Obama Signs Westminster Abbey Guest Book…

[Hawk]

Bill, libertarians are for gun ownership. Guns are involved in murders. Do libertarians support murder?

That if the most stupid remark you ever made ! Liberterians will not stand behind nor support a murderer because he own a gun, but you will support a racist who discriminates because he owns a restaurant . You make it way too easy. Want to try again ?

I am using your logic. You used the stupid word.

You did not use MY logic...

You just can't change the fact that YOU, as a libertarian will support any racist who owns a business open to the public, to discriminate based on race. That's a fact that you can't change. You can argue why you think that way, but you can't change the fact.

[Banned]

I got the country wrong, it the Netherlands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_polic ... etherlands

The view drug use through a treatment rather than a law enforcement viewpoint.

[Hawk]

Headed out to see the 'Canes at Pelleys. You going ?

[Banned]

That if the most stupid remark you ever made ! Liberterians will not stand behind nor support a murderer because he own a gun, but you will support a racist who discriminates because he owns a restaurant . You make it way too easy. Want to try again ?

I am using your logic. You used the stupid word.

You did not use MY logic...

You just can't change the fact that YOU, as a libertarian will support any racist who owns a business open to the public, to discriminate based on race. That's a fact that you can't change. You can argue why you think that way, but you can't change the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Let me try it this way for you. Libertarians support a private property owner exercising his liberty and freedom with his property. Some property owners are saints, some are racists. Because some are racists you then say that libertarians support racism.

We strongly disagree with that. Please read the link above, first provided by Lonewolf. It might help you avoid a slanderous lawsuit some day if you keep using your flawed logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

You might want to read this before more of your posts.

[Hawk]

I am using your logic. You used the stupid word.

You did not use MY logic...

You just can't change the fact that YOU, as a libertarian will support any racist who owns a business open to the public, to discriminate based on race. That's a fact that you can't change. You can argue why you think that way, but you can't change the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

You are kidding right ? You already admitted that discrimination would happen if the Libertarian principles were in place. Are you flip flopping ? Are you saying all those White Power groups wouldn't buy public businesses ? You make me

[Banned]

You have a theory that white racists groups are waiting for the libertarians to become the dominant political force in DC and then will go out and buy up a lot of restaurants?? So they can then discriminate??

How long have you had this theory? How many white racist groups are involved with this?

Will any black racists also buy up restaurants so they can discriminate, or is this just a white plot of discriminating restaurant owners?

This is getting good.

[Banned]

Are they planning to buy up all the Dennys? You mentioned that earlier, and is this part of the grand racial discrimination restaurant takeover?

That would be the GRDRT. We need a better acronym.

I wonder if Obama is ruining the economy to make it harder for these bad white guys to buy up all these restaurants? It makes some sense in Bill's world, ruin the American economy and defeat the white guy racist plan to buy up all the Dennys.

We might need the FBI to check out how many Dennys owners have white hoods in their closets.

[Hawk]

Bill, libertarians are for gun ownership. Guns are involved in murders. Do libertarians support murder?

Joe, since you don't follow the logic very well, let me break it down for you.

If someone owns a gun we both support his right to own a gun. If he uses the gun to kill, neither of us support his killing, we both think he should be punished.

If a racist owns a public business and he discriminates based on race, I want him to be punished (by simply saying, "you aren't allowed to do that"). You, on the other hand want to support his discrimination by telling him he has the right to do it.

You don't support murder, you do support race discrimination.

Do you see the difference ?

I was just pointing out that there are a lot of white racists out there. You know that. And you want to enable them to rear their ugly head. I don't. And you are incredibly naive if you think they won't.

[songsmith]

One question. Please find me a libertarian dictionary. You said I use one. Please show me where I quoted from this mysterious dictionary.

If you can do this one thing some would be impressed.

It's a figure of speech, Joe-Joe. A metaphor for your own personal lexicon, and that of your equally-spaced-out peers. You all talk the same... "socialist" this, and "constitution" that, and you in particular, are famous for it, with Wolf a very close second. If I took all the talkshow catchphrases out of your posts, they'd just be mostly nonsensical insults and empty space.

Just because you call something wacko does not mean the whole topic is finished and its time for your arm to reach around and pat yourself.

My life is fine thank you, at least I am not on government welfare. No wonder you are such a government fascist, you need that ride in the cart and need others to pull it.

