Are Republicans Crazy?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
81

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Anyone who doesn’t want national health care is pretty crazy I reckon.

Anyone who DOES want national health care is batshit insane I reckon.

Why would I chose a service provider – wait, scratch that. Why would I want to be forced to have a provider chosen for me? Does the government know my body better than me? What the fuck do a bunch of lifetime politicians know about health and medicine?

DoubleDuce wrote:
Actual measured statistics vs. “I have had good experience.” Hmmm, yeah the recorded measured statistics MUST be wrong if your experience was good.

And just so you know, genius, it still gets paid for with money from your pocket (assuming you have a job) so how is it free?

tom63 wrote:
so you are a fool. I have health insurance, and tell me why I should get lesser care to care for someone who does not have it. why shoudl my care be diluted.

You have good experiences if you are young and healthy and don’t need it. Get a problem and you ahve a problem.

I’m not going to throw around any more insults because evidently you guys are just ignorant of the situation in the UK. (Ignorant in the literal, not pejorative sense).

Firstly, I’m not going to just take randomly quoted statistics; show me the report. But that is a by-the-by, everyone here know the waiting lists are appalling.

Secondly, yes, it comes out of our pockets (well not mine, I’m a student). It’s called tax. You get taxed too right? My tax goes towards something like that which can help me, so I’m happy with that.

Thirdly, we have private health care in this country too. What this means is people have CHOICE. If you cannot afford private, you get the NHS. If you can, you can. As a matter of fact many people who can afford private use the NHS anyway because despite all your statistics, it’s still one of the best health services in the world.

So actually, I’m not telling anyone to get “lesser health care”. Keep your private stuff, we have.

As for government bods running things they know nothing about, well every country has that problem. Education and the curriculum here is another example.

Additionally, I find it hilarious that people consider Obama to be radically left. He would be considered probably a little left of centre in this country.

And one more thing, Republicans are a lot more religious, right? (Pun intended). I consider all religious people to be on a cline of crazy.

[/quote]

You’re a student, hahaha! No wonder you don’t have a clue, hahaha!

82

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

It has nothing to do with attending a foreign school somehow voiding your citizenship. It is however pretty good evidence that at some point he renounced US citizenship. It is not that going to school there would have voided anything. It’s what he most probably had to do in order to attend there that did.

Like I said, it is enough at least to demand disclosure.

What, exactly, are you afraid the six year old did?

I guess it would be a good question to know if his legal guardian were able to renounce it for him. I would assume his dad would have been the one to do it.

You think a non-citizen can “renounce” the citizenship of an American child?[/quote]

Figure it out, if Indonesia doesn’t allow anyone to attend school who is not a citizen, he would have to renounce his. His father could do this.

But again, release all of the records. One page from a doctor? Come one! Release it all. This is simple stuff.

83

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
As you are assumingly atheist (not crazy by your logic), justify human rights without a higher power. If you believe that a human being is born with certain rights that should be honored regardless of situation (life liberty and such) then the only justification is a higher power. You cannot scientifically derive human rights.

I think it?s crazy not to believe in human rights, therefore it is crazy to be an atheist.

Do you know what, I’m going to ignore everything else.

I had heard about you from friends, from people on other message boards, but having never met one I always thought that you were exaggerated, made up. But apparently you do exist, and try as I might, I cannot find even a hint of irony in your post.

Are you actually suggesting that the only reason people have a right to a good life is the fact that you believe in some higher power that will punish people for doing bad things? Am I misinterpreting? If I’m not, then you are a truly awful human being and I can quite easily say that I am far more moral than you are. I’m genuinely flabbergasted. I’ve rarely seen such a complete and utter break down of logic. I’m embarrassed to even be communicating with you.

Without a higher power, life is more precious, we need to be good to each other because this is it, it’s all we get. Lets make it the best life we can.

EDIT: apologies for de-railing the thread, I’m out of here.
[/quote]

LOL! Of course you will ignore everything else. And this that you don’t ignore, you don’t present an argument either.

My point, if you care to actually consider it rather than present an outrageous strawman argument, is that there is no logical or scientific justification for human rights. The case for human rights is only justifiable through moral arguments dependent on justification by a higher power. You cannot argue superiority of one persons morals over another?s without appealing to a universal standard.

The closest you could logically derive is some kind of majority consensus. But that amounts to little more than mob rule in many cases. And it leaves right and wrong to change with the times and societies. It?s why I can say randomly killing a Jewish person is bad, though at some points in history there were societies that didn?t think so.

