I don't care if there are a billion of you.
You and your ilk really want to go up against people with that attitude when you can move to your socialist paradise of choice?
You fuckers better start thinking about that.
You see, we differ on what falls into the category of "things you can use force to make someone do." We both think such a category exists.
And I've given you the criteria for why a particular act falls into that category. All you can say is "when its someone responsibility" or "as a correction" (another way of saying "when its right to do so", question bet much?)
MNG - I see you trying to draw a false equivalency. We all see that. SugarFree saw it coming a 1/2 hour ago.
Actually it was youtube a failure but maybe not so epic
"Just because you assert that things the government is doing violates the constitution doesn't make it so."
Tony, the whole point of our Constitution - the REASON it was written in common language - was so that it would be easily understood by all of the people. Your ignorance on the meaning of the US Constitution has been thoroughly examined over many threads around here, but that ignorance doesn't make any of this shit any less unconstitutional.
The US Constitution is remarkably clear about what is and what isn't a power granted to the Federal Government, and what rights the people retain. You may have heard of the Bill of Rights, which was written specifically to guarantee such things.
If you can point to the sections of the US Constitution that give congress the right to do one millionth of the things they've done in the last century, you get a gold star.
"Uh, the sign about killing people?"
Which is why it was okay to beat up that man in St. Louis. I mean, he was selling Don't Tread on Me flags.
It's arbitrary? It's all guided by "one simple principle" (libertarians should like that). The right action is the action which has the consequences that maximize the good, with the good defined as human welfare.
But you know this, or should. Now I think it's you arguing from bad faith. Should I go waaah and run home now?
"draw a false equivalency"
Remember what I said about that guy with the undergrad course in logic?
Jb has a victim complex like Johns
See how easy this is? Bad faith huh?
It is easy. You argued in bad faith by taking what I said out of context with little apparent effort.
Rule: Force people to hand over their property when someone is suffering.
Rule: Allow people to keep their property, but encourage them to help the less fortunate.
I contend that Rule 2 is better for human welfare than Rule 1. Prove me wrong.
If they are not equivalent then show me why.
Others have tried and been answered.
So, I guess if there was ever a shortage of doctors (oh wait, there is now), it would be immoral not to draft people into med school. Why aren't you in medical school, you monster?
I see MNG has given up on his laughable attempt to link the aerobics class shooter to right wing extremism.
"oh no not this again | August 13, 2009, 2:12pm | #
Gun boat I live in south Chicago and take trips to Roseland and other ghetto places for work and I've never seen this racist acorn in action. In conclusion mines bigger than yours stfu"
You said you were leaving.
Liar.
TAO
Again, easy stuff. In my example (the callous doctor) the first rule would certainly be superior in terms of minimizing human suffering. You disagree?
But you meant as a general rule, didn't you my adorable little closet rule utilitarian?
yes, as a general rule. General rules are the only rules that allow people to order their lives in a way where the law isn't constantly chaotic.
You best watch out tao is channeling Rand
"I see MNG has given up on his laughable attempt to link the aerobics class shooter to right wing extremism."
I did? Pshaw. Did you get someone to act out his diary? He had plenty of the good old fashioned racist right wing hate as a motivator, it's plain to see.
And on that note, I see you ducking the church shooter and cop killer events like Bruce Lee in a ninja fight.
channeling? I'm her reincarnation. So suck on that.
Tony, I would like to see you, or anyone else actually support the majority of the current federal programs in light of Article 1 Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment. I have yet to see any coherent justification for the government being able to tell me how much wheat I can grow for my family, or for public education, or for NEA, or well, most other programs. You say there are others who's job it is to determine this, but enough of them haven't been doing their job properly for decades as to completely screw the results.
Sean,
I think you don't understand the constitution. So there!
Now that got us real far didn't it?
You do more than imply that most everything the government has done in the last century is obviously illegal. If it's so obvious then why do only a few fringe libertarians believe it? It's not within the realm of possibility that your understanding of the law and the constitution is either seriously flawed, or simply not taken seriously by most people?
The right action is the action which has the consequences that maximize the good, with the good defined as human welfare.
And the individual can take a boot in the face if he doesn't like it.
The definition of human welfare defines the good. If you think killing bitchy uppity women who won't put out so as to send a warning to the others, then shooting up an aerobics class makes perfect sense. Such a small sacrifice on their part to maximize the welfare of so many. The philosophy of monsters.
I see you keep using my "correction" point incorrectly MNG.
When someone violates your liberty, you do have the moral right to stop them. I thought it was clear enough...
If you or your property are physically violated. That is - if they are harmed, destroyed or taken (injured, killed or enslaved) - those are examples of someone else initiating force against you. You have the right, maybe even the moral duty, to fight back.
Your problem is that you don't seem to grasp any distinction between defending yourself and attacking someone else.
When you claim the "right" to a good or a service, you are claiming the "right" to steal that good or service from the person(s) who either own or created it. But you have no such right sir. Theft is not a right you get to retain.
Regardless of how you feel about it, you don't get to take from other people to fund or support things that you think are important. Quite on the contrary, because it is you who are the aggressor in trying to steal from other people or conscript those who's skills you deem necessary to you, I - and everyone else - have the right and maybe duty to do everything in our power to stop you.
You are the aggressor MNG. Don't you get that?
And because no one has it in their power to define what the "good" or "human welfare" is, we should let people freely figure it out on their own.
Jb has a victim complex like Johns
I would say you have a cunt complex, but no, you just are a cunt.
Obama Delegate / Organizing for America Organizer Pretends to Be a Doctor at Townhall
The Lone Star Times and blogger Patterico reveal that a woman named Roxana Mayer, who claimed to be a general practitioner at town-hall event with Rep. Sheila Lee Jackson, is not in fact a doctor and was a Democratic National Convention delegate for Obama from Texas.
http://lonestartimes.com/2009/08/13/obama-camp-plants-fake-doc-che-fan-at-jackson-lee-forum/
Tony... are you fucking kidding? Before you came here, I doubt seriously that you'd ever even heard of the parts of our history as basic as even the Federalist Papers.
I'm not going to have a debate about the Constitution with you, first, because you're an idiot and a remarkably ignorant one to boot, and secondly because (again) the Founders wrote the Constitution in as plain English as they possibly could specifically so that ordinary people - as opposed to only lawyers - could understand it's meaning.
The fact that most people don't understand it, don't care or are likewise ignorant of it has no bearing on that fact. Is it all that surprising that a government which controls about 95% of all education, has created a populace that thinks everything the government does is legal & righteous? It's worked everywhere else in the world, so why not here? Ever been to China?
There are lies. There ane damn lies. And then there's Obama.
And aelhues:
I agree, Seasteading would be a great choice, but I personally have some strong doubts about that movement's leadership skills or ability to get the job done.
It doesn't help that Patri seems to spend most of his time hosting parties & going to the gym.
"To MNG, forcing someone to do something when its right to force someone to do something is the same as forcing someone to do something when it is right to force someone to do something.
You stupid fuck, you can't even see it, can you?"
We can see "it" perfectly clear.
"It" being your bullshit attemtp to draw an equivelency between a situtation where a person inititially used force against someone and a situation where someone didn't.
Apologies if someone's already pointed this out, but has anyone ever seen William and 'oh no' in the same place at the same time?
It's also fitting how this thread is every bit as contentious as one a' those political rallies I hear so much about.
3 Cheers for Contention!
I'm not a doctor, but I play one at Obama rallies.
"oh no" was too verbose, if just as stupid, to be E/L/M/W.
I'm pretty sure he's a new incarnation of "concerned observer." Same writing style, diction, (mis)capitalization and desperate irrelevance.
As you say Sean, the group doesn't provide me much hope. However the point is that there really isn't anywhere else to go. That is unless Mexico collapses, and all the socialist leaning people conveniently move to Venezuela, so we can move in behind them, and take over. Or maybe Global Warming will be kind, and open up much currently uninhabitable land that we could make a new nation in.
Truthfully though, I'm loath to lose the United States to socialism, or even socialism light (ooh look, it's even in the name...united STATES). I'd sure like to see some kind of serious return to constitutionality, liberty and freedom.
I'm really perplexed why most of our leftist trolls & commenters continually change their handles.
It's not that hard to see through guys like LoneWacko, obviously, regardless of what he calls himself. Lefiti is the same way... So they're not really remaining anonymous. And worse, they just look like right pussies.
Says the guy who uses his real name.
"As you say Sean, the group doesn't provide me much hope. However the point is that there really isn't anywhere else to go."
If I actually had some money I would happily start a competing organization to the Seasteading Institute, but that may have to wait. I'd prefer I was able to actually develop the capital in the meantime, but things are looking bleak.
Says the guy who uses his real name.
The Monarch: [sighs] jollyrancher82, never get henchmen.
jollyrancher82: You know, that's not my real name.
The Monarch: Well how was I supposed to know!? I used my real name.
jollyrancher82: I just thought, you know, 'the Monarch'. I thought you were into cosplay.
