If Bernie Sanders is for Peace...why did he....

[Padawanbater2]

Any more questions obedient Slave?

lol...

 

[Rob Roy]

No, I meant waisted. As in... panty waisted. lol.

We agree coercion is wrong. But unlike the mafia, government actually provides something in return for its "coercion".

Thank you for acknowledging that coercion is wrong. You are also wrong in your attempt to justify coercion though.

Mutual exchange between two parties absent coercion provides two satisfied people or the exchange would not take place.

Uni-lateral exchanges, under threat of force do not become acceptable simply because one party sets the terms and some of the terms might include providing a good or a service. The fact that the "offer" cannot be refused makes it illegitimate.

Why do you make an exception for government to be coercive, when if you or I did the same thing our actions would cause us to be thugs? How is it any different?

 

[Rob Roy]

lol...

When you are done chuckling, break down what I told Fog dog and point out where what I said is in error.

Can you ? We both know you can't.

 

[see4]

A person believes he owns the product of his labor and he isn't anyone's slave.

Wrong. A person can only believe that if they created something of their own volition. If said person goes to a factory, makes some parts and puts them in a box, he knows he does not own that product.

A group of douche bags form a thing called government, then a person, the ostensible head of this government, (we'll call him Obama) comes up with a plan to make everybody buy something, health insurance.

No. Free market, private health insurance and the health care providers were taking advantage of people, the government made an attempt to ease this cruel way of business by forcing the insurance pool to be greater, in effect lowering the basic risks the insurance providers have to assume, thus lowering costs to everyone. A better way to explain it, is, for you anti-welfare people out there, is the government is stopping the welfare group from taking advantage of "free health care" - you got to pay to play.

If you don't buy it, a penalty is imposed on you for failing to be obedient.

Nothing to do with obedience and everything to do with your self centered narcissism. The world doesn't revolve around you old man. Some things need to be done for the greater good.

If you don't pay the penalty, the nasty letters start. If you ignore the threatening letters, eventually, a douchebag in a black robe ( a shitty lawyer aka a "judge" ) will issue a piece of paper telling mercenaries with guns (the Po-Po) to go and bring you before him.

Not true. Stop making shit up.

If you decline their offer and ask them politely to leave your property, they will commence threatening you and insist that you go, then if you continue to refuse their offer, they will initiate offensive force against you. If you exercise the right all people have, self defense, they will eventually kill you.

Bullshit. But if your fantasy were reality, why not just leave? I'm sure Canada is looking for fine folks like yourself.

Any more questions obedient Slave?

Says the old man who pays his taxes. Hypocrite, put your money where your mouth is, stop paying taxes, get off the internet (ya know, the thing the government created). I'm sure all of us here would be ever so grateful for your departure.

Good day to you sir.

 

[Padawanbater2]

When you are done chuckling, break down what I told Fog dog and point out where what I said is in error.

Can you ? We both know you can't.

Yes, I could, to any reasonable person

You are an unreasonable person

 

[see4]

Thank you for acknowledging that coercion is wrong. You are also wrong in your attempt to justify coercion though.

Mutual exchange between two parties absent coercion provides two satisfied people or the exchange would not take place.

Uni-lateral exchanges, under threat of force do not become acceptable simply because one party sets the terms and some of the terms might include providing a good or a service. The fact that the "offer" cannot be refused makes it illegitimate.

Why do you make an exception for government to be coercive, when if you or I did the same thing our actions would cause us to be thugs? How is it any different?

So you're ok with adult men having sex with 13 year old girls? Sometimes there needs to be rules. Not everyone plays fairly. Thus, government.

 

[Rob Roy]

So you deny that your ideas if actualized would enable pedophilia. The bullshitter here is you. I along with most of the civilized world say that the adult must leave the child alone. Children do not understand this issue and what they say cannot be construed as consent.

If you want to discuss when a child is able to understand the issue, help define the line by answering me this: Can a child under the age of 14 consent to sex with an adult of age 21 or more? If you say "yes" or "not sure", please explain how you would discern whether one 14 year old did consent and different 14 year old did not consent.