It has nothing to do with punishment; it has everything to do with lack of a logical bases for determining right or wrong. If you aren?t endowed by a creator with human rights, then by whose authority are you entitled to them, your own individual opinion?

The closest you come in your post to addressing the argument is a mild suggestion that life is precious (note the emotional and moral distinction you are making at this point). How then is it okay to kill and eat animal, or even plants? Because they are less intelligent? Is intelligence the measure of worth of a life? Are then handicapped human beings less human?

As you have noticed none of that argument has anything to do with logic or science. It is an internal subjective determination only universally justifiable through non-worldly beliefs.

Most people believe that there is something innate about being human. Something ?spiritual? about us that should guarantee us certain rights. If that is crazy so be it. But if you deny all belief in a god, realize where you loose footing on issues.

By the way, I consider myself an agnostic (negative atheist). I don?t believe god is provable or disprovable. But I do believe human rights and things like morals, right and wrong, good and bad share a universal thread throughout time. If that makes me crazy in your eyes, so be it. I think you?re crazy not to think so.

84

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
As you are assumingly atheist (not crazy by your logic), justify human rights without a higher power. If you believe that a human being is born with certain rights that should be honored regardless of situation (life liberty and such) then the only justification is a higher power. You cannot scientifically derive human rights.

I think it?s crazy not to believe in human rights, therefore it is crazy to be an atheist.

Do you know what, I’m going to ignore everything else.

I had heard about you from friends, from people on other message boards, but having never met one I always thought that you were exaggerated, made up. But apparently you do exist, and try as I might, I cannot find even a hint of irony in your post.

Are you actually suggesting that the only reason people have a right to a good life is the fact that you believe in some higher power that will punish people for doing bad things? Am I misinterpreting? If I’m not, then you are a truly awful human being and I can quite easily say that I am far more moral than you are. I’m genuinely flabbergasted. I’ve rarely seen such a complete and utter break down of logic. I’m embarrassed to even be communicating with you.

Without a higher power, life is more precious, we need to be good to each other because this is it, it’s all we get. Lets make it the best life we can.

EDIT: apologies for de-railing the thread, I’m out of here.

LOL! Of course you will ignore everything else. And this that you don’t ignore, you don’t present an argument either.

My point, if you care to actually consider it rather than present an outrageous strawman argument, is that there is no logical or scientific justification for human rights. The case for human rights is only justifiable through moral arguments dependent on justification by a higher power. You cannot argue superiority of one persons morals over another?s without appealing to a universal standard.

The closest you could logically derive is some kind of majority consensus. But that amounts to little more than mob rule in many cases. And it leaves right and wrong to change with the times and societies. It?s why I can say randomly killing a Jewish person is bad, though at some points in history there were societies that didn?t think so.

It has nothing to do with punishment; it has everything to do with lack of a logical bases for determining right or wrong. If you aren?t endowed by a creator with human rights, then by whose authority are you entitled to them, your own individual opinion?

The closest you come in your post to addressing the argument is a mild suggestion that life is precious (note the emotional and moral distinction you are making at this point). How then is it okay to kill and eat animal, or even plants? Because they are less intelligent? Is intelligence the measure of worth of a life? Are then handicapped human beings less human?

As you have noticed none of that argument has anything to do with logic or science. It is an internal subjective determination only universally justifiable through non-worldly beliefs.

Most people believe that there is something innate about being human. Something ?spiritual? about us that should guarantee us certain rights. If that is crazy so be it. But if you deny all belief in a god, realize where you loose footing on issues.

By the way, I consider myself an agnostic (negative atheist). I don?t believe god is provable or disprovable. But I do believe human rights and things like morals, right and wrong, good and bad share a universal thread throughout time. If that makes me crazy in your eyes, so be it. I think you?re crazy not to think so.
[/quote]

Some higher power has nothing to do with natural rights. Just start with the right to be and the right to one’s self (read body, mind, labor, etc). No higher power needed, although it can eliminate several steps.

85

[quote]dhickey wrote:

Some higher power has nothing to do with natural rights. Just start with the right to be and the right to one’s self (read body, mind, labor, etc). No higher power needed, although it can eliminate several steps. [/quote]

There are people that don’t believe that you have the right to yourself though. One?s that don?t believe you have the right to life. How then is your judgment right and theirs wrong? Many people refuse to take any of those steps.

Not everyone agrees on those steps, and you are providing no justification.

Aside from abortion and issues like that, even drug laws, and all the other victimless crimes violate what you are proposing as the most basic step toward logical human rights. What then makes you right and other opinions wrong?