The Monarch: Real name. And I am into costumed business, not costume play.
It's easy to understand Sean, their masters tell them we, not of the socialist persuasion, are evil and violent, and will hunt them down if they slip and let a bit of their identity through. Witness MNG's paranoia of people who go to townhall meetings to tell their representatives what they think.
Well played SF
MNG-
My question to Tony (12:47) is not some kind of proof that I support the initiation of violence. The point is that, imo, the prospect of a statist politician being gunned down is not something about which to be frightened.
IOW, the slaying of of a thug who initiates the use of force upon others, every day, is not, and should not, be "frightening" to the civilized amongst us.
It's worked everywhere else in the world, so why not here? Ever been to China?
Tony doesn't need to go to China. He's busy advocating to bring China here.
Damn, and I thought concerned observer was just another incarnation of Edward. Whoops, that's what I get for having that long (mostly involuntary) H&R hiatus.
I think this is why I got Edward and concerned observer confused.
Edward/Lefiti/Morris/William is instantly recognizable -- his comments always have that same barely-restrained, incoherent fury, usually couched in terms of an utterly irrelevant accusation leveled at some strawman with "Libertarian hurr hurr" written on its chest.
Oh, i forgot the random, lengthy quotations of Torah and Midrash whenever Sullum posts, for some reason.
Stop projecting sugarfree. My political opinions are irrelevant to the snarking present. Just having a few laughs while people bend over backwards sticking up for those republicans who think ranting or screaming at their representative will contribute to anything beyond partisan ass banging. Something stinks is that collectivism I smell around here
And the boringly predictable Market Prayer retardanity.
Way to prove my point.
The Urkobold just posted a song in honor of Edward/Lefiti/et al.
"oh no" - well, you're on here talking about it, aren't you? Care to enlighten us all as to why that is?
Perhaps you can figure out why the President is so bent on getting this bill through so early. I'll give you three guesses.
Actually I'm a pretty thoroughly educated person. Just one who happens to believe that the founders' writings are merely brilliant, not sacrosanct. If you want to believe that the majority of actions taken by the government over the majority of the country's history are illegal, knock yourself out. But we do have courts to determine these things, and some nut with a gun fetish who thinks he's jesus isn't necessarily the better arbiter.
Of course you mean so that educated land-owning males could understand it, but we can put that aside. I know the constitution up and down and nowhere does it even say this country has to be capitalist. Your pet political theories are not justified in the constitution, you just say they are. It's not a libertarian treatise, it's a framework for a relatively strong federal government, complete with clear procedures for amending it.
Name one liberal who thinks everything the government does is legal and righteous. My entire point here is that we have policy differences. Yet the righties are shooting their wad on healthcare as if it were the apocalypse. And we're sitting around pretending that these people aren't just plain old white racists who hate liberals because Rush told them to.
And they all nod and say good job sugarfree but no one has the two cents to say he didn't actually make a point just some one liner but that's ok we all agree
people bend over backwards sticking up for those republicans who think ranting or screaming at their representative who has ignored them, failed to defend their position, or even read the bill will contribute to anything.
Though might just be justified.
But the vast majority of these republicans, aren't acting in any unpleasant way, except to disagree. Though you wouldn't know by the protestations of the democrat politicians.
Not that the behavior of those people are any more acceptable than when the Left does it.
He was a virgin?
How lame.
Name these people who were tortured.
But what treatment is necessary.
Many people would be willing to pay $100 to vaccinate 100 children which would extend each child's expected life span by decades.
But how many would pay twenty thousand dollars for one coronary bypass for an octogenarian?
You admitted yourself you were snarking, oh no. Or was there a serious point in there somewhere?
You're a bigot, Tony.
Not a clue but it looks like he just wasted his presidency in orderto waste his time arguing with sasholes
And we're sitting around pretending that these people aren't just plain old white racists who hate liberals because Rush told them to.
It's statements like this that show your true colors. I submit, a definition of racism is/should be, injecting race where it doesn't belong. What does being white, black or purple have to do with objecting to some sort of government intervention into my healthcare choices?
Teacher! The sandbox is full of poop again!
He went for big and grand but he is going to get shat on but that doesn't meanwe have to give this drama any credibility
Michael,
Again, this place suffers from a very tired false equivalence. IMO we don't have much to fear from authoritarian communists taking over the country. That strain of political thought has been pretty thoroughly squished.
What does exist, however, is an increase in right-wing militancy. It's a textbook movement in my opinion, agitated by propaganda, unconcerned with facts, obsessed with firearms, and are vocal about their race-based grievances. Militant right-wing movements are nothing new, and historically they've led to some pretty awful consequences. But let's not pretend that every protester is equally nutty. That's lazy thinking, and it would be a remarkable coincidence if it were the case.
Racists like these you mean?
Show me a single person of color at these teabagging protests and we'll talk.
You're talking about National Socialists, aren't you?
Contrast this:
With this:
you contradict yourself in less than 10 minutes. Good job, Tony.
He went for big and grand but he is going to get shat on but that doesn't meanwe have to give this drama any credibility
The acid just kicked in, and oh no's fingers are starting to melt to the keyboard. How does purple feel, oh no?
White doesn't count? How does the "color" of people somehow validate or invalidate their message?
Show me a single person of color at these teabagging protests and we'll talk.
Try here.
There ya go.
"Show me a single person of color at these teabagging protests and we'll talk."
ANHHHAHAHAHAHAHZHHAHAHAHA HOLY SHIT!!
Fuck, I love you Tony. I JUST posted exactly what you said didn't happen. Fuck me, that's rich.
I love it. Tony, the post just above yours has a "person of color" who's in the protesting crowd getting beat up by union thugs... Care to try again?
And... also... Who gives a shit what race people are? I mean... Except for you.
but no one has the two cents to say he didn't actually make a point just some one liner
Yes, why didn't some of you cowards call me out? Are you just afraid of me? TAO? Xeones? Pro Libertate? Come on, you lily-livered nincompoops! Excoriate me on behalf of poor, defenseless oh no. He's tossed around strawmen and insults and told everyone to STFU multiple times. He's made his case! Back him up!
Someone tried to equate a fear of SEIU goons with a fear of right wing extremists.
But that's a bad analogy as I pointed out.
I would agree. Right wing extremists haven't beat up anybody at a health care town hall.
What does exist, however, is an increase in right-wing militancy.
[citation needed]
If it's just a message about policy then you'd think you'd see a fairly representative demographic slice of the country.
What does being older, whiter, more rural, and more southern have to do with libertarian thought? What does it have to do with the question of the fact of the president's citizenship? What does it have to do with parroting demonstrable talk radio lies as if they were fact? What's the common thread? I just can't possibly imagine what that could be.
Great thanks for asking that happened to me once when I was a kid working a register
http://theblacksphere.net/
Kevin was a speaker at the St. Louis event. Other than him, I saw a number of people who were not white. The majority were white. Part of the cause of the disparity was people like you. People assume somehow it must be a bunch of racists, so people predisposed to fear of white people stay away, even if they agree with the principles. If you had gone out to your local tea party, you would likely have seen that the vast majority of people were normal everyday middle class citizens, who are simply getting more and more fed up with the over reach of government. I personally brought my kids, as it was very comfortably a welcoming, family event, despite what the hysterical media told you.
Yes, Tony, calling all libertarians, Republicans, and Southerners racist is so enlightened. And so not an argumentative fallacy.
Is this what passes for liberal thinking these days? We really do need an Age of Re-Enlightenment.
"What does being older, whiter, more rural, and more southern have to do with libertarian thought? What does it have to do with the question of the fact of the president's citizenship? What does it have to do with parroting demonstrable talk radio lies as if they were fact?"
[sings]One of these things is not like the other[/sings]
"If it's just a message about policy then you'd think you'd see a fairly representative demographic slice of the country."
That would assume that there has ever been an even remotely "even" distribution of political leanings by race or that African Americans are not overwhelmingly huge supporters of the Democrats and Obama specifically...
Walter Williams from yesterday on this very topic
"What does being older, whiter, more rural, and more southern have to do with libertarian thought?"
I'm not sure, considering I am a relatively young, Pacific Northwest & Midwest raised dude who got a graduate degree in New York City and now lives in Los Angeles...
Not a goddamned thing. My hero, Ayn Rand, was a New York Jewish female.
So it's just a sheer accident of timing that it all erupted after the election of Obama, despite his predecessor's unprecedented levels of government overreach.
For the record, I don't think it's as much about racism against blacks as hatred of liberals. "Liberal" is the great scary bogeyman the right uses these days. Perhaps it's because they can't say nigger anymore, but perhaps not. Regardless it's pure, unthinking, hypocritical hatred of an other, and not about policy. There are plenty of things to have been upset about over the last decade. That the president is enacting his primary domestic policy agenda item is perhaps one of them, but it shouldn't have been surprising, since he talked about it for ad nauseum during the campaign.
