Jeff, watch out, those well written principles of yours enable racism. Some here want a fascist, totalitarian state to crush those ideals, mostly because some others do not think properly.lonewolf wrote:No. No difference. I do understand what you are saying, and I actually used to believe that bullshit when I was younger, uninformed and did not truly understand what real freedom is. We were all brainwashed in the 60s with these false notions. The truth will set you free.Hawk wrote:Come on Jeff, you know I'm talking about business open to the general public, and having non racial discriminatory hiring practices. Do you really NOT get that or are you trying to twist what the civil rights act is ?lonewolf wrote: The patrons and the workers are free to do as they please so long as they don't infringe on somebody else's rights. I don't know where you get this silly notion that everybody has a right to work at or enter any private business property they please. No such right exists for anyone.
Sadly, infringing on somebody's rights is exactly what happens when the government comes in and puts their boot on the throat of every private business and tells them whom they will hire and whom they will serve.
There is a difference between private property and an owner of private property opening his property (as in a resturant) to the general public.
Private property is private property and the US government hasn't respected that in decades. I don't care if its open to the greys from Alpha Centauri, nobody and I mean NOBODY has an absolute right to work on or enter private property. Courthouses, city halls, and other public places? Yes, absolutely. Private property? I don't care if the doors are swinging open 24/7...nobody has a right to it.
Obama Signs Westminster Abbey Guest Book…
So you didn't read it and you wish to use lies to scare. What does that make you ?undercoverjoe wrote:Jeff, watch out, those well written principles of yours enable racism. Some here want a fascist, totalitarian state to crush those ideals, mostly because some others do not think properly.lonewolf wrote:No. No difference. I do understand what you are saying, and I actually used to believe that bullshit when I was younger, uninformed and did not truly understand what real freedom is. We were all brainwashed in the 60s with these false notions. The truth will set you free.Hawk wrote: Come on Jeff, you know I'm talking about business open to the general public, and having non racial discriminatory hiring practices. Do you really NOT get that or are you trying to twist what the civil rights act is ?
There is a difference between private property and an owner of private property opening his property (as in a resturant) to the general public.
Private property is private property and the US government hasn't respected that in decades. I don't care if its open to the greys from Alpha Centauri, nobody and I mean NOBODY has an absolute right to work on or enter private property. Courthouses, city halls, and other public places? Yes, absolutely. Private property? I don't care if the doors are swinging open 24/7...nobody has a right to it.
You are assuming too much and therefore drawing poor conclusions. I believe in democracy, freedom of speech, no gun control, capitalism, ownership of property, freedom to eat in any restaurant you want, freedom of religion, etc. etc. etc. all of which I believe are contradictory to pure socialism, communism, totalitarianism and fascism.
I do believe in social projects in a capitalist society.
I do believe in social projects in a capitalist society.
Let's start here:
"How about freedom to do what you want to do on your property? "
Would you list the freedoms you don't have so that we can discuss individual points.
We have already established that you ARE NOT a racist but via Libertarian principles are for race based segregation and race based discrimination in the private sector. Now what other problems do you have with property ownership ?
"How about freedom to do what you want to do on your property? "
Would you list the freedoms you don't have so that we can discuss individual points.
We have already established that you ARE NOT a racist but via Libertarian principles are for race based segregation and race based discrimination in the private sector. Now what other problems do you have with property ownership ?
Damn lie again Joe. I want laws prohibiting race based segregation and race based discrimination in a business open to the general public. It is not the thought of racism, it is when segregation and discrimination HAPPEN...undercoverjoe wrote:Not a lie. You want the state to crush private property rights because some people commit the thought crime of racism.
That is very scary. We should all be afraid of a totalitarian state crushing our rights.
You are not angling for Commissar of Thought Control and well as Minister of Love, are you?
The difference is you don't care if it happens and I do.
A farmer I know had a pasture and potato field ruined when a family of beaver flooded the creek that went through his farm. The state does not allow anyone to touch, trap or hunt beaver. His pasture and field were ruined. For years. Now a ugly swamp.Hawk wrote:Let's start here:
"How about freedom to do what you want to do on your property? "
Would you list the freedoms you don't have so that we can discuss individual points.
We have already established that you ARE NOT a racist but via Libertarian principles are for race based segregation and race based discrimination in the private sector. Now what other problems do you have with property ownership ?
Did the state interfere with his rights on his personal property? Yes. Did the state reimburse him for his economic loss? NO.
I say the state took away a lot of his freedoms to the point that he endured economic hardship. They could have cared less.
Interesting aside, when the swamp affected the nearby road, then the state went in a trapped the beavers. It failed, a new family moved right in. Now that road gets flooded all the time.
A simple solution would have been to let the farmer trap them in the beginning, his land would still be in use and the road would have never been damaged. But that would have been letting him exercise his private property rights. No, the state nannies know better.