Ooh, more personal attacks, and suprise, surprise, Joe is WRONG AGAIN. Not on welfare. Not on unemployment. Not the recipient of any helpful gov't program whatsoever, none at all, nope, negatory good buddy. You assumed, and we all know when you assume, you make an Ass out of U, and not me. I'm underemployed, but not fully unemployed, and despite Renner's hints otherwise, I still have plenty of savings even without my wife, and am financially quite comfy, thanks. I don't like paying $4 for gas, but I've lived on WAY less than what I have now. Sorry to disappoint.

When Lonewolf asks you why are you such a government fascist, that is my proof you are left of Micheal Moore. You don't like the websites I provide, that's your problem. At least I show where a quote is from, something you do not do.

Okaaaayyyy. Nice logic! If Lonewolf asks what time it is, does that make me a clock? I'll bite: Joe, why are you such an insufferable blowhard? (and what's that make you?)

So why did you bring the spotlight back to you on a thread about JP losing his job?

For the record, you did that. If you need to know why, it's because you're a child, and you do childish things. He's had a couple of years to hate me for it if he wanted to, but he doesn't appear to take it as hard as you do, he's always been a good friend. In fact, we discussed the whole situation then, just not with you. He's not like you, Joe, he's not petty and shallow. Post some more of that, people respect when you lie to poison the well, like the 14 year-old girl you are. A petulant, self-involved mental teeny-bopper whose life revolves around bullying the other kids because they're not "cool." Don't you have cheer camp or something?

[Banned]

You don't support murder, you do support race discrimination.

I don't support murder, discrimination nor addiction. No matter how much twisted logic you try to use, I do not support any of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Please let me know when its OK to eat at Dennys. Let me know if the FBI and Homeland Security turned up many white sheets and hoods.

[Banned]

Johnny posted:

"Ooh, more personal attacks, and suprise, surprise, Joe is WRONG AGAIN. Not on welfare. Not on unemployment. Not the recipient of any helpful gov't program whatsoever, none at all, nope, negatory good buddy. You assumed, and we all know when you assume, you make an Ass out of U, and not me. I'm underemployed, but not fully unemployed, and despite Renner's hints otherwise, I still have plenty of savings even without my wife, and am financially quite comfy, thanks. I don't like paying $4 for gas, but I've lived on WAY less than what I have now. Sorry to disappoint."

---

You have posted that you get the earned income tax credit. That is straight government welfare, a check given to you, not a refund of overpayment of taxes. I have never received this, but I have paid for your gummint cheese.

To receive the earned income tax credit, you most probably do not even pay federal taxes. Why not use your time and energy to earn a living and pay your fair share of taxes like most of us? Quit wasting it here, lying and insulting and demonstrating your vast idiocy.

[songsmith]

Are you working, underachieverjoe? Have you collected unemployment in, say, the last 2-3 years? Government-issued checks? What are you doing for a living now, that you have the time to follow me around on the internet? Nothing? Sounds like fun.
Now, another issue: Why do you support GE not paying taxes, and Big Oil getting 20Bn in tax breaks, but not Ol' Songsmith, he's gotta pay and pay. And if I pay into the pool that pays your unemployment compensation, and the tax pool that pays for the roads you drive on, how am I ruining YOUR country?
Whatever friendship we had died on the teeth of your pathetic attempt to poison other friendships. You're a loudmouth loser, and your little scratches do no real damage. I turn off this computer, and you simply disappear. I turn it on tomorrow, and make you look like a stuttering dumbass all over again. With every post, you dig yourself deeper and deeper into your little pit of despair. You're a birther, you admit it, and you deserve all the embarrassment that comes with your choices. I no longer hold you in any esteem or respect. I only have pity for you, and sadness that you've fallen.

[Banned]

Are you working, underachieverjoe? Have you collected unemployment in, say, the last 2-3 years? Government-issued checks? What are you doing for a living now, that you have the time to follow me around on the internet? Nothing? Sounds like fun.
Now, another issue: Why do you support GE not paying taxes, and Big Oil getting 20Bn in tax breaks, but not Ol' Songsmith, he's gotta pay and pay. And if I pay into the pool that pays your unemployment compensation, and the tax pool that pays for the roads you drive on, how am I ruining YOUR country?
Whatever friendship we had died on the teeth of your pathetic attempt to poison other friendships. You're a loudmouth loser, and your little scratches do no real damage. I turn off this computer, and you simply disappear. I turn it on tomorrow, and make you look like a stuttering dumbass all over again. With every post, you dig yourself deeper and deeper into your little pit of despair. You're a birther, you admit it, and you deserve all the embarrassment that comes with your choices. I no longer hold you in any esteem or respect. I only have pity for you, and sadness that you've fallen.