Rightwingers pissed that their side loss is all this is. They don't apparently believe that sometimes losing comes with democracy. And that should be a surprise. The last time we had a Democrat in president a much more moderate GOP still attempted a coup. Let's hope this time it's not a more militant attempt.
Blacks are what, 11% of the general population? And 90% or so vote Democrat? So what number would show up at anything opposing Obama or leftwing positions? Even if they really did oppose him or those positions?
And what difference does it make? Is healthcare a racial issue?
"So it's just a sheer accident of timing that it all erupted after the election of Obama, despite his predecessor's unprecedented levels of government overreach."
Here... Let me google that for you
Perhaps, electing a committed socialist, after one of the biggest socialist (yes, I'm talking about Bush) disasters our nation has experienced has something to do with it? Not sure... When the abuse of Presidential power was rampant for 8 years, are you really that shocked when someone who takes even more power from the people pushes people over the edge? Bush's 23% approval rating wasn't exactly all Dems you know.
Yes it "erupted" after Obama was elected, but there were plenty of complaints and calls made to representatives well before. A large number of the people you are maligning were individually vocal in opposition to the Bush enacted money spending glut, but most of the rest of the country was repeating, "we have to do something". It's not my fault that our opinions weren't more publicized, or that you didn't know about them. You're lack of awareness, and your bias doesn't make me or any other tea party participant, a racist, or any other thing you blindly accuse us of.
Michael Ejercito jogged my memory in another thread. Didn't the Tea Parties actually start with the bailouts, Tony?
I don't even know when to start with this. Tony, the distinction that you draw between useful idiots on the right and useful idiots on the left seems awfully arbitrary to me.
I went to a System of a Down concert a few years back, and it seemed like the ratio of black people to white people was low. I immediately assumed racism. 😉
Sorry sugarfree, I told John and the guy who could have been his clone to STFU. It's that kind of opinion that contributes to the mess we now have at the townhalls/healthcare debate in general. They are trying to fulfill some persecution complex with the socialists as the oppressors. It's a joke, and should be treated as such. It's not my fault Reason seems to cater to these individuals, evidenced my the repeated posts concerning townhall shenanagins. Hence the my name.
"Rightwingers pissed that their side loss is all this is. They don't apparently believe that sometimes losing comes with democracy. And that should be a surprise."
For some, that is no doubt true - but again, most Republicans I've met were, whether they liked to talk about it or not, pretty embarrassed with Bush (this was expressed in his polling numbers) - and most people complained that he wasn't really acting like any "conservative" they were interested in supporting, not so much with Iraq and such but on fiscal issues and domestic policy.
But with what team blue has done in the last 8 months, I'm betting that as early as the 2010 election there will be a bloodbath for "your side" too. So just keep that in mind Tony.
I wish people gave more weight and snatch their ideas from We the Living, so much better than the other two.
Oh, Tony? you might want to do yourself a favor and click on Art-P.O.G.'s name before you embarrass yourself further.
Not that there's any relevance in that, but you seem to think there is.
Of course, crying "racism" when the leaders of your orientation racebaited after Prop 8 is hilarious hypocrisy of the highest order.
I played in a soccer league in downtown St. Louis. There were only a few European whites, a few blacks, and no one that I saw of the mongoloid persuasion. It must have been a racist league.
I just don't think there are a lot of little islands consisting of 23% of the population each, one concerned with health care, one concerned with Obama's birth, one concerned with socialism, one concerned with guns, one concerned with hating gays and black people, etc. It's very likely to be the same core constituency of the GOP to which the GOP has granted outsize legitimacy by relying on their ignorance to get themselves elected for a decade.
But putting all that aside, I just have one question. Can we agree that in a democracy sometimes we don't get what we want? And that when that happens, it doesn't automatically mean there's a fascist takeover looming poised to kill your granny and put its grubby government hands on your medicare?
Is healthcare a racial issue?
To liberals, everything is a racial issue. It's the hairshirt they wear everyday so they can prove to themselves they are "one of the good ones." Their self-loathing would be amusing if they could shut up about it.
Every white liberal should quit their job so a person of color can have it. And don't take welfare either, it reduces the amount people of color can get. And move out of the house they could only buy or rent because of privilege. White liberals should just sit under the bodhi tree, absorbing the love of the oppressed races for their noble self-sacrifice until they starve to death. Ravens can have their eyes and stray dogs that managed to escape PETA death factories can gorge on their flesh.
It's the only utilitarian thing to do. It would certainly maximize my happiness.
It's been fun. Gotta go for the day, enjoy.
TAO,
You forgot, you can't vote on someones civil rights. LOL
"But putting all that aside, I just have one question. Can we agree that in a democracy sometimes we don't get what we want?"
Yes.
"And that when that happens, it doesn't automatically mean there's a fascist takeover looming poised to kill your granny and put its grubby government hands on your medicare?"
Not automatically... But, tossing your "government hands on your [government provided] medicare" aside, since that was retarded... A fascist take over of the financial & auto industries as well as a strong attempt at health care, seems rather important, don't you think? Not to mention that all three of those have hardly been free from intervention or corporatist cronyism thus far...
I'll put $10,000 down on that one. Obama's and the democrats' popularity is surely going down. What's not as often pointed out is that the GOP's numbers aren't going up in response, even though those numbers are thoroughly in the shitter.
Sean do you understand the difference between authoritarianism and a mixed economy? Not many here seem to.
Tony,
Can we all agree that this nation isn't a fucking democracy? It's a representative republic that has specifically delegated powers that do not include health care.
Tony, Tony, Tony,
It definitely didn't start with Obama, but does it seem to you that the gov't seems to grab more and more power? And are you OK with that?
Ravens can have their eyes and stray dogs that managed to escape PETA death factories can gorge on their flesh.
Unfortunately for this absolutely idyllic image, the dogs and ravens will all be sated from feasting on Warty when i am finished with him, for i have not forgotten our blood feud.
What's not as often pointed out is that the GOP's numbers aren't going up in response, even though those numbers are thoroughly in the shitter.
Since I'm a card carrying Libertarian, I'm OK with both being in the shitter 😉
Art-P.O.G.,
Everyone knows that you can't be black and libertarian at the same time. So, clearly, you are fictional and are one of the Astroturfers?. Please report to Washington for re-education.
I don't, Tony, so enlighten me: what percentage of GDP must the government take to turn from the latter to the former?
You have no right to not be stolen from, certainly no civil right.
Please report to Washington for re-education.
Maybe they can get that chip off your shoulder.
Tomcat1066,
Thanks for the civics lesson. For future reference when I use the word democracy I mean it in a shorthand and general sense.
I believe among those specifically delegated powers are powers defined so vaguely that they can be interpreted to result in a vast array of legislation. And history and the courts have tended to agree with me, for whatever that's worth.
Can someone point to the place in the constitution that requires us to have a capitalistic economy?
and keep you from getting uppity.
Tony, here's your homework: give us a list of things you feel the government absolutely should not be involved in, and why.
Authoritarianism and the level of government control of the economy have absolutely nothing to do with each other in my opinion. On this planet there are freer societies with more government reach and tyrannical societies with freer markets. They're separate issues, and again, I don't see anywhere where the constitution requires us to have a free market economy.
Should not because it's illegal, or should not based on my opinion?
I don't particularly care about the constitution.
So, a government that takes 100% of GDP - that's not an authoritarian state to you?
what do you know about "illegal"?
your opinion, Tony - just tell me things you think government should absolutely be out of, and WHY.
How about things that are technically legal but that I disagree should be.
Wiretapping, torture, indefinite detention for starters, though I hope they're declared illegal with some force in the near future.
Invading countries preventively.
Engaging in a war on drugs.
Restricting marriage in a way that unfairly discriminates.
Participating in a system of policymaking by de facto bribery.
I could go on.
Did you miss where I asked you why you picked these things?
Jeez, TAO. Why do you hate yourself so much that you'll keep engaging that crapweasel in dialogue? Is it because you're going to be a lawyer?
Man, that's really funny...
"How about things that are technically legal but that I disagree should be."
None of the things you list are actually legal according to the United States Constitution, Tony. At least you're consistent on this point, more or less. Legal is apparently whatever a politician wants it to mean. Somehow I doubt you were taking the same position 2 years ago.
Yes, Tony, calling all libertarians, Republicans, and Southerners racist is so enlightened. And so not an argumentative fallacy.
Is this what passes for liberal thinking these days? We really do need an Age of Re-Enlightenment.
Leftists are fetuses in need of a medical procedure.
As evidence, I submit 'oh no'. That twat wants people to sit down and be happy about him and Obama trying to stick their fists up our asses. Not only 'no, thank you', but fuck you.
And PS. Tony, I think we've covered this before, but I have, in fact, been to many formerly Authoritarian nations - like Russia, for example.
As it turns out, the stuff that they're running away from now in places like that (and Estonia, and China, and etc.) are the same policies you and your statist ilk are driving us towards. So I'm curious to turn the question around, Tony - Do YOU understand what Authoritarianism is?