What about peta struggling for natural rights for animals. Many people think animals have a natural right to life, even insects. Are you claiming a Buddhist monk who thinks a cockroach has a right to life is wrong based on logic? Who are you as an individual to challenge anyone else?s morals as wrong?

86

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There are people that don’t believe that you have the right to yourself though. One?s that don?t believe you have the right to life. How then is your judgment right and theirs wrong? Many people refuse to take any of those steps.

Not everyone agrees on those steps, and you are providing no justification.
[/quote]
This is no less a justification than “becuase god says so”. I guess I could make up my own god and write his/her rules down for posterity, but what does this change.

Becuase I exist. Again, no worse an arguement that becuase god says so.

[quote]
What about peta struggling for natural rights for animals. Many people think animals have a natural right to life, even insects. Are you claiming a Buddhist monk who thinks a cockroach has a right to life is wrong based on logic? Who are you as an individual to challenge anyone else?s morals as wrong?[/quote]
I would not challenge that morality unless it effected me. I am not sure the logic is sound. Is a lion violating a deer’s natural rights? Should we stop lions or other predetors from violating prey’s rights? Do plant have rights? Should we not eat them. Just as it is not practicle to hold lions or herbavors to this standard, it is not practicle to grant protection to prey and plants.

Man is not ruled by instict or natural law. Man posses reasoning skill that he must use to survive and is therefor superior to other living entities. Enties that exist only by instinct or natural law are food, shelter, tools, and clothing.

I think I would just keep it to natural rights of my own species. Again, If you would like me to invent a god to give me power of land, sea, and animals, I certainly can. I just don’t see how this is any better or worse than starting with my natural right to exist, and to myself.

87

[quote]dhickey wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
There are people that don’t believe that you have the right to yourself though. One?s that don?t believe you have the right to life. How then is your judgment right and theirs wrong? Many people refuse to take any of those steps.

Not everyone agrees on those steps, and you are providing no justification.

This is no less a justification than “becuase god says so”. I guess I could make up my own god and write his/her rules down for posterity, but what does this change.

Aside from abortion and issues like that, even drug laws, and all the other victimless crimes violate what you are proposing as the most basic step toward logical human rights. What then makes you right and other opinions wrong?

Becuase I exist. Again, no worse an arguement that becuase god says so.

What about peta struggling for natural rights for animals. Many people think animals have a natural right to life, even insects. Are you claiming a Buddhist monk who thinks a cockroach has a right to life is wrong based on logic? Who are you as an individual to challenge anyone else?s morals as wrong?
I would not challenge that morality unless it effected me. I am not sure the logic is sound. Is a lion violating a deer’s natural rights? Should we stop lions or other predetors from violating prey’s rights? Do plant have rights? Should we not eat them. Just as it is not practicle to hold lions or herbavors to this standard, it is not practicle to grant protection to prey and plants.

Man is not ruled by instict or natural law. Man posses reasoning skill that he must use to survive and is therefor superior to other living entities. Enties that exist only by instinct or natural law are food, shelter, tools, and clothing.

I think I would just keep it to natural rights of my own species. Again, If you would like me to invent a god to give me power of land, sea, and animals, I certainly can. I just don’t see how this is any better or worse than starting with my natural right to exist, and to myself.
[/quote]

I think you at least agree that your argument isn?t a logical one either. Which is what I?m saying, none of it is a logical argument.

I?m not talking about making up a god, or asking anyone to believe in any specific entity. I?m only noting that belief in the values themselves is an inherently religious concept. Believing in a universal concept of right and wrong, or the rights of a man, is in fact a spiritual argument in itself. And yes it amounts to an improvable faith in non-scientific conclusions.

I?m not contending that you have to believe in my god to believe in human rights. I?m saying that if you believe in human rights you already believe in something. I think you might be a closet deist. =0)

88

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
You think a non-citizen can “renounce” the citizenship of an American child?[/quote]

RE: renunciation:

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

I can’t believe this discussion is even taking place.

89

[quote]Jab1 wrote:

I had heard about you from friends, from people on other message boards, but having never met one I always thought that you were exaggerated, made up. But apparently you do exist, and try as I might, I cannot find even a hint of irony in your post.

[/quote]

Yeah, it sucks when you run across a critical thinker who isn’t currently brainwashed by leftist ideals as most students are.

It’s a bitch huh?

It’s OK kid, I once was a tree hugging eco-socialists in the late 80’s and early 90’s.

Once you start paying for your own life and have to provide for others besides yourself, it’s amazing how life events change one’s philosophy of life, laws, taxes and government.

