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

[Rob Roy]

Don't bother. You are corned by your own logic into deflecting rather than answering the question. This is boring.

No, I am somewhat limited by the low comprehension and high levels of cognitive dissonance of the intended audience.

It's not boring, it just that if I do it, you might experience a funny feeling in your head, it's known as thinking...but then again maybe you won't.

 

[NoDrama]

So basically none of the Bernie supporters could come up with a reasonable answer as to why their chosen candidate speaks about peace, but delivers a big stick? All they could attempt was a childish game of false accusation? Most of the false accusations keep coming from that racist fella Buck who helped found stormfront, so there's that. The reason he knows so much about racism is because he is one. There really is no other explanation.

 

[see4]

broken

@Rob Roy You need to fix your quoted comment, it's all borked up.

But in response to your nay say, and based on your logic, we can conclude the relationship, however consenting, is based on assumptions. The assumption is the laborer will do work to the satisfaction of their employer in exchange for money (the product), and that the employer assumes the laborer will do the work.

Not dissimilar to how we assume our government will look out for our best interests, pave our roads, build our bridges, maintain our schools, protect us from the tyranny of other evil empires throughout the world, and the government can then assume we give them money (the product) in exchange.

If you do not agree to those terms, you are free to leave at any time.

Like I said, Canada is waiting for progressive forward thinkers like yourself. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

 

[Fogdog]

So basically none of the Bernie supporters could come up with a reasonable answer as to why their chosen candidate speaks about peace, but delivers a big stick? All they could attempt was a childish game of false accusation? Most of the false accusations keep coming from that racist fella Buck who helped found stormfront, so there's that. The reason he knows so much about racism is because he is one. There really is no other explanation.

not at all. The premise is that if Bernie voted for anything to do with the military then liberals must abandon him. I know that's the way conservatives do it, they value purity over practicality. Which is how you end up with Trump at the current front runner. He actually has no record in office, so you can assume he's pure if you want.

Bernie has a good record compared to other presidential candidates regarding his votes on military spending.

This went over Roy's head very early in this thread. It felt as if I were explaining it to a retarded person so I took the conversation down to a level that he could understand. It got boring and I've now put Roy into the ignore bin. Boring is the worst.

 

[Rob Roy]

No, I'm saying that society stems from necessity and without society, we would not be able to support the population we have

Our system of government didn't arise out of coercion. Thousands of men fought and died for it, voluntarily, during the revolutionary war

Sometimes people, myself included, fall into a pattern of speech where it sounds like we call government, "society". They are not the same things.


Also, you are COMPLETELY WRONG. The system of government used in the USA, DID arise from coercion.
You should consider reading some of Lysander Spooners essays, he puts your argument in the waste basket.

 

[Rob Roy]

@Rob Roy You need to fix your quoted comment, it's all borked up.

But in response to your nay say, and based on your logic, we can conclude the relationship, however consenting, is based on assumptions. The assumption is the laborer will do work to the satisfaction of their employer in exchange for money (the product), and that the employer assumes the laborer will do the work.

Not dissimilar to how we assume our government will look out for our best interests, pave our roads, build our bridges, maintain our schools, protect us from the tyranny of other evil empires throughout the world, and the government can then assume we give them money (the product) in exchange.

If you do not agree to those terms, you are free to leave at any time.

Like I said, Canada is waiting for progressive forward thinkers like yourself. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Nice dance, except when you tap your foot to the music your ankle chains are rattling.

When you contract with a person on a MUTUAL basis that is one thing, it is a BI-LATERAL contract.

When other people make the terms you MUST follow, it is a UNI-LATERAL contract. (that's a form of slavery by the way)

 

[Rob Roy]

How do you ensure impartiality of the arbiter in legal disputes?

"Let the free market decide"

As if bribes don't exist...


You continuously fail to realize we have the systems in place because we tried it your way and it didn't work

I bet if I bribed the "judge" in the trial where I was being accused of stealing your car, and he sided with me, you'd be singing a much different tune..

The judge in the present system isn't impartial. He can't be, he's enforcing laws which are bits and pieces of a greater uni-lateral contract brought about by a system he's sworn to protect. If you could understand what I just said, you wouldn't be able to refute it.

The government judge is granted immunity from any errors too. In that sense, a government judge is ALREADY bribed, since he doesn't depend on feedback from his "customers" for his pay, he gets it regardless, as long as he protects the system. He is also allowed to interpret the arbitrary law in ways that are ludicrous if he wants to, if you don't like it, you can appeal to a higher bozo, but ONLY within his circus. No other opinions or options are permitted, his circus holds a forcible monopoly.
,
His decisions aren't based in enforcing what is right or wrong, if he is competent in his treachery he will simply enforce the laws, that doesn't mean the mechanism which put the laws in place in the first place follow any kind of reasoning or consistency though. Proper procedural enforcement of nonsensical laws is often confused for "justice". It's not justice, it's the illusion of justice.