Rob, I've said this before and I'll say it again. You endlessly propound a set of ideas that would: Roll back hard won rights to minorities,
Enable sexual predators including rapists and pedophiles, Render neighbors unable to stop polluters from poisoning air and water thereby rendering the land about them unusable, Devolve society into primitive and violent clans as in Afghanistan. The end-state of your unregulated free market is monopolies. To all of this, I say, no thanks.

As evidence that your ideas fail in the the real world, your own life style, based upon your beliefs is not recognizable from poverty.

Add to this your completely insane proposal that the US unilaterally disarm in the face of relentlessly violent enemies. To all of this I say, "you are nuts" and "no thanks".

I don't need a law to tell me to leave kids alone. Are you saying that you do? Also, if you want to argue about that, I'll do it in another thread, but not here. I think it's your attempt to keep from answering why you support somebody that voted to fund death for innocent people.

No minority or majority has any right to force another person to associate with them, yet that is what you are proposing.

The government of the USA is not the people of the USA, nor is the government "society" .

Also, the end of a free market is the REMOVAL of a monopoly. You are as woefully inept concerning a real free market as Bernie is. (that's bad BTW)


Anyhow, you never answered why Bernie voted to continue funding the Pentagon, do you suppose he thinks they bake pies and give them to people or do you suppose he knows they will kill innocent people, babies included?

Why did Bernie vote to fund the empire ? Can you answer that ?

 

[see4]

Anyhow, you never answered why Bernie voted to continue funding the Pentagon, do you suppose he thinks they bake pies and give them to people or do you suppose he knows they will kill innocent people, babies included?

Why did Bernie vote to fund the empire ? Can you answer that ?

You are equating the Pentagon to an empire. Your premise is false, therefore your entire argument is moot.

Nice try though.

 

[Rob Roy]

So you're ok with adult men having sex with 13 year old girls? Sometimes there needs to be rules. Not everyone plays fairly. Thus, government.

Nice side step. I'm not okay with lots of things people do, but if the people involved are okay with it and it doesn't involve me, where do I get the right to intervene ? That was a generic question by the way.

Yes, I could, to any reasonable person

You are an unreasonable person

If I were an unreasonable person I'd be advocating some people have the right to run others lives for them. I do not advocate that.

I don't think you can refute the example I gave to Fog Dog of what can happen if you disobey a government command. In fact I know you can't and you do too.

 

[Rob Roy]

You are equating the Pentagon to an empire. Your premise is false, therefore your entire argument is moot.

Nice try though.

No, I am equating Bernie to a lackey for the military industrial complex....because he is.

 

[Padawanbater2]

If I were an unreasonable person I'd be advocating some people have the right to run others lives for them. I do not advocate that.

You advocate for policies that will harm people because you believe your right to liberty is more important than everyone else's right to the reasonable expectation of safety in society and you are unwilling to see any legitimate compromise on that position

So yeah, I'd say that definitely makes you an unreasonable person

 

[Rob Roy]

Wrong. A person can only believe that if they created something of their own volition. If said person goes to a factory, makes some parts and puts them in a box, he knows he does not own that product.


No. Free market, private health insurance and the health care providers were taking advantage of people, the government made an attempt to ease this cruel way of business by forcing the insurance pool to be greater, in effect lowering the basic risks the insurance providers have to assume, thus lowering costs to everyone. A better way to explain it, is, for you anti-welfare people out there, is the government is stopping the welfare group from taking advantage of "free health care" - you got to pay to play.


Nothing to do with obedience and everything to do with your self centered narcissism. The world doesn't revolve around you old man. Some things need to be done for the greater good.


Not true. Stop making shit up.


Bullshit. But if your fantasy were reality, why not just leave? I'm sure Canada is looking for fine folks like yourself.


Says the old man who pays his taxes. Hypocrite, put your money where your mouth is, stop paying taxes, get off the internet (ya know, the thing the government created). I'm sure all of us here would be ever so grateful for your departure.

Good day to you sir.

Once again you demonstrate that you think a government protected market (the one you described) is a free market. It isn't.



Also, I said that ultimately the penalty for disobedience to Obamacare can be death by government. You did not refute that.