Please provide proof that I posted somewhere that I support GE not paying taxes. Or Big oil or any corporate welfare. Libertarians are against corporatism. Your god Obama has the former CEO of GE, which paid no taxes in the White House as a chief economic advisory. You god Obama supports GE paying no taxes, why don't you?

BTW, I have paid taxes and unemployment insurance since I was 16, that's over 40 years worth. That is not anything like the welfare your lazy ass is taking away from all of us who do work and pay taxes.

Never considered you a friend, no respect was ever offered. I know a blow hard asshole when I meet one. Oh, just so you know, when I use the runt word, I am referring to your mental capacity.

Do you think there is something wrong when one points out that the president put out a poorly forged document claiming to be his birth certificate? Most forgery experts have found up to 27 easily identifiable errors with it. Its your god, your messiah, so you take whatever he says as gospel. We all knows he lies just as often as you do.

[f.sciarrillo]

I don't consider Unemployment as welfare because you pay into it. So if you lose your job, you entitled to collect it.

[Banned]

There is money taken out every paycheck when you work for unemployment.

The earned income tax credit is straight government payment to people who are working and do not pay income taxes or did not have taxes withheld.

[sstuckey]

Are you working, underachieverjoe? Have you collected unemployment in, say, the last 2-3 years? Government-issued checks? What are you doing for a living now, that you have the time to follow me around on the internet? Nothing? Sounds like fun.
Now, another issue: Why do you support GE not paying taxes, and Big Oil getting 20Bn in tax breaks, but not Ol' Songsmith, he's gotta pay and pay. And if I pay into the pool that pays your unemployment compensation, and the tax pool that pays for the roads you drive on, how am I ruining YOUR country?
Whatever friendship we had died on the teeth of your pathetic attempt to poison other friendships. You're a loudmouth loser, and your little scratches do no real damage. I turn off this computer, and you simply disappear. I turn it on tomorrow, and make you look like a stuttering dumbass all over again. With every post, you dig yourself deeper and deeper into your little pit of despair. You're a birther, you admit it, and you deserve all the embarrassment that comes with your choices. I no longer hold you in any esteem or respect. I only have pity for you, and sadness that you've fallen.

I HAVE collected unemployment sometime during the last 2-3 years....you got something you wanna say to me about that?! Choose your words carefully here my friend...VERY CAREFULLY!!!

[lonewolf]

Now I know why I am so often misunderstood. Although I strive to be very precise and frank in my language...everybody and I mean EVERYBODY interjects their opinion of what they think they heard or read from me and distorts its true meaning.

I will have to put middle finger icons between each line to remind everybody to not read between the lines.

While I may agree with the Libertarian responses to my question...I did not ask whether inalienable rights exist or not. Even if nobody actually has them, they do exist, even if only in theory. That means the question begs a different answer.

I expected our "civil" rights experts to chomp at the bit to answer my question, but they seem to have evaded it? I wonder why?

Can a person's inalienable rights be taken away from them without due process of law?

In general, due process of law means that the person was arrested, tried, convicted and the sentence would remove that right. It would also apply to eminent domain cases.

Edit: In case anybody is wondering. "Civil" is encased in quotes because "civil rights" is a relatively new term that describes new "rights" that have been granted by the government.

[sstuckey]

Are you working, underachieverjoe? Have you collected unemployment in, say, the last 2-3 years? Government-issued checks? What are you doing for a living now, that you have the time to follow me around on the internet? Nothing? Sounds like fun.
Now, another issue: Why do you support GE not paying taxes, and Big Oil getting 20Bn in tax breaks, but not Ol' Songsmith, he's gotta pay and pay. And if I pay into the pool that pays your unemployment compensation, and the tax pool that pays for the roads you drive on, how am I ruining YOUR country?
Whatever friendship we had died on the teeth of your pathetic attempt to poison other friendships. You're a loudmouth loser, and your little scratches do no real damage. I turn off this computer, and you simply disappear. I turn it on tomorrow, and make you look like a stuttering dumbass all over again. With every post, you dig yourself deeper and deeper into your little pit of despair. You're a birther, you admit it, and you deserve all the embarrassment that comes with your choices. I no longer hold you in any esteem or respect. I only have pity for you, and sadness that you've fallen.

I HAVE collected unemployment sometime during the last 2-3 years....you got something you wanna say to me about that?! Choose your words carefully here my friend...VERY CAREFULLY!!!

I don't blame you for avoiding this. You're clearly skating on thin ice with a few of the rockpagers on here.