There is your wonderful EPA in full glory Bill.
Last edited by Banned on Monday May 30, 2011, edited 1 time in total.
I agree Joe. That sucks. Was it actually the Federal EPA ? Or State EPA ?undercoverjoe wrote:A farmer I know had a pasture and potato field ruined when a family of beaver flooded the creek that went through his farm. The state does not allow anyone to touch, trap or hunt beaver. His pasture and field were ruined. For years. Now a ugly swamp.Hawk wrote:Let's start here:
"How about freedom to do what you want to do on your property? "
Would you list the freedoms you don't have so that we can discuss individual points.
We have already established that you ARE NOT a racist but via Libertarian principles are for race based segregation and race based discrimination in the private sector. Now what other problems do you have with property ownership ?
Did the state interfere with his rights on his personal property? Yes. Did the state reimburse him for his economic loss? NO.
I say the state took away a lot of his freedoms to the point that he endured economic hardship. They could have cared less.
Interesting aside, when the swamp affected the nearby road, then the state went in a trapped the beavers. It failed, a new family moved right in. Now that road gets flooded all the time.
A simple solution would have been to let the farmer trap them in the beginning, his land would still be in use and the road would have never been damaged. But that would have been letting him exercise his private property rights. No, the state nannies know better.
There is your wonderful EPA in full glory Bill.
So we agree on this one ! Cool !
Next ?
My mistake you are for ALLOWING raced based segregation and race based discrimination. My fault for sure ! The Libertarian principle for which you stand behind only allows race based segregation and race based discrimination. Sorry, I did not mean to distort the principle for which you stand behind.undercoverjoe wrote:Can you show me where I posted that I am "for race based segregation and race based discrimination"?
undercoverjoe wrote:Why do you keep bring conservative dogma into this debate clearly about libertarianism? I answered you idiotic questions and then you did not like my answers and changed what I said to suit you viewpoint. You cannot make any argument without attacking conservatism, when conservatism is not even in this discussion. Your one track hatred of conservatism is getting old.songsmith wrote:conservative dogma would falter instantly without it.Gallowglass wrote:[OK then, if people are such rabid racist ant-humanitarian bastards, why should we entrust any amount of power to a central authority like the government?
First, you don't appear to have a clue as to what point I was making. Then, you did what any good neocon Tea Party-type would do: you made a sentence about the role of your corrupt media into an attack on conservatism. Then, you made libertarianism and conservatism two seperate entities, as if I accept a delineation between the two (libertarianism is a fringe elemental offshoot of radical conservatism).
Here's the original quote:
"...That media is a favorite target of mine to be sure, because modern conservative dogma would falter instantly without it."
In this sentence, the subject is the word, "media." I put it in a different color, so the differently-abled might better understand it.
I did really smile at the remark that my hatred for conservatism is getting old... it reminded me of how many times you've used the words fascism, socialism, Hussein, etc... You: "How can there be any freedom with socialism, communism, totalitarianism and fascism? There is none!!! Your ideas and principles negate freedom and liberty. That is why Libertarianism is totally opposed to those (and your) ideals." See what you did there? It's like you attempted to force me to associate moderate thought with totalitarianism, to accept yet another concept you define. I'm smarter than that. Here it is in a single sentence: If YOUR ideas represent conservatism, I will fight conservatism.
There, now you can go back to fighting for a white man's right to keep "the blacks" out of his restaurant. And stop the laughable definitions of "freedom," and "liberty." Simply identifying yourself as Libertarian means you completely misunderstand the term.
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
Do you have any evidence that the government fascism that you support in order to police the racism thought crime has any effect?Hawk wrote:My mistake you are for ALLOWING raced based segregation and race based discrimination. My fault for sure ! The Libertarian principle for which you stand behind only allows race based segregation and race based discrimination. Sorry, I did not mean to distort the principle for which you stand behind.undercoverjoe wrote:Can you show me where I posted that I am "for race based segregation and race based discrimination"?
I wonder. Say there is a restaurant in Mobile that would be an all-white restaurant if there were no so-called "civil-rights" laws. I seriously doubt that any Af-Ams are going to patronize such a restaurant with an openly hostile clientele. There is a higher level of segregation by neighborhood and by city that makes many of these laws pretty much moot.
So, is it worth keeping the government's jack boot on the throats of American business to provide solace to an extremely small minority of people who actually might benefit from it?