TAO,
Because I have my values just like you do. Just because I'm in favor of healthcare reform doesn't mean I think the government should be able to do everything it wants. I happen to feel that it's a legitimate piece of legislation, which seems to be a pretty mainstream view since there isn't a lot of mainstream legal hand-wringing about whether congress can do it.
Can we agree that in a democracy sometimes we don't get what we want?
Does that include free (that is, incredibly expensive, but paid for by Somebody Else) unlimited health care from cradle to grave? I fucking hope so.
I know you do P Brooks. I hope for the opposite. does that make one of us an authoritarian and the other a freedom lover? If so, then discourse on the subject has reached and infantile level, which is the entire thing I've been talking about this whole thread.
"Authoritarianism and the level of government control of the economy have absolutely nothing to do with each other in my opinion."
Because taking control of large parts of the economy requires no enforcement mechanisms. This statement right here is the game ender.
Talk about perfect timing, i get done with reading about blackest night #2, and find John, oops, i mean JB using anal rhetoric to perpetuate his victimhood at the hands of Obama. JB, i think it's you guys waving the fists around. How many tea party protests have you've been to JB, were those fists ok?
If you believe the Money Fairy will pay your bills, it's hard not to think of you as infantile; it certainly makes you irrational.
"since there isn't a lot of mainstream legal hand-wringing about whether congress can do it."
You are a fool of the highest order, Tony... I hope you realize that.
The US Government quit giving a shit about it's Constitutional limits ages ago - and it's people like you who have enabled that. So the next time someone gets tortured, or wire-tapped, or a war is started aggressively without so much as a vote... The next time your due process is abridged by the patriot act, your right to property is abridged by eminent domain of health care, the right to speech is abridged by some campaign laws, or some other speech code, I hope you remember that it's your own goddamn fault.
A people who don't hold their government to it's "contract" probably deserve what they get.
"I know you do P Brooks. I hope for the opposite. does that make one of us an authoritarian and the other a freedom lover? "
YES!!! IT DOES!
You fucktard. When your position is forcing people to pay for your basic life needs, through authoritarian control of an entire industry and bending that to serve your own personal aims based on coercion and theft, and the opposing position is to allow people the freedom to contract and engage with each other voluntarily... YES, YOU ARE THE FUCKING AUTHORITARIAN.
And Tony- try reading Capitalism and Freedom for an alternative take on your "politics and economics are completely separate" notion.
"He's made his case! Back him up!"
In his defense, he gives awesome blow jobs for crack.
A people who don't hold their government to it's "contract" probably deserve what they get.
So you do believe in force, or only for contracts that you like/approve?
If this thread is around in two hours, I'll be here
Same lib time same lib channel.
Sean,
So that means we've been an authoritarian country with respect to medicare and social security for a very long time. Not to mention a host of other social programs. Believe that if you want, I think it's ludicrous.
Didn't say they were separate. My point is that having a mixed economy, as ours and every other major economy on earth is, isn't the same thing as authoritarian communism. You act all flabbergasted that someone would call you out on your incessant hyperbole and Godwinning.
Tony,
Why is that (assertion) ludicrous?
"I'll put $10,000 down on that one. Obama's and the democrats' popularity is surely going down. What's not as often pointed out is that the GOP's numbers aren't going up in response, even though those numbers are thoroughly in the shitter."
I do so love stupid people!
Generic Congressional Ballot
Republicans Maintain Lead Over Democrats on Generic Ballot
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.
Here's what it was 5 days after the inaguration:
01-25-09 Dem 42% GOP 35%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
Art,
Why is the assertion that the USA has been a fascist authoritarian nightmare for basically its entire history ludicrous? I dunno, let me think real hard. Maybe it's because we've been one of the freest societies in the history of the planet, that every other free country in the world has similar and stronger social programs and are no less free because of them?
But wait I forget this is libertarian land, where the greatest oppression is taxes. One wonders how we've managed to persist all these long centuries being under the iron fist of a mixed economy.
Welcome EAP, this conversation was missing something without your free republic talking points.
"So that means we've been an authoritarian country with respect to medicare and social security for a very long time. Not to mention a host of other social programs. Believe that if you want, I think it's ludicrous."
DING DING! Show him what he's won!
(PS. Have you figured out the correlation between authoritarian governing philosophy and rising costs/poorer quality of life yet?)
This stuff is a continuum though Tony, not merely a switch on or off. If we have 25% control, that's surely better than 75% control, but I'm not sure at which point specifically ordinary people start to cry uncle and recognize the control as "authoritarian"...
"Welcome EAP, this conversation was missing something without your free republic talking points."
Rassmusen = free republic (which I am assuming is some sort of publication)?
BTW, that oh nos guy sure was a hoot! ChicagoTom perhaps?
I didn't use that hyperbole, Tony, but I can excoriate the social security program if you like.
"But wait I forget this is libertarian land, where the greatest oppression is taxes. One wonders how we've managed to persist all these long centuries being under the iron fist of a mixed economy."
I wish you actually knew anything about history sometimes, Tony... really.
The "iron fist" didn't really start til the 20th Century. We had low taxes, only consisting of excise taxes & tariffs for virtually 125 years. No income tax of any kind, no capital gains taxes...
Taxes are a rather good measurement of how much you're being fucked by a government. Not perfect, but pretty good since there is a strong correlation between the amount of money a person has and the amount of work & value of their productive efforts have to society.
Likewise, the government wasn't in the business of regulating about 90% of human choices (with the only notable exception being slavery so don't fucking bring up that canard), as they are today - and certainly not at anything beyond the local level.
Virtually from the moment our country was founded, the guaranteed freedoms have been slipping. 220 years later and a fucking lot of them are just gone.
Funny how sometimes Tony can see the correlation between freedom and prosperity, and yet not realize that everything he's ever shilled for is exactly the opposite of both of those ideas.
Way to suck that tyrannical cock Tony. Let's just hope you're loyalty is rewarded.
EAP, oh no is not ChicagoTom. ChicagoTom posts sentences that form paragraphs and despite his recent shrillness, he's been a good contributor. ugarfree suggested that oh no may be concerned observer, and that would make sense.
concerned observer? I don't recall that person. No big.
So concerned observer isn't Edward et al.?
Every white liberal should quit their job so a person of color can have it. And don't take welfare either, it reduces the amount people of color can get. And move out of the house they could only buy or rent because of privilege. White liberals should just sit under the bodhi tree, absorbing the love of the oppressed races for their noble self-sacrifice until they starve to death. Ravens can have their eyes and stray dogs that managed to escape PETA death factories can gorge on their flesh.
I couldn't help but come back to say that that ^ is damn funny! Thank you for making my afternoon SugarFree
Was i wrong?
About what? You had a question?
I don't get my news from the tee bee, sorry.
If I had only that and a dubious claim to literacy going for me, I would have hung myself years ago. You were blessed with an obscurant mind though, as long as you don't get too far from you self imposed bounds, I expect you to be taking your licks to the bitter end.
Let me see if I can put this another way. Fascist authoritarian regimes of the 20th century had socialist economies because socialist economies were popular. Communism is despised for good reason and I'm against it for all the same reasons you guys are. What you're missing is that pure capitalism is just the other extreme and equally prone to spreading mass misery. That's why all advanced countries have adopted mixed economies (what you might call socialism). But the problem with authoritarian socialist regimes isn't socialism, it's authoritarianism. I think you have a warped idea of the correlation/causation equation.
And it's notable that unbridled capitalism has never been popular anywhere except with the plutocratic class and, recently, a certain segment of the American population who have been convinced that capitalism is the economic system Jesus would prefer.
MNG i'm not doubting the shooters political leanings, just your claim that it was a motive for the crime. Would you care to explain how right wing thought leads to shooting up a women's aerobic class. Also I already explain how linking a neonazi who killed 3 cops to the 60% of americans who oppose obamacare is plain dumbfuckary. I'll give you the church killer and i'll even remind you of the guy who killed Dr Tillman, so out of a portion of the political spectrum that contains millions of people you can find 2 crazy murderers. Yet you expect us to believe right wing extremist are going to reenact the night of long knives.
I thought so, but Sugarfree doesn't seem to.
Tony,
The War on Drugs isn't authoritarian, or it falls within the acceptable bounds of authoritarianism for you? I know you don't agree with it, but still...going back further to alcohol prohibition, it's clear that this country, despite its virtues still has an authoritarian streak.
Sean,
Do you really think you're less free than someone living 100 or even 50 years ago? (And no I won't bring black people into the equation since you requested it, though I don't see why that's irrelevant.) Your conception of freedom really only applies to the already wealthy, and to make up for this flaw you tack on the faulty axiom that all anyone has to do to achieve that level of freedom is work hard. Until we're all wealthy, then the underclass deserve their fate of poverty and no healthcare, of basically not being free by any meaningful definition.
Also,
When/how? Examples, please?
And the antithesis of this is what? That no matter how hard you work, you'll never be free?
Hey Tony,
Care to comment on my 4:52pm post that shows difinitively just how full of cat shit you are?