[Gallowglass]

Now I know why I am so often misunderstood. Although I strive to be very precise and frank in my language...everybody and I mean EVERYBODY interjects their opinion of what they think they heard or read from me and distorts its true meaning.

I will have to put middle finger icons between each line to remind everybody to not read between the lines.

While I may agree with the Libertarian responses to my question...I did not ask whether inalienable rights exist or not. Even if nobody actually has them, they do exist, even if only in theory. That means the question begs a different answer.

I expected our "civil" rights experts to chomp at the bit to answer my question, but they seem to have evaded it? I wonder why?

Can a person's inalienable rights be taken away from them without due process of law?

In general, due process of law means that the person was arrested, tried, convicted and the sentence would remove that right. It would also apply to eminent domain cases.

Edit: In case anybody is wondering. "Civil" is encased in quotes because "civil rights" is a relatively new term that describes new "rights" that have been granted by the government.

Sorry Lonewolf, I obviously didn't understand the question you were asking. You should have clarified that you meant even in theory. In response to you're clarified question, my response is...yes.

[shredder138]

[quote="undercoverjoe"]

I have paid for your gummint cheese.
quote]

And I appreciate your contribution, thank you.

[Hawk]

You don't support murder, you do support race discrimination.

I don't support murder, discrimination nor addiction. No matter how much twisted logic you try to use, I do not support any of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Please let me know when its OK to eat at Dennys. Let me know if the FBI and Homeland Security turned up many white sheets and hoods.

Joe, If a business owner of a public eatery discriminated against blacks (won't let them in the door), do you believe he is allowed to do that because he has a right to do so ?

Now Joe, prove to me you can take a direct question and give a direct answer... Or prove to all of us you can't stand up for you principles when they are in front of you. Any bets Joe avoids answering this question ?

A simple yes or no will suffice...

[f.sciarrillo]

They just said on CNN that, since FDR, no President has been re-elected with the unemployment rate over 7%. The unemployment rate right now is 9.5%. Do you think it will go below 7% by next november? I hope and pray that it does.

[lonewolf]

Sorry Lonewolf, I obviously didn't understand the question you were asking. You should have clarified that you meant even in theory.

That question was as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

This is another example of inductive reasoning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

i.e. since you don't believe that anybody has inalienable rights, you came to the invalid conclusion that they don't exist in any way shape or form.

[Gallowglass]

Sorry Lonewolf, I obviously didn't understand the question you were asking. You should have clarified that you meant even in theory.

That question was as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

This is another example of inductive reasoning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

i.e. since you don't believe that anybody has inalienable rights, you came to the invalid conclusion that they don't exist in any way shape or form.

Hey, thanks for the schooling. That question was as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer in your mind because you formulated it. You understood the experiential phenomenology behind it as a subjective participant ("I"). Cut the rest of us some slack. Any question that one asks or answers is subject to a wide array of subconscious or categorical interpretation. Don't assume to understand what my complete conclusion was on the subject, either. Just because I chose to answer the question from one epistemological perspective does not mean that I am incapable of entertaining multiple or even paradoxical views of the subject in question. I chose to answer it as I did because that was what I wanted to contribute in relation to the question. Btw, I get the whole inductive reasoning thing. I aced quite a few philosophy courses in school including high level ones on logic. Love you man...you consistently raise the bar on here and make this site a hell of a lot more interesting.

[sstuckey]

Sorry Lonewolf, I obviously didn't understand the question you were asking. You should have clarified that you meant even in theory.

That question was as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

This is another example of inductive reasoning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

i.e. since you don't believe that anybody has inalienable rights, you came to the invalid conclusion that they don't exist in any way shape or form.

Hey, thanks for the schooling. That question was as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer in your mind because you formulated it. You understood the experiential phenomenology behind it as a subjective participant ("I"). Cut the rest of us some slack. Any question that one asks or answers is subject to a wide array of subconscious or categorical interpretation. Don't assume to understand what my complete conclusion was on the subject, either. Just because I chose to answer the question from one epistemological perspective does not mean that I am incapable of entertaining multiple or even paradoxical views of the subject in question. I chose to answer it as I did because that was what I wanted to contribute in relation to the question. Btw, I get the whole inductive reasoning thing. I aced quite a few philosophy courses in school including high level ones on logic. Love you man...you consistently raise the bar on here and make this site a hell of a lot more interesting.

Someone wanna hand me a thesarus or dictionary? I don't have all dem der fancy book lernin's to keep up! ha ha ha