(always keeping in mind that nobody has the right to enter somebody else's private property)
The tyranny of the minority in the 21st century.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
I remember what lit this little firecracker of a thread. In another thread, ucjoe posted a wingnut link about Big Bad Bill supposedly bumping off everyone who had the goods on him. It was obviously ludicrous, and someone Snopes-ified it, to gales of laughing and finger-pointing. Then, as if to save face, he got onto Obama writing the the wrong date on a non-binding registry, because Joe would never make a mistake like that. A little prodding, and our Joseph revealed that he is still a Birther, despite all the evidence to the contrary. (That, alone, would have ended this conversation had we had it in person, because you don't like your friends to embarrass themselves TOO bad, but here it is) Bill and I both observed that libertarianism is basically a form of narcissism and self-perceived entitlement to authority over society, and a knee-jerk reaction to personal ineffectiveness. Lonewolf remarked that I needed to dumb it down some so the conservatives could follow along, and then there were 2 pages of what appears to be reasons why shop-owners don't have to serve black people because shop-owners outrank them. You're up to speed, and you're welcome. 
Now, I don't want it to appear that Joe discriminates against people. He does not. Unless you're liberal, Muslim, gay, Latino, poor, a pregnant woman, a working woman, a union-member, Iraqi, Afghan, pro-gun-control, lower-level employee, elderly, a gasoline user, sick or injured, a public-schoolteacher, a low-level govt employee, Democrat presidents, or anyone who does not defer to his authority. Other than that, he's the most live-and-let-live guy around. Oh yeah, blacks have to know their role, too, apparently. Racism is a civil crime, punishable by law. If a jury finds that a shop-owner discriminated based on race, they can levy settlements large enough to close the shop. You still have to obey the laws of the land. You can't kill someone in your shop, just because it's YOUR shop. That's the Libertarian fantasy, I'm sure, but it's not the reality.
Now, I don't want it to appear that Joe discriminates against people. He does not. Unless you're liberal, Muslim, gay, Latino, poor, a pregnant woman, a working woman, a union-member, Iraqi, Afghan, pro-gun-control, lower-level employee, elderly, a gasoline user, sick or injured, a public-schoolteacher, a low-level govt employee, Democrat presidents, or anyone who does not defer to his authority. Other than that, he's the most live-and-let-live guy around. Oh yeah, blacks have to know their role, too, apparently. Racism is a civil crime, punishable by law. If a jury finds that a shop-owner discriminated based on race, they can levy settlements large enough to close the shop. You still have to obey the laws of the land. You can't kill someone in your shop, just because it's YOUR shop. That's the Libertarian fantasy, I'm sure, but it's not the reality.
lonewolf wrote:The tyranny of the minority in the 21st century.
Yes, Libertarians are a small minority in a majority-rule democracy, who somehow assume authority, and scream like impudent children when they're denied it. Get 10% of any vote, and maybe folks will give you 10% of the power. But that'll never happen, so whattaya gonna do?
songsmith wrote:undercoverjoe wrote:Why do you keep bring conservative dogma into this debate clearly about libertarianism? I answered you idiotic questions and then you did not like my answers and changed what I said to suit you viewpoint. You cannot make any argument without attacking conservatism, when conservatism is not even in this discussion. Your one track hatred of conservatism is getting old.songsmith wrote: conservative dogma would falter instantly without it.
First, you don't appear to have a clue as to what point I was making.
BINGO!!
No one ever does.
Your rants are pointless and directionless, as pointed out by another recently.
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
No, my remark was more along the lines of:songsmith wrote:Lonewolf remarked that I needed to dumb it down some so the conservatives could follow along, and then there were 2 pages of what appears to be reasons why shop-owners don't have to serve black people because shop-owners outrank them.
Your posts ramble on and are so directionless and pointless that it is nearly impossible to identify a single idea. As Steve suggested, there is very little logic to your posts as they are usually just a rehash of populist sentiment.
Your sentences run on and on, many times with several completely separate subjects. I'd like to point out that punctuation are those little symbols that make writing flow smoother...you should investigate their proper usage. You confuse opinion with fact and have the audacity to omit relevant passages from others' posts when quoting them.
You ask people to answer specific questions and then completely rephrase the questions to suit your reply. You often "put words in people's mouth" with claims that were never made. This is evident with the above statement about shop-owners outranking others. I never made that statement or anything remotely close to it. I will say that "a person's property is their castle" and the owner is the only person with absolute rights to that property. On private property, the only right a non-owner has is to get the fuck off of it.
If you submitted this kind of work for English 202, you would receive a BIG FAT F
There is a big difference between writing rhetoric and scribbling a ditty.
Last edited by lonewolf on Tuesday May 31, 2011, edited 3 times in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Another nomination for Post of the Year.lonewolf wrote:No, my remark was more along the lines of:songsmith wrote:Lonewolf remarked that I needed to dumb it down some so the conservatives could follow along, and then there were 2 pages of what appears to be reasons why shop-owners don't have to serve black people because shop-owners outrank them.
Your posts ramble on and are so directionless and pointless that it is nearly impossible to identify a single idea. As Steve suggested, there is very little logic to your posts as they are usually just a rehash of populist sentiment.