Art,
Since I actually believe in freedom that has a tangible definition, I believe that any powerful entity is capable of oppression. Not just governments. Now I happen to believe that laissez-faire capitalism leads inexorably to monopoly and concentration of wealth with a few elites. With an impotent government these people and their corporations are freer to exploit people, and they don't even have a bill of rights to constrain them. Just compare the more laissez-faire eras in this country's history to the more mixed economy eras and compare how much individual freedom existed for how many people.
Funny thing is it's hard to come up with examples because few countries have been dumb enough to adopt laissez-faire. There've been a few countries on which it's been imposed by American neoliberals, notably in South America. What inevitably happens is the people get a taste of this sort of banana republic "freedom" and then go on to establish a government more strongly socialist than before.
Until we're all wealthy, then the underclass deserve their fate of poverty and no healthcare, of basically not being free by any meaningful definition.
And, in Tony's world, the government creates wealth. By taking it from the few, and spreading it around.
few countries have been dumb enough to adopt laissez-faire. There've been a few countries on which it's been imposed by American neoliberals, notably in South America.
Of course!
*slaps forehead*
I want a society in which the libertarian truism is actually possible, and we're a true meritocracy. That's not possible when some are more advantaged than others from birth. Which moral principle states that a poor kid has to work 10 times harder than a rich kid in order to achieve the same amount of success?
[crickets chirping]
And Tony had to ruin the love by throwing out Free Republic. They have their faults, but they don't sink that low. John yes, everyone else not so much, but I'm wondering if everyone moved to the Jesse Walker post. Sooner or later someones going to trot out that let's pay everyone a millions dollars line, and then I'll throw up. SEE YA THERE
@ oh no,
asshole much?
I'm pretty sure that anything close to pure laissez-faire capitalism has never occurred on this planet.
How many tea party protests have you've been to JB
I'm willing to bet that you haven't been to any because you sure are one ignorant fuck, oh no.
Keep swilling that Obama jizz around your mouth.
Stupid fucking fetus.
I hear the Russians have gone to a totally laissez faire, "cowboy capitalist" model.
First of all, as someone who looked at Bush's tax cuts and thought, "that's it, i hope he plans on doing some more soon," the kids looking to be important and cool at the tea parties can lick my balls.
Secondly, I'm a spitter not a swallower
I think the Russians are only Cowboy Capitalist when it comes to old satellites that owe them money
Tony, my parents have been pissing away their money their entire life. When they were young, they were typical baby boomer hippie fuckups. Are you saying I should be mad as hell that some other person had parents who worked twice as hard in school, didn't waste their money on drugs, alcohol, and vacations, but rather saved that money to hand down to their children whereas I didn't get jack shit? Is there something wrong with busting your ass, paying taxes on the fruit of your labor and then instead of pissing it away giving it to your kids? It seems that to some people, such as yourself, that is unfair somehow? IMO, nobody in this world ever owed me anything. (and it's a damn good thing I feel that way...) If somebody were to have given me a big sack of money, that would be great, but it wasn't necessary. My relative success or failure in life has had little to do with my bottom-end starting point. I refuse to wallow in a loser mentality. I'm thinking that from your point of view I must be deluded? Should I be mad as hell I didn't get a car handed to me at 16 or a free ride to whatever college would accept me ro a free house? If it helps you sleep better, realize the people who grew up with an "unfair" advantage know it. They didn't do it on their own and that is something they are well aware of. I suspect it weighs more heavily on some than others - some might even become liberals.
oh no, maybe you should shut your cunt-hole of a mouth for once and actually go to a tea party.
I went to one and there were all stripes of people from Republicans, to Democrats, to libertarians all bitching and moaning about the government spending too much money. Nearly every person I talked to said it was bad when Bush did it and it's even worse when Obama is spending more. They all understood that the government would be raising taxes at some point and not one person believed Obama the liar.
So who did you vote for? I don't even have to guess it's so obvious.
"Your problem is that you don't seem to grasp any distinction between defending yourself and attacking someone else."
No Sean, it is you that don't have a distinction. All you can say that the difference is aggressor vs. non-aggressor, which is just another way of saying wrong vs. right. But I think in the cases I authorize coercion it is right too, and I've even said why and how I can tell.
"And because no one has it in their power to define what the "good" or "human welfare" is, we should let people freely figure it out on their own."
That's absurd TAO, you don't pretend to let frauders or robbers "freely figure it out on their own." You think we should intervene when it is plain to us that the good or human welfare is being attacked. So do I.
""It" being your bullshit attemtp to draw an equivelency between a situtation where a person inititially used force against someone and a situation where someone didn't."
Again, your priority distinction is just another way of saying that it is OK as a correction of a wrong, and I already dealt with that idea.
Who knew that so many libertarians support enslaving people, and they don't even have a good reason for why they support it!
Enyap-Don't forget the cop killer. That's three by your standard in a year, three well publicized events where angry people motivated by extreme right wing views opened fire on people. So when an angry guy motivated by right wing extremism shows up at a public event with a gun and a sign about how its time to start killing people, you still re incredulous as to how people could be upset? Okkkkkaaaaay.
Look, I went to these tea partys and I got to know the people there. I had sex with many men there, often two or three at a time, and sometimes with consent (some of them forced me, it happens because I greatly fear confrontation in person and try to extricate myself by offering myself up for some roundhole action). Yes, I caught not pitched, but we talked a great deal about those stupid cunts that are taking away our liberties, and these people were not over the top angry you stupid fucking cunt fetus! We are not fucking raging you fucking cum swilling fetus!
So who did you vote for? I don't even have to guess it's so obvious.
I don't want to spoil your narrative, but i voted for Babar. Not enthusiastically, but i don't think I'm alone on that one.
Yes, I caught not pitched, but we talked a great deal about those stupid cunts that are taking away our liberties, and these people were not over the top angry you stupid fucking cunt fetus! We are not fucking raging you fucking cum swilling fetus!
JB,
I think you pissed someone off.
Well, I give points for calling him Babar.
Hey Pro
I read an article in the New Yorker on how the author of Babar may have been a crypto-fascist.
Really.
Black isn't black, white is black! I R GENIUS! You show me apple, I say orange! OKKKAAAYYY?
Do I play stupid, or am I stupid? Yes. OKKKAAAYYY?
LALALALALA! I can't hear you, I win ARGUMENT! OKKKAAAYYY?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/22/080922fa_fact_gopnik
I think the spoofer at 6:27 brilliantly summed my arguments in just three sentences! The nuance of that parody, well words escape me...
It must not have been JB as the post was devoid of the words "fuck", "cunt" or "cum" which he is compelled by his turrets syndrome to write every fourth or fifth word.
And not BB as it did not have some amatuer psycho-analysis...
I am kind of curious who spoofed JB at 611.
Oh lord it was me that spoofed him Oh no, JB's only contribution here is to show up and spout no more than one to two sentences full of abusive expletives. I just get tired of his crude "macho" bullshit and was having a little fun. He's one of these dish it out like a mental patient but can't take it pussies. As he would certainly say, "fuck him."
MNG, are you fuck blind, I already addressed the copkiller twice. and how linking him with the 60% of americans who oppose obamacare is plain dumbfuckary. I'm also waiting for you to explain how right wing extremist lead to shooting up a women's aerobic class. I never realized that right wing extremist took such a hard line against women's aerobics.
He's probably off crying or complaining to H&R's editors or something in his grandma's basement...
Enyap, I've already answered any point worth mking you have (implicitly) made above. To help you out though, here it is again:
"That's three by your standard in a year, three well publicized events where angry people motivated by extreme right wing views opened fire on people. So when an angry guy motivated by right wing extremism shows up at a public event with a gun and a sign about how its time to start killing people, you still re incredulous as to how people could be upset?"
All authors of children's books are crypto-fascists.
I no have to answer question. I dodge it already! U R stupid. I R GENIUS! OKKKAAAYYY?
Just try to make me answer question! I dodge it all night! OKKKAAAYYY? OKKKAAAYYY!
MNG, you are nothing but a fetus in need of a medical operation.
I suggest you leave the country and I suggest you do it soon. Honestly, get the fuck out and go to one of your socialist paradises you squawk about. I'm sure they will love the smell of Obama's jizz on your breath.
I don't spoof people because I'm not a cowardly little bitch like you are. You like to send government goons to collect money at gunpoint. I'd like to see you actually go do the dirty work yourself. That would soon end with you out of this country.
"I went to one and there were all stripes of people from Republicans, to Democrats, to libertarians all bitching and moaning about the government spending too much money. Nearly every person I talked to said it was bad when Bush did it and it's even worse when Obama is spending more. They all understood that the government would be raising taxes at some point and not one person believed Obama the liar."
If these people sound like...
"I suggest you leave the country and I suggest you do it soon. Honestly, get the fuck out and go to one of your socialist paradises you squawk about. I'm sure they will love the smell of Obama's jizz on your breath."
ANy relation, no wonder people are worried, and they're bringing guns. JB, if you showed up at one of these townhalls with a gun, I'd feel much safer if the SS were following you.