I'm sure some people wish I'd stop pointing out their turd polishing and shit salad gobbling, but it amuses me, so I'm not going to.

 

[Rob Roy]

You advocate for policies that will harm people because you believe your right to liberty is more important than everyone else's right to the reasonable expectation of safety in society and you are unwilling to see any legitimate compromise on that position

So yeah, I'd say that definitely makes you an unreasonable person

Okay when you quit clearing your throat and shuffling your feet and spouting distractions please refute what I told Fog Dog.

You can't. Ultimately the penalty for disobedience is they can (and will) kill you.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Okay when you quit clearing your throat and shuffling your feet and spouting distractions please refute what I told Fog Dog.

You can't. Ultimately the penalty for disobedience is they can (and will) kill you.

If you are stupid enough to pull a gun on someone because you believe they are infringing on your rights issuing a legitimate warrant or whatever, you are the aggressor in that situation infringing on their rights, and if you get killed as a result of that, I would not call that an "execution"

 

[Rob Roy]

Im gonna skip ahead and ask, which current candidate, if any, do you believe has a career-long perfect track record in regards to actions matching words?
It's pretty easy to find hypocrisy or flimsy stances in a political candidate when you're reviewing their whole career. It's only slightly harder to figure out that these candidates understand that none of their ideology will matter if they aren't elected. We the people get the fun task of deciding who will probably lie to us the least.

I do not believe any candidate can run your life better than you can.

If I vote, it will be for Vermin Supreme, if you vote it will be for Vermin too, one way or another.

 

[Rob Roy]

If you are stupid enough to pull a gun on someone because you believe they are infringing on your rights issuing a legitimate warrant or whatever, you are the aggressor in that situation infringing on their rights, and if you get killed as a result of that, I would not call that an "execution"

You were doing better when you were shuffling your feet.

Can you or I authorize somebody else or a group of somebodies rights we do not have ? The answer is no.

Then how can any group made of individual people accumulate rights that none of the individual people within it have?

You ascribe legitimacy reflexively to a gang, when it does not exist.

 

[Rob Roy]

If you are stupid enough to pull a gun on someone because you believe they are infringing on your rights issuing a legitimate warrant or whatever, you are the aggressor in that situation infringing on their rights, and if you get killed as a result of that, I would not call that an "execution"

Your argument is the same one slave holders made to rationalize their ownership of other people, that somehow something "legal" is also legitimate.

So, if a slave ran away and tried to defend himself from capture, HE is the aggressor ? How does that work and why are your shoes all scuffed up, Grasshopper?

 

[see4]

Once again you demonstrate that you think a government protected market (the one you described) is a free market. It isn't.



Also, I said that ultimately the penalty for disobedience to Obamacare can be death by government. You did not refute that.

I'm sure some people wish I'd stop pointing out their turd polishing and shit salad gobbling, but it amuses me, so I'm not going to.

Or, you could stop complaining, be a man and do something about it. Apparently the world is tough on you. I'm sure Canada will take in folks like yourself. Ever consider moving there? Perhaps get off the internet altogether? I mean, it's a government creation and all, and we all know how much you hate the government.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Can you or I authorize somebody else or a group of somebodies rights we do not have ? The answer is no.

Then how can any group made of individual people accumulate rights that none of the individual people within it have?

You ascribe legitimacy reflexively to a gang, when it does not exist.

You live in la-la land, I live in reality, you talk about how you would like things to be, I talk about how things are

In no way does that "ascribe legitimacy" to anything. There are many things I would change about society, but sitting here believing I'm just gonna go live however I want to regardless of the rules and institutions already in place and if anyone bothers me they're infringing on my rights is comically absurd. If everyone believed the same thing you believe it would be pure chaos and everyone here but you knows it.

You're unreasonable, there's no point in discussing anything with you, you're just going to argue and argue and argue about it until people get tired of it, doesn't matter how many people tell you you're wrong or show you why

 

[NLXSK1]

You notice they dont try to defend Bernie's funding of the American Military Machine because they cant and the contradiction makes them uncomfortable so they do what is natural which is to attack the messenger while completely ignoring the message.