doc111
Well-Known Member
He won't like Somalia, trust me! I've been there! Hell, Somalis don't like living in Somalia!
Wisconsin Revolt
- Thread starter Carne Seca
- Start date
It just occurred to me that government unions collectively bargaining is about the same thing as a group of tax payers getting together and 'collectively bargaining' how much they are going to pay in income tax. With the stipulation that if they don't get their way they won't vote for whoever disapproves it and also they will also just not pay it and the government cant do shit.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Uh huh..Your assumption is wrong. Just making a simple statement about the nature of the world we live in. The statement had nothing to do with good will, which I believe is necessary for human survival. No matter what society or institution you build it will fall with time. The laws of nature cannot be denied even by the most arrogant
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
does his monthly bill also include a charge for the public and higher education that led to the creation of computers and the internet? does it cover the cost of the public infrastructure that allows the internet to work?
i don't think so.
perhaps not the best example, but that is all i was getting at.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i am fairly fond of the balance we have here in the states. i might like to see more state power on certain issues, but not to the extent that you articulate in your next post. they tried giving states about as much power as you describe, it didn't work.
I assume you refer to the articles for confederation. The federal government had to have some power, and thus they called the con con and they made the constitution(which isn't really what they were supposed to be doing btw) The constitution which, btw, made it illegal to have an income tax amongst other things. It also does not give the government the right to do things like outlaw marijuana, except on a technicality and calling it interstate commerce. This interstate commerce grew from what it was intended to a big pile of BS. Much like income tax and the rest of the federal government.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The post below borrows heavily from a friend V. Vuk...it's for "Uncle Buck" ............
by Vedran Vuk
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]First of all, we must apply this idea to common life and the problems that we encounter daily. Suppose I go into a fast food restaurant, and the place is packed. Kids are running around screaming, trash cans are overflowing, and the line seems endless. In this situation, the appropriate response might be to leave and go to another establishment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This is obviously an easy choice that takes no major effort. However, there are other alternatives. You could complain to a manager about the restaurant’s environment and express your inability to return until conditions have changed. It is likely that your complaint will not do much, but it could. This second alternative is obviously a choice other than leaving. The second alternative promises some change (profit/loss analysis of private business could also change things by leaving; this is much different from how government would react to a citizen leaving). The fact that the second alternative gives other options shows that you don’t have to leave. The fast food restaurant has a capability to change, and in its own interest it should.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The above situation is a small inconvenience. Let’s take it up a notch. Suppose a fraternity buys the house next to me. The noise level is horrendous, and I can’t sleep at night. According to the "love it or leave it" people, I should sell my house and move. Why not choose other avenues and alternatives like attempting to negotiate with the owners, call the police, or try to get new noise regulations in your neighborhood? Because the local government does not have adequate noise regulations, you should accordingly leave the entire city instead of attempting to change the law.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Our founding fathers were not "love it or leave it" people. Thomas Jefferson did not tell everyone in the colonies with the Declaration of Independence to leave the oppressive tax regime of England and move to the unsettled and ungoverned far west. In fact, Thomas Jefferson went one step further by saying in the declaration:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Another argument made by "love it or leave it" people is that this country is better than other countries and those against the current regime should stop complaining. I agree. The US is one of the best countries in the world. However, being the best does not justify all actions. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Suppose that if you live in Mexico a citizen is stabbed five times and in the US you are only beaten. Surely, any reasonable person would agree that the US is better than Mexico. Being better does not justify violence and coercion toward citizens. Actions of both countries are inappropriate even though Mexico’s are more violent.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Isn’t there a separation of loving your country without loving the government? I can love New Orleans without loving all rules, taxes, and regulations involved. Another example is parents. Most of us love our parents, but we didn’t enjoy being punished as kids. Therefore, any kid who does not like their parents’ rules should become a street rat according to "love it or leave it." The child loves his parent despite the rules. Together, the kids and parents may negotiate new rules.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This philosophy is utterly incompatible with real life. "Love it or leave it" is best left to those who cannot defend justifications of state power and laws through logical argumentation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
by Vedran Vuk
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Any person who has strong sentiments against the way things are done in this country has probably heard "love it or leave it" at some point. What is the logic of this argument?[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]First of all, we must apply this idea to common life and the problems that we encounter daily. Suppose I go into a fast food restaurant, and the place is packed. Kids are running around screaming, trash cans are overflowing, and the line seems endless. In this situation, the appropriate response might be to leave and go to another establishment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This is obviously an easy choice that takes no major effort. However, there are other alternatives. You could complain to a manager about the restaurant’s environment and express your inability to return until conditions have changed. It is likely that your complaint will not do much, but it could. This second alternative is obviously a choice other than leaving. The second alternative promises some change (profit/loss analysis of private business could also change things by leaving; this is much different from how government would react to a citizen leaving). The fact that the second alternative gives other options shows that you don’t have to leave. The fast food restaurant has a capability to change, and in its own interest it should.