SS, get it...lol
Here is a coat hanger
I demand you abort yourself NOW NOW NOW
Here is a knitting needle, abort ABORT ABORT ABORT
Why do always arrive at these long-ass, interesting threads two hours late with nothing to add?
Yes. Now choke yourself.
LEAN FORWARD AND CHOKE YOURSELF!
JB, how come everyone is a "fetus" with you?
Tony; You get an F-
MNG... You too buddy.
MNG; I have repeatedly expressed a perfectly cogent & clear definition of the initiation of force. I've explicitly even used the term "physical force" so that your addled brain would be less confused.
This isn't complicated.
The fact that you're still struggling with it is just embarrassing, honestly. But one more lesson can't hurt, right?
We start here
Premise: Every individual human owns their body, time, thoughts, & the products of their labor. Everyone is an autonomous self-owner.
Follow that premise, jackass...
1. You are human, I am human, so we both are autonomous self-owners.
Translation: You control stuff you do, I control stuff I do, we don't get to control each other.
2. If you injure, murder, rob, rape, or in any other way use physical violence, or the threat of said violence, and you are violating someone else's sovereignty...
(You don't get to do that).
You've no doubt heard the phrase, "Your rights end at the end of someone else's nose."
Is this that hard to understand?
3. If someone violates your sovereignty as an individual, you have the right to defend yourself. You are the primary protector of your body, your stuff, your mind... Etc.
Soooooooooo....
Conclusion: We make a big fat distinction between being the AGGRESSIVE USE OF FORCE... and protecting yourself!
The really painful part of watching your mind flounder on this topic MNG is the realization that because you don't make a distinction between the initiation of force and protecting yourself from that, and because you clearly don't believe people are actually autonomous self-owners, but are collectively owned by "society" or the government or whatever... The conclusions that your premises lead you to are much much different.
Starting with a premise where humans are not self-owners then where do you draw the line on force? Why is it ok for you to vote on taking money from someone to give to someone else, but not ok for someone to "redistribute" wealth individually (steal). Taken to a few more extremes, your premise winds up with the sick result of a situation where, for example, a rape victim (who again, doesn't own the right to her own body) doesn't have the right to defend herself from an attacker.
Do you want to rethink your position on this one MNG? Are you really going to pretend that there's no distinction between the force used to murder someone, and the force one might retaliate with to avoid being murdered?
JB, how come everyone is a "fetus" with you?
Well, I'm talking about my right to choose. I just call it self-defense or abortion.
oh no, unlike you, I am not creaming myself because Obama and the Democrats are making Bush look like an amateur in spending this country into the ground. I'm upset about it as are a lot of people.
Obama and his ilk including many of the Obama zombies keep insisting 2+2=5. There is no rational debate to be had with zombies like that.
wow, is this is a record for comments?
tony's narrow-minded perspectives are humorous.
What does being older, whiter, more rural, and more southern have to do with libertarian thought?
Got me, I'm of the young(er), gay, white, Hispanic-school of libertarianism, hailing from that swamp on the Potomac.
SugarFree | August 13, 2009, 3:50pm | #
Is healthcare a racial issue?
To liberals, everything is a racial issue.
Oh irony...
Fuckin' us versus them thinking...
Can't get away from it these days...
FWIW,
The epic MN/SWM battle needs a new term or two added.
Rights - while I might quibble a bit with SWM's argument, it is close enough for government work.
It does, however, fail to include - responsibilities.
MNG seems to be talking about the "right" others have to expect individuals to fulfill their responsibilities.
IMHO, any moral philosophy that denies the existence of responsibilities is infantile.
And just to be clear, responsibilities are not "negative." They are positive acts that you have a duty to perform. Failure to act in order to fulfill them is indeed immoral in much the same way that overt acts of coercion are immoral.
Maybe these points were covered already.
I ain't gonna read the whole thread to find out.
At any rate both responsibilities and rights are equally abstract. If you have a right to your autonomy, it's only because you say so (and because others agree). It's not written on stone. And such a concept didn't exist for most of human existence. Indeed the concept of duty existed long, long before the concept of individual autonomy.
If you have a right to your autonomy, it's only because you say so (and because others agree)
Do you know what slavery was? Denying the right to autonomy...
I'm with others here, you simply are refusing to even contemplate the thought you are wrong.
Indeed the concept of duty existed long, long before the concept of individual autonomy.
Yes, as did slavery...
Just wow.
"At any rate both responsibilities and rights are equally abstract. If you have a right to your autonomy, it's only because you say so (and because others agree). It's not written on stone. And such a concept didn't exist for most of human existence. Indeed the concept of duty existed long, long before the concept of individual autonomy."
Ironically Tony, you're exactly right.
For the bulk of human existence, people have lived under the thumb of various strongmen & oppressors who have claimed control over their lives - and if you didn't like it, your options were to fight them for control or be killed. You had no rights to your life, your wife could be raped at any time, your property could be taken by any lord or king on a whim and any attempts to assert your own self-ownership would be met with the axe or guillotine.
The fact that you seem to be pushing us back in that direction is appalling.
And Neu;
Rights & Responsibilities are different sides of the same coin.
I have the right to be free from theft & harm - as do you. My responsibility is to not steal from you or inflict harm upon you willfully. Your responsibility to me is the same.
However, what MNG is ultimately talking about are not "responsibilities", but privileges, if I might add that term...
It's nice to say that people have a "responsibility" to help each other, but this is not the case - fundamentally we have the responsibility not to cause harm to each other (that is to say, if we assert natural rights for ourselves). "Helping" is sort of a more complex matter entirely.
When you were a kid, were you ever picked on by anyone? What if you see that kid years later down on his luck - do you have to give him a dollar? Should you? Why?
Because the bible says to turn the other cheek and forget about the past wrongs? Because it's "the right thing to do"? These things may be reasons enough for some, but they're hardly reasons for everyone.
What government does, ultimately - is rob you of that choice by becoming your poor "friend's" intermediary. But here I am framing this in the (actually rather less costly) terms of helping a poor guy who you otherwise wouldn't help.
How about the ultra rich guy?
What about when money is taken from the lowly music editor working for under $40k a year to support wealthy bankers? Did I have an obligation to the United Auto Workers's Union? To Wall Street failures?
The parts where this gets mucked up Neu; is where people start forgetting who the aggressors are.
MNG has yet to grasp that just as I cannot personally point a gun at him and tell him to pony up 40% of his income, I also cannot hire people to do that in my name without being the aggressor.
It's another issue entirely as to whether or not, once you've admitted that you are aggressively taking from the public, what you're doing is justified for other reasons.
For me, the answer is simple enough... You're never justified.
I don't recall when duty and responsibility became as morally reprehensible as slavery.
And... Umm... Tony;
Right up there... ^ ^
That's me asserting my natural rights. Many people around the country are rediscovering said rights.
The Constitution didn't grant rights. Rights are, as Jefferson & Madison said; Inalienable.
They are intrinsic to my humanity. And yours... Government's have abridged them many times in the past, as you foolishly noted in an epic is-ought failure. Your naturalist fallacy aside, what you should realize is the moral bankruptcy of your underlying philosophy (and MNGs). Ayn Rand probably said it most clearly, but your entire position requires that your victims be "willing".
When someone stands up and asserts their right to defend themselves from being enslaved or robbed, you will fail in taking from them. I think people are starting to stand up. I hope they do.
"I don't recall when duty and responsibility became as morally reprehensible as slavery."
Cause you forget that in the cases in which "duty" is backed by guns & jail, it's the same thing as slavery.
Perhaps you'd forgotten about the draft.
Sean,
You've nicely articulated an argument against all taxation. Okay, so you're an anarchist. That's at least consistent.
I wasn't making a naturalistic fallacy. I definitely don't agree that all traditions should be preserved. I'm just saying that there is no more a firm ground for your assertion of individual autonomy than there is for any other abstract moral claim. I like the idea of individual autonomy. I just don't believe the development of that concept necessarily supersedes all other prior moral concepts.
Sean W.,
Actually, I specifically stipulated that responsibilities are NOT negative in the sense you describe them.
A responsibility is an obligation (in this case a moral obligation) to do something positive. Not simply to "refrain from acting" in a particular way.
At least that is what I mean when I say "responsibility."
And I will repeat my assertion: any moral philosophy that does not include responsibilities is incomplete, under-developed, (infantile).
"I don't recall when duty and responsibility became as morally reprehensible as slavery."
It's really immaterial what you recall. It can be logically deduced from what you are stating.
Ok - I'll try
any moral philosophy that does not include responsibilities is incomplete, under-developed
Who gets to tell us what our responsibilities are?
And if it's to maximize the greater good, then you agree with an earlier comment: it's ok to randomly kill 50 people so a random 51 stay alive?
Don't you see - no one is stating that it would be a moral act for a doctor to not act while someone died - we're just stating it's not up to you to decide through force of law that the doctor has to act.
& hey, the beauty of it is - it's not up to us either. So you don't have to worry about my moral beliefs to constrain your behavior.