Your sentences run on and on, many times with several completely separate subjects. I'd like to point out that punctuation are those little symbols that make writing flow smoother...you should investigate their proper usage. You confuse opinion with fact and have the audacity to omit relevant passages from others' posts when quoting them.
You ask people to answer specific questions and then completely rephrase the questions to suit your reply. You often "put words in people's mouth" with claims that were never made. This is evident with the above statement about shop-owners outranking others. I never made that statement or anything remotely close to it. I will say that "a person's property is their castle" and the owner is the only person with absolute rights to that property. On private property, the only right a non-owner has is to get the fuck off of it.
If you submitted this kind of work for English 202, you would receive a BIG FAT F
There is a big difference between writing rhetoric and scribbling a ditty.
Gosh, them sure is some big words. Allow me to speak conservative:lonewolf wrote:No, my remark was more along the lines of:songsmith wrote:Lonewolf remarked that I needed to dumb it down some so the conservatives could follow along, and then there were 2 pages of what appears to be reasons why shop-owners don't have to serve black people because shop-owners outrank them.
Your posts ramble on and are so directionless and pointless that it is nearly impossible to identify a single idea. As Steve suggested, there is very little logic to your posts as they are usually just a rehash of populist sentiment.
Your sentences run on and on, many times with several completely separate subjects. I'd like to point out that punctuation are those little symbols that make writing flow smoother...you should investigate their proper usage. You confuse opinion with fact and have the audacity to omit relevant passages from others' posts when quoting them.
You ask people to answer specific questions and then completely rephrase the questions to suit your reply. You often "put words in people's mouth" with claims that were never made. This is evident with the above statement about shop-owners outranking others. I never made that statement or anything remotely close to it. I will say that "a person's property is their castle" and the owner is the only person with absolute rights to that property. On private property, the only right a non-owner has is to get the fuck off of it.
If you submitted this kind of work for English 202, you would receive a BIG FAT F
There is a big difference between writing rhetoric and scribbling a ditty.
Founding Fathers, Founding Fathers. Constitution liberty freedom, constitution heritage liberty property-rights. Reagan liberty constitution core conservative values. Socialism? Constitution freedom founding fathers Restoring America totalitarianism NRA. Freedom Bill Of Rights Reagan free-market, freedom founding fathers liberty. Don't Tread On Me! Fascism? Obama. Socialist? Obama. Bush who? And if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops.
I don't know what any of that means, but I'm sure a few are nodding their heads in agreement.
I write the way I do, because if you don't cover all your bases upfront with a wingnut, they inject your point will all kinds of Fox-News crazy. That's not going to change, and if it gives you fits, excellent. Extremists take a lot of fits, it's in the job description. I didn't even closely read the racist stuff about making people get the f*ck out of your property because they're black, because it's the usual thinly-veiled conservative bigotry, with the veil removed. I didn't have to read it between the lines, it was overt, and people can see it plainly. The only right anyone has on your property is to get off your property, because you are Grand Dragon there... let's see that one hold up in court.
BTW, on a musical note, my ditties are selling like hotcakes, and they're available to black folks, too!
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
My, my, aren't we predictable?songsmith wrote:I didn't even closely read the racist stuff about making people get the f*ck out of your property because they're black, because it's the usual thinly-veiled conservative bigotry, with the veil removed. I didn't have to read it between the lines, it was overt, and people can see it plainly. The only right anyone has on your property is to get off your property, because you are Grand Dragon there... let's see that one hold up in court.lonewolf wrote:
No, my remark was more along the lines of:
You often "put words in people's mouth" with claims that were never made........
I will say that "a person's property is their castle" and the owner is the only person with absolute rights to that property. On private property, the only right a non-owner has is to get the fuck off of it.
BTW, it holds up in court everyday in the form of trespassing, self-defense acquittals, evictions, PFAs and more.
Of course, the owner does not have the right to harm the non-owner without legitimate provocation.
Cool! $4 for all you can eat?songsmith wrote:BTW, on a musical note, my ditties are selling like hotcakes, and they're available to black folks, too!
But seriously, I'm glad you are doing well with your latest project.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Tell the court you evicted a black person from your property because he's black. You're injecting a crime into it to make it your argument, but we were discussing your freedom to toss anyone for any reason. Assuming that the black person committed a crime seems... 
Mama Corn CD's are available for $15, and selling briskly! Thanks for the good word, we worked really hard, and spent a lot of money and time on it. We think it's a great bridge for non-grassers to cross over to the bluegrass genre.
Mama Corn CD's are available for $15, and selling briskly! Thanks for the good word, we worked really hard, and spent a lot of money and time on it. We think it's a great bridge for non-grassers to cross over to the bluegrass genre.