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The above situation is a small inconvenience. Let’s take it up a notch. Suppose a fraternity buys the house next to me. The noise level is horrendous, and I can’t sleep at night. According to the "love it or leave it" people, I should sell my house and move. Why not choose other avenues and alternatives like attempting to negotiate with the owners, call the police, or try to get new noise regulations in your neighborhood? Because the local government does not have adequate noise regulations, you should accordingly leave the entire city instead of attempting to change the law.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Our founding fathers were not "love it or leave it" people. Thomas Jefferson did not tell everyone in the colonies with the Declaration of Independence to leave the oppressive tax regime of England and move to the unsettled and ungoverned far west. In fact, Thomas Jefferson went one step further by saying in the declaration:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"...Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Jefferson did not simply wish you to stay and change the laws of your government. If necessary, the people should "abolish it, and [to] institute new Government." I can express this idea in a similar sentence. The government should respect the wishes of its people or leave. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Another argument made by "love it or leave it" people is that this country is better than other countries and those against the current regime should stop complaining. I agree. The US is one of the best countries in the world. However, being the best does not justify all actions. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Suppose that if you live in Mexico a citizen is stabbed five times and in the US you are only beaten. Surely, any reasonable person would agree that the US is better than Mexico. Being better does not justify violence and coercion toward citizens. Actions of both countries are inappropriate even though Mexico’s are more violent.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Isn’t there a separation of loving your country without loving the government? I can love New Orleans without loving all rules, taxes, and regulations involved. Another example is parents. Most of us love our parents, but we didn’t enjoy being punished as kids. Therefore, any kid who does not like their parents’ rules should become a street rat according to "love it or leave it." The child loves his parent despite the rules. Together, the kids and parents may negotiate new rules.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This philosophy is utterly incompatible with real life. "Love it or leave it" is best left to those who cannot defend justifications of state power and laws through logical argumentation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
newatit2010
Well-Known Member
I'm just hoping odumbass has some more money for the unions. After 3 weeks of paying protestors I would bet they are running short for buying votes for odumbasses 2012 run. I wonder how much they are paying I could use a few bucks for beans???
secretweapon
Active Member
Odumbasses? I lol'd hard. The best (and my fav) you give Obama a dollar he will give you change.
Really just think if we had Mccain and Palin right now *cough* we would be so fuct *cough*
Really just think if we had Mccain and Palin right now *cough* we would be so fuct *cough*
NewGrowth
Well-Known Member
Hey I got an Idea! You guys should give me money! No seriously hear me out. I am self sustaining soooo that means I don't need your tax money to make a living; therefore I'm a 'disadvantaged person' and I should get some money from you guys for that. Thank's just send me a PM for payment info!
PS- If you don't pay up you will be receiving a death threat.
THANKS!
PS- If you don't pay up you will be receiving a death threat.
THANKS!
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
I find it interesting Rob that you (and several others) are using racist/white supremacist writings as documentation for your argument. There seems to be a underlying, prevailing theme in this politics forum that leans toward racist ideology.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
oh really? You're pulling direct quotes from Lew Rockwell and you have no idea WHAT I'm talking about? Seriously? Not to mention the nod to Social Darwinism. The very founding ideology of white supremacy. It's all under the surface with racial slurs and racial jokes and quips and quotes from various racist publications and writers.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So if something somebody says makes sense to me, and you consider THAT person or his website to be racist I'm a racist ? I'm not quite sure I understand your allegation. If it is "all under the surface" why not enlighten me, oh and by the way are you certain of what MY ethnic bacground is?
Let's try that kind of "logic" somewhere else. The United States government kills civilians, you support the United States, therefore you support killing civilians. See? Doesn't make sense does it?
Anyhow, if you disagree with the arguments I make, feel free to defeat them with consistency and logic, maybe you'll teach me how the initiation of force can be rationalized into being "good".
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't worry too much.
Dried Meat is trying to silence you by implying you are a racist.
This is because your views are in direct opposition to his and he has no cogent response to your points.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
oooh and look who came crawling out of the woodwork. I was wondering how long it would take.
Now comes the talking points on HOW they aren't racist.. just realists.
Now comes the talking points on HOW they aren't racist.. just realists.
doc111
Well-Known Member
*Sigh*
Typical argumentum ad hominem. Even if the source of the information may be "racist" does that mean the person presenting the argument is racist? I don't think he's calling you a racist as much as he is trying to discredit the source. Don't worry, I saw nothing racist whatsoever in any post of yours I've ever read.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Well I can't make up your mind for you that's your business. I respect your right to disagree and will politely listen to reasonable counter points. I'm still not sure where you're going with THIS argument though and frankly I think you might want to let it go if you can't substantiate your argument. By the way I wasn't born in North America or Europe.oooh and look who came crawling out of the woodwork. I was wondering how long it would take.
Now comes the talking points on HOW they aren't racist.. just realists.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
...said the Queen of talking points.oooh and look who came crawling out of the woodwork. I was wondering how long it would take.
Now comes the talking points on HOW they aren't racist.. just realists.
I see you are still ignoring me. LOL!
I highly doubt you even know the definition of the word 'racist.'
I am confident that to you, racist is any point of view with which you disagree.
Cretins like you have over-applied the word to the point of meaninglessness.
Congratulations.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
that's because racism in this country is so rampant that over "applying" it is a natural consequence.