As a side note - do you really think a doctor today could let someone die without the ire of the entire nation? Sure, he wouldn't go to jail, but his life would be ruined. Isn't that effectively the way it should be? Societal pressure? You know, without that whole monopoly of force thing combined with guns.
preview!
"Of course so does my side. We think that in withholding his skills from the dying man the doctor is doing something wrong. We think this is wrong because the consequences of his action or inaction are human suffering and/or death."- MNG
Gee that sounds familiar, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". The practical result of the widespread application of that kind of ultilitarian philosophy is that people will tend minimize their abilities and maximize their needs, impoverishing society as a whole. People are not going to want to be doctors, or anything else useful, if being useful leads to being used.
Neu,
The problem is that you are mistaking a philosophy of government (i.e. the initiation/control of force) with a broader moral philosophy.
Personally, there are many circumstances under which I think it's important to take action. To save those in immediate danger if possible, to help those in need, to educate and look out for children... To name a few.
But what you should realize is that as a moral philosophy that compels ME to act! Not you.
Your moral philosophy might be different, in fact, I'm almost certain that it is. Most people have differing viewpoints on a wide array of moral questions.
As I said upthread: Do you have a moral obligation to aid those who've hurt you? But in even more complex settings, I just asserted that I view it as a moral imperative to help educate and care for children. How far does that extend? Should I tell parents what to do?
Once I was on the N train going back to my apartment in Queens, NYC... I was sitting next to a couple 12-13 year old kids who were harassing as middle aged woman. I told them to stop, both filling the moral responsibility to help those being assaulted (the woman) and to help "educate" youth.
But how far does that go? Should I have tried to detain the kids and find out their parent's phone numbers? Should I have physically intervened when they got a little too rowdy?
These are very complex questions that cannot be answered by a Senator in Washington DC. And it's just a simple example I've experienced in regular life, all things considered.
Another example. I was a lifeguard for 5 years. I once had to save the life of a 5 year old boy who jumped into the deep end of the pool after I explicitly warned him not to if he could not swim. I pulled him out and we went to find his mom. She was unconcerned and instead just laughed and said something to the effect of "wasn't that cute!?"
Anyway. The point I'm illustrating here is that when we're talking about governing philosophy we're fundamentally talking about what should be made illegal. What things should we as a society empower people to do by force.
Responsibilities in the moral sense are MUCH much more personal than that.
The libertarian philosophy is not at all incomplete or under-developed (considering we're the group who has had to repeatedly defend ourselves and debate for our entire existence, not answering basic questions at this point would just be silly). It's just not intended to impose morality via force. It is fundamentally a "negative" philosophy. We oppose the initiation of force... We do not oppose the voluntary actions of concerned individuals acting out of a sense of moral responsibility - that we encourage.
The only caveat is, if you see a problem - YOU put your money where your mouth is, and help out as well as you can. You don't get to force Person X to do it for you.
"Again, your priority distinction is just another way of saying that it is OK as a correction of a wrong, and I already dealt with that idea."
You didn't "deal with it" because you are incapable of dealing with it.
You've merely deluded yourself that you can.
"Alright, if you want your ass handed to you again. I noticed your pussy ass ran off yesterday during our debate, and then came back and had no answer even hours later." - MNG
MNG appears to be entering the late stages of joe's syndrome. His entrance into the final stage and psychotic break will be evidenced by him posting incoherent ramblings and randomly declaring himself the "threadwinner".
"And just to be clear, responsibilities are not "negative." They are positive acts that you have a duty to perform. Failure to act in order to fulfill them is indeed immoral in much the same way that overt acts of coercion are immoral."
Just to be REAL clear, you are flat out wrong about that.
There are is no such thing as affirmative rights or responsibilities.
All rights and responsibilities are negative.
See, Sean that's the way to deal with NM.
You just simply refuse to accept any premise he throws out.
See, Sean that's the way to deal with NM.
You just simply refuse to accept any premise he throws out.
I don't know; I thought Sean's explications get to a salient point. Many leftists see government as their god and treat laws and policies as a moral and religious system.
I may have a moral and/or religious obligation to my fellow man, but that does not mean Tony or MNG can or should put a gun to my head to enforce their version of it.
Further, any Christian who thinks people should be forced to help others is not a Christian. That is why many Christians are actually naturally allies of libertarians. True Christians do not want people coming to God at the point of a gun, but rather from personal acceptance. Using government to 'carry out gospel' is against Christianity.
"Further, any Christian who thinks people should be forced to help others is not a Christian. That is why many Christians are actually naturally allies of libertarians. True Christians do not want people coming to God at the point of a gun, but rather from personal acceptance. Using government to 'carry out gospel' is against Christianity."
Ya know, it's funny... I'm what you'd call a "strong" atheist.
I've been well beyond the agnostic question for many years and long ago I took that other step into the realm of "belief". That said, one thing I've never been able to understand is the idea that a christian would ever want to force their moral precepts on other people.
Giving to charity, for example, is a good thing - but forcibly taking money from people to give to charity can't be a good thing because it starts with theft, which is clearly against the 10 commandments.
Beyond that though, if charitable giving is something one would do to please and show respect to a god, then isn't forcing people to give - by definition - not a righteous act for the "giver"? What I mean is, if I help my neighbor in the name of Yahweh, I am performing a righteous act. But if I help my neighbor because someone else commanded me to upon threat of being jailed, that isn't possibly a righteous act. For me, or for the guy with the guns.
As such, Christian theocracy is rather perplexing.
Anyway, that's a side topic entirely. As to Gilbert - I'm not sure if you were being facetious or not, but NM's premises were all wrong.
Sean W.
The problem is that you are mistaking a philosophy of government (i.e. the initiation/control of force) with a broader moral philosophy.
I am not mistaking the two.
I choose my terms more carefully than that.
Of course legal and moral issues are intertwined in a complex way. Certainly their moral philosophy is a basic underpinning for most people's view of the law. I feel there is a legitimate case to be made for considering certain types of negligence as legitimate targets for legal as well as moral sanction (basic child care being the low hanging fruit here).
NM's premises were all wrong
It must be nice having such a direct line to the truth. (^_^)
Gilbert,
You just simply refuse to accept any premise he throws out.
[Gilbert then sticks fingers in ears and repeats "my views are correct, my views are correct, there is no challenge to them that is worth considering, my views are correct, there is no challenge to them that is worth considering. I can not benefit from an honest discussion with those who hold differing views. I must reject their ideas. I must not accept their corruption. They are the unbelievers, they are tricksy."]
Basic child care I think has a strong root in essential(albeit mostly "implied") contract law though, I think.
In essence, if you have a child, given that we know what children are and that they are incapable of taking care of themselves, you must be responsible for said child until he can accept the full meaning of rights/responsibilities on his own.
So yeah, child care is pretty low hanging fruit.
To tie in the Asimov thread the other day, it seems that to some degree, you're applying the 3 laws to people. Or at least the 2nd law. I tend to agree with that - but only provided it's a voluntary arrangement. Since I have no way of knowing what your circumstances are or what your abilities are to help a person in need, I am in no position to impose laws & force directing you to act. It is likewise true that it's a rare case indeed where we actually even *know* what people need as well.
Does the guy on the corner need a sandwich? A good stern talking to? Rehab? A shoulder to cry on? 43,000 dollars and a business plan?
I don't mean that to be a joke honestly... These things are wayyyy more complex than most people (especially, let's be honest, on the "left") recognize. Imposing one-size-fits all laws to mandate "helping" is problematic to say the least. Worse are the kinds of good Samaritan rules that make hard and fast designations where you can actually be sued if you fail to act or if you act incorrectly.
In a world of quite imperfect knowledge, I just don't see how you can possibly justify forcing people to act "in the best interest" of someone else - especially strangers - when you have no clue what that interest even is most of the time. And I mean, that's just a practical concern... the morality of forcing people to do what you think is "right" is pretty shady to begin with.
Neu,
Just a little red meat for the peanut gallery.
Guilt-driven redistributionism based on radicalized racial terms is a sufficient argument for some, but it is not for others. The constant assumption that failure to accept the mostly liberal/leftist axiom that once anyone calls you a racist, no matter how unfounded or ridiculous, you must capitulate or prove yourself a racist is completely bankrupt. It is the modern Inquisition, where the cry of "heretic" was sufficient to condemn you to the bastinado.
All I did was take their counterfeit piety to its logical extreme.
As for "us vs. them":
Good thing you never display any of it. 🙂
Defining responsibilities differently is not a mark of whether a philosophy is mature or immature. The higher duties, the positive duties, to your fellow man is a fine philosophical debate, but law is too blunt a tool for enforcing positive rights.
I would morally condemn the doctor who let the patient die at his feet, would certain never patronize him and would publicly denounce him if given the chance. I wouldn't have much of a problem with his profession censoring him or even forcing him from the profession if what he did was clearly with malicious intent. But I wouldn't pass some law to try and put him in jail.