For instance a judge puts you in jail for growing weed. Did he do that because you harmed another person or did he do that because he's paid to ignore sensibility and enforce insensibility writ legal ? He isn't there to judge morality based on anything consistent, he's there to aid in the perpetuation of the system that feeds him, without regard to whether the law he is judging you on makes any sense... A free market "judge" wouldn't do that. His decisions themselves are continually judged by his customers, if he doesn't do a good job, his customers will desert him, if a government judge doesn't do a good job, it doesn't matter, he is immune from customer feedback.


Also, you've never said why you support Bernie the Bomber? I had you pegged for a person that thought the military industrial complex needed to go. Was I mistaken ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Who you gonna blame when Obama's gone?

Patience grasshopper, there will be another douche bag.

 

[Rob Roy]

If one were to be a criminal, this would be even better than the American Old West. Not only do you not have to worry about silly things like centralized databases, but only those with money can have anything investigated. Yep, sounds perfect for a criminal. That is one hell of a great system to hitch your wagon to. Let me guess, incarceration when safety is a concern is paid for by the victim or their family as well, right? HAHA! Brilliant. And those who are poor and wrongly found guilty of murdering your long lost (fake) sister can become your slave! Oh, the possibilities. I can see how this would appeal to certain people. Certain people who like to get away with doing whatever they want.

Well, to be fair I'll answer your original question now.

Why would somebody continue to support something that they knew was completely full of shit? I mean, pigeon's going to pigeon, right? That ain't no chicken.

Thank you for your time.

You raised a good point, which again is answered in the book The Market for Liberty.

Also I may start a thread in the new year discussing the concerns you have. Please participate, you ask good questions, but I'm afraid to date you may have drawn erroneous conclusions.

 

[Rob Roy]

That's a HUGE problem, the other night everyone of those GOP turds was screaming for More money in military and rebuilding it .

There are two kinds of "employment".

Those that are employed producing a good that people willingly purchase in a mutual transaction. They are known as "producers".
One example is a farmer or person that build things.


Those that are employed extracting goods from people in a forcible transaction. They are known as thieves and parasites.
One example is the mafia or government.

Adding jobs to the second category doesn't increase production, it increases consumption. Increasing consumption without increasing production eventually produces a negative outcome, mathematically and in real life.

 

[Rob Roy]

not at all. The premise is that if Bernie voted for anything to do with the military then liberals must abandon him. I know that's the way conservatives do it, they value purity over practicality. Which is how you end up with Trump at the current front runner. He actually has no record in office, so you can assume he's pure if you want.

Bernie has a good record compared to other presidential candidates regarding his votes on military spending.

This went over Roy's head very early in this thread. It felt as if I were explaining it to a retarded person so I took the conversation down to a level that he could understand. It got boring and I've now put Roy into the ignore bin. Boring is the worst.

Except I'm not a "conservative". I am claiming Bernie has no moral high ground and you haven't been able to refute it.

You can't reach over my head from your your low position of attempting to rationalize away Bernie's chicken hawk position.

I understand why my points make you feel uncomfortable, it does suck when somebody points out your hero is just another thug that supports killing babies.

You attempt to sanctify Bernie the Bomber as some kind of "thug lite" . Weak, very weak.

 

[see4]

Nice dance, except when you tap your foot to the music your ankle chains are rattling.

When you contract with a person on a MUTUAL basis that is one thing, it is a BI-LATERAL contract.

When other people make the terms you MUST follow, it is a UNI-LATERAL contract. (that's a form of slavery by the way)

Nice try, slave. I am free to leave the country at any time, I choose not to. Slaves, not unlike yourself, were never free to leave, for whatever reason.

And by the way, your parents are the ones who applied for a Social Security Number for you, if you should be mad at anyone, it should be them. They enslaved you, not the government.

Slave.

 

[Rob Roy]

Nice try, slave. I am free to leave the country at any time, I choose not to. Slaves, not unlike yourself, were never free to leave, for whatever reason.

And by the way, your parents are the ones who applied for a Social Security Number for you, if you should be mad at anyone, it should be them. They enslaved you, not the government.

Slave.

No you are not free to travel in many (most?) instances without permission.

You must have a permission slip / note from your master to travel, nothing has changed in modern times, but how it is worded.