The misapplication of a clumsy "Good Samaritan" law would cause more misery than all the fictitious malicious doctors MNG could ever come up with.
(Purely as an asshole aside: Remember when, not so long ago, liberals on the board rejected "ticking timebomb" scenarios out of hand as ridiculous outliers that had no force in a discussion? Because I do.)
latest twitter buzz: #WeLoveTheNHS
"[Gilbert then sticks fingers in ears and repeats "my views are correct, my views are correct, there is no challenge to them that is worth considering, my views are correct, there is no challenge to them that is worth considering. I can not benefit from an honest discussion with those who hold differing views. I must reject their ideas. I must not accept their corruption. They are the unbelievers, they are tricksy."]"
LOL
An "honest" discussion, eh?
What would you know about that?
In any event, your views aren't capable of being a "challenge" to mine because it is impossible for you to prove they are right and mine are wrong.
As I have said before (and doubtless will say again) there is no such thing as an expert in any subject on this earth where the veracity of the claim being made by the alleged expert cannot be unequivocally quantified as being 100% accurate by measurement in the physical world.
All I did was take their counterfeit piety to its logical extreme.
As for "us vs. them":
IMHO, any moral philosophy that denies the existence of responsibilities is infantile.
Good thing you never display any of it. 🙂
Well, now, I didn't realize that "moral philosophies" were people. Thanks for straightening me out on that one...
;^)
Gilbert - [sigh - conversation is not a competition]
Neu,
I meant "us vs. them"ism. You are calling a philosophy you don't agree with "infantile" over a semantic disagreement.
In essence, if you have a child, given that we know what children are and that they are incapable of taking care of themselves, you must be responsible for said child until he can accept the full meaning of rights/responsibilities on his own.
So yeah, child care is pretty low hanging fruit.
That's a pretty round-about way to say - positive responsibilities exist, and that there is a basis for legal enforcement of them. Contracts, of course, are a legal mechanism for defining responsibilities in specific interactions between individuals. Their existence is premised on the idea that responsibilities exist, and that you can voluntarily take them on.
The responsibilities of parents seem, to me, to be more basic that they type of responsibilities contracts cover. No need to wrench that round peg into the square hole of contract law. One reason it doesn't fit - if you fail to hold up your end of a bargain in a contract, the state can use force to get you to hold it up, or punish you for not doing it. They don't, however, place responsibility on others to fulfill your responsibilities if you don't respond to the force and fulfill your responsibilities. If parents refuse to take care of their child, however, even after state invention and attempt to coerce them into it, the responsibility for child care is transferred to others. In a sense, the child has a positive right to expect food, shelter, and education. It is the parents responsibility to provide that. If the parents can't (let's say they die), that responsibility falls to others. In my mind that responsibility falls to the society as a whole. This may require very little from any individual in the society (a small tax, say), but it is still the responsibility of the society.
This does not generalize to all "needs." But there are certainly other responsibilities that operate at this level. Any moral philosophy that ignores them has important gaps. Is underdeveloped. If you base a legal system on just such an underdeveloped moral philosophy, it will also fail to address those gaps, it seems.
FWIW, the founders clearly recognized the concept of positive rights. There is at least one in the bill of rights.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
sheesh,
The responsibilities of parents seem, to me, to be more basic that they than the type of responsibilities contracts cover.
Neu,
I meant "us vs. them"ism. You are calling a philosophy you don't agree with "infantile" over a semantic disagreement.
That seems different than us-vs-themism to me. I don't see who the "us" or the "them" is...really.
But "Liberals" designates a group of people.
Libertarians adhere to a construction of negative rights. You are calling that philosophy infantile. Are not, then, the followers of an infantile philosophy infantile themselves or at least deficient?
"Your ideas are infantile," is not a compliment around here.
As to child care...
Once again, the crux of argument is about the difference between voluntary and involuntary duties. If you have a child, you have crossed many "checkpoints" at which to abrogate responsibility for that child: contraception, post-contraception, abortion, adoption, intrafamily adoption, safe-space abandonment. The rights and duties of parenthood are willingly adopted, and therefore I don't have a problem codifying them into a set of laws considering you are the steward of that child until age of majority.
Of course positive duties exist, I'm just denying the existence of involuntary positive duties. They violate self-autonomy and are unworkable from a practical standpoint.
sugarfree,
The rights and duties of parenthood are willingly adopted, and therefore I don't have a problem codifying them into a set of laws considering you are the steward of that child until age of majority.
But orhpans must fend for themselves?
Who is responsible for the child if the parents can't/won't take care of them?
How do you handle that without "involuntary positive duties?"
Are not, then, the followers of an infantile philosophy infantile themselves or at least deficient?
Not necessarily, although some will be.
Are not, then, the followers of an infantile philosophy infantile themselves or at least deficient?
The more I think about this statement, the more amazing it is to me. Do you really think this way? You really think that someone who disagrees with your philosophy disagrees because they are not CAPABLE of recognizing the short comings of their ideas?
Neu;
First off, Orphanages have a long standing history of being private entities, so I don't see how even remotely you can be suggesting that government is required or necessary - and I'd contend that state entities are much worse at that job than anything else.
Secondly, you're sliding down a mother of all slippery slopes right now when you start talking about parents who "can't/won't" take care of their kids.
Of course this happens... But as I noted earlier, the qualifications are incredibly unclear in the vast majority of cases. Where do you intervene? If you see a mom scold & spank her kid in a store, is that "abuse"? To some it is. When/if I become a parent at some point, I will teach my kid how to swim the right way at an early age - but sometimes kids scream bloody murder the minute you get them in the pool in any way that's uncomfortable (note: learning is often uncomfortable). Should you intervene there?
Anyway - these are continuum problems, and ones you're not going to solve with some universal rule. What I find much scarier than the prospect of having to do private "intervention" style haranguing of bad parents by family, friends and members of your local community is a state that can arbitrarily take your children if how you raise them isn't in accordance with some pre-defined standard.
What about religious parents who want their kids to grow up with a certain philosophy?
What about hippies who might raise their kid to bathe once a week... hehe.
Plenty of room in the world for varying ideas - many of them are sure to be stupid, but does that mean we get to jump in and take people's kids? I think not.
Private social pressure is much more sufficient anyway.
Perhaps I should cite: 92-Year Old... Boys Town.
Say you encounter a runaway, or a parent who's just not up to the job... How is it better to send an armed policeman to their house in say 99% of cases, than to strongly encourage them to consider getting help from a place like that. Even giving the parent's name & address to organizations which have a lot of public outreach. Let their professionals handle it too.
Sean,
Slippery slope, plato's beard, yadda yadda.
Gotta go.
Neu,
We are talking past each, it seems.
If I say "Christianity is stupid," am I not also making a comment about the intelligence of some one who would call themselves a Christian?
Would you accept "I am not calling you stupid, it's just that the fundamental aspects of your guiding ideas are stupid."
I don't think people who disagree with me aren't capable of understanding what I believe, and even if they do understand, I don't care if they agree with me or not. They just have to leave me alone.
See, what I believe places no obligations on anyone except to not interfere with anyone else lest they be interfered with themselves.
But if I help my neighbor because someone else commanded me to upon threat of being jailed, that isn't possibly a righteous act. For me, or for the guy with the guns.
As such, Christian theocracy is rather perplexing.
Yup. Though I do think that is a small sub-set of Christianity. One that gets blown out of proportion by the media, atheists, and libertarians alike.
JB, I think that subset entirely depends on where you are in the world.
Sugarfree,
If I say "Christianity is stupid," am I not also making a comment about the intelligence of some one who would call themselves a Christian?
Based on the way you frame it, yes, I would assume that YOU would mean it that way.
I, however, see a pretty big difference between "That is a stupid idea" and "you are stupid to think that."
Anyway, I was just yanking your chain. I find the "group X is racist" claims that crop up in discussions of race ironic. That is all I was pointing out.
Let us not.
Those who protested tom Tancredo's speech at UNC were pretty nutty.
There were people who protested the 2008 bailout. The protests expanded when President Obama proposed increasing spending on top of the seven hundred billion that he voted for (and President Bush signed).
Which people in America were tortured?
How many were tortured by American troops (whose conduct is subject to the UCMJ)?
That neo-Nazi could be linked to that sand Nazi accused of killing a U.S. Army recruiter.
And, after these paranoid delusions rattle around a bit, the left will think something like: "Well, the Republicans have all these death squads out to get The President, why not get a little of our own back?"
Judging from the photos of aggrieved town-hall protesters, quite a few of these folks that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are characterizing as swastika-waving evil-mongers look old enough to have actually fought against swastika-waving evil-mongers back in the day.
These clips remind me of the parts of 'Atlas Shrugged' when Rand articulates everything the second-handers thought, and their little quips about all the shit that went down. life imitating art I suppose.
after the election, sites were innundated with juvenile comments to the effect of "we won..so everybody else shut up and go away"
(and the prez is still working that line!) they are in shock that it doesn't work that way. the rest of us are still here.
thanks very sesli chat