You can still be harassed or killed for failing to obey and acquire permission just like slaves were 160 years ago. Ignore those police lights behind you and see what happens.


My parents were raised in the same way most people were, that obedience to arbitrary coercive authority is a virtue, it isn't....slave.

 

[see4]

No you are not free to travel in many (most?) instances without permission.

You must have a permission slip / note from your master to travel, nothing has changed in modern times, but how it is worded.

You can still be harassed or killed for failing to obey and acquire permission just like slaves were 160 years ago. Ignore those police lights behind you and see what happens.


My parents were raised in the same way most people were, that obedience to arbitrary coercive authority is a virtue, it isn't....slave.

You are simply wrong. On all accounts.
I do not need permission to renounce my citizenship. And I am free to leave the country at any time, nobody is stopping me. Passports are for reentry, not for leaving.

Yet here you are being obedient to your master, slave. How about you get off your welfare laden ass and do something about it, slave? How about you stop taking my tax dollars and crying about it, slave.

Your argument is weak and your logic is false. You have failed in this argument. Your cognitive dissonance to the fact has enslaved your mind, slave. -- See how silly that sounds? You should be taking notes.

 

[Harrekin]

You are simply wrong. On all accounts.
I do not need permission to renounce my citizenship. And I am free to leave the country at any time, nobody is stopping me. Passports are for reentry, not for leaving.

Yet here you are being obedient to your master, slave. How about you get off your welfare laden ass and do something about it, slave? How about you stop taking my tax dollars and crying about it, slave.

Your argument is weak and your logic is false. You have failed in this argument. Your cognitive dissonance to the fact has enslaved your mind, slave. -- See how silly that sounds? You should be taking notes.

Passport is mainly for entering the destination country, as you can generally reenter without one if you can prove identity/residency another way or through consular means.

 

[see4]

Passport is mainly for entering the destination country, as you can generally reenter without one if you can prove identity/residency another way or through consular means.

Depends on what country.

Brazil for example; does require that I show my passport, and in fact I need to go to the Brazilian consulate to get a passport stamp prior to travel.
But I don't need all that fancy mumbo jumbo when going to Canada or Mexico. I can't get into Aruba without one, but I can get into Bermuda and Antigua without it.
I needed one for Spain and France, but didn't need one for Colombia.

However, in all these examples, if I am traveling by air, I can't get back in without my passport, or as you stated, somehow proving I am a citizen of the United States.

Robby seems to think nobody can freely leave, and that everyone must go through a major process taking away freedoms to do so, which is simply not true.

 

[NoDrama]

You are simply wrong. On all accounts.
I do not need permission to renounce my citizenship.

Wrong. You need permission, several years and at least $20,000 to renounce your citizenship. You can leave the USA w/o a passport, but you won't get into many countries without one, and you certainly won't be able to return w/o one, so looks like you will not be allowed to live anywhere, maybe except in some international zone like the airport. Good luck with those dreams.

 

[see4]

Wrong. You need permission, several years and at least $20,000 to renounce your citizenship. You can leave the USA w/o a passport, but you won't get into many countries without one, and you certainly won't be able to return w/o one, so looks like you will not be allowed to live anywhere, maybe except in some international zone like the airport. Good luck with those dreams.

No, you don't need permission to renounce your citizenship. You need a background check, for obvious reasons. You can't commit a crime then renounce your citizenship.
$20,000? Where did you come up with that number? Stop making shit up.

There are 18 countries and several sovereign states that have no visa requirements. Most do, however if you renounce your US citizenship, you are considered stateless and can have the opportunity to seek asylum in many countries. But like the United States, most countries are wary of allowing completely unknown individuals into their country, rightfully so.

So, yea, I'm right. But nice attempt at flinging fecal matter.

Here, allow me to provide you with reading material: http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

 

[UncleBuck]

You asked what was the least harmful way to let a person know they weren't welcome on another persons property.

you left out the fact that i was asking you what was the least harmful way to let a person know they weren't welcome on another persons property BASED ON RACE.

then you said it was "polite and reasonable" to hang a sign disinviting people of certain races.

i do not think that is polite and reasonable, but your fellow klan buddies probably do.

also, you are a pedophile.

 

[pnwmystery]

Wrong. You need permission, several years and at least $20,000 to renounce your citizenship. You can leave the USA w/o a passport, but you won't get into many countries without one, and you certainly won't be able to return w/o one, so looks like you will not be allowed to live anywhere, maybe except in some international zone like the airport. Good luck with those dreams.

http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

A. THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT

Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law governing the right of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily

"(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State" (emphasis added).

B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. sign an oath of renunciation

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.