90

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
As you are assumingly atheist (not crazy by your logic), justify human rights without a higher power. If you believe that a human being is born with certain rights that should be honored regardless of situation (life liberty and such) then the only justification is a higher power. You cannot scientifically derive human rights.

I think it?s crazy not to believe in human rights, therefore it is crazy to be an atheist.

Do you know what, I’m going to ignore everything else.

I had heard about you from friends, from people on other message boards, but having never met one I always thought that you were exaggerated, made up. But apparently you do exist, and try as I might, I cannot find even a hint of irony in your post.

Are you actually suggesting that the only reason people have a right to a good life is the fact that you believe in some higher power that will punish people for doing bad things? Am I misinterpreting? If I’m not, then you are a truly awful human being and I can quite easily say that I am far more moral than you are. I’m genuinely flabbergasted. I’ve rarely seen such a complete and utter break down of logic. I’m embarrassed to even be communicating with you.

Without a higher power, life is more precious, we need to be good to each other because this is it, it’s all we get. Lets make it the best life we can.

EDIT: apologies for de-railing the thread, I’m out of here.

LOL! Of course you will ignore everything else. And this that you don’t ignore, you don’t present an argument either.

My point, if you care to actually consider it rather than present an outrageous strawman argument, is that there is no logical or scientific justification for human rights. The case for human rights is only justifiable through moral arguments dependent on justification by a higher power. You cannot argue superiority of one persons morals over another?s without appealing to a universal standard.

The closest you could logically derive is some kind of majority consensus. But that amounts to little more than mob rule in many cases. And it leaves right and wrong to change with the times and societies. It?s why I can say randomly killing a Jewish person is bad, though at some points in history there were societies that didn?t think so.

It has nothing to do with punishment; it has everything to do with lack of a logical bases for determining right or wrong. If you aren?t endowed by a creator with human rights, then by whose authority are you entitled to them, your own individual opinion?

The closest you come in your post to addressing the argument is a mild suggestion that life is precious (note the emotional and moral distinction you are making at this point). How then is it okay to kill and eat animal, or even plants? Because they are less intelligent? Is intelligence the measure of worth of a life? Are then handicapped human beings less human?

As you have noticed none of that argument has anything to do with logic or science. It is an internal subjective determination only universally justifiable through non-worldly beliefs.

Most people believe that there is something innate about being human. Something ?spiritual? about us that should guarantee us certain rights. If that is crazy so be it. But if you deny all belief in a god, realize where you loose footing on issues.

By the way, I consider myself an agnostic (negative atheist). I don?t believe god is provable or disprovable. But I do believe human rights and things like morals, right and wrong, good and bad share a universal thread throughout time. If that makes me crazy in your eyes, so be it. I think you?re crazy not to think so.
[/quote]

You do not need a deity to argue for innate human rights.

Basically what it comes down to is this:

Who owns you?

If you own yourself every other natural right naturally follows, they are really just logically extensions of the right to own yourself the first and most important property right.

Of course you cannot really “prove” that you belong to yourself but neither can anyone else who claims, openly or because it follows from his ideas, that you belong to him, someone else or to some collective like your race, gender, religion or nation.

Some ideas do of course work with the inherent idea that you do belong to someone else, like the draft, drug laws and the income tax.

91

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
dhickey wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
There are people that don’t believe that you have the right to yourself though. One?s that don?t believe you have the right to life. How then is your judgment right and theirs wrong? Many people refuse to take any of those steps.

Not everyone agrees on those steps, and you are providing no justification.

This is no less a justification than “becuase god says so”. I guess I could make up my own god and write his/her rules down for posterity, but what does this change.

Aside from abortion and issues like that, even drug laws, and all the other victimless crimes violate what you are proposing as the most basic step toward logical human rights. What then makes you right and other opinions wrong?

Becuase I exist. Again, no worse an arguement that becuase god says so.

What about peta struggling for natural rights for animals. Many people think animals have a natural right to life, even insects. Are you claiming a Buddhist monk who thinks a cockroach has a right to life is wrong based on logic? Who are you as an individual to challenge anyone else?s morals as wrong?
I would not challenge that morality unless it effected me. I am not sure the logic is sound. Is a lion violating a deer’s natural rights? Should we stop lions or other predetors from violating prey’s rights? Do plant have rights? Should we not eat them. Just as it is not practicle to hold lions or herbavors to this standard, it is not practicle to grant protection to prey and plants.

Man is not ruled by instict or natural law. Man posses reasoning skill that he must use to survive and is therefor superior to other living entities. Enties that exist only by instinct or natural law are food, shelter, tools, and clothing.

I think I would just keep it to natural rights of my own species. Again, If you would like me to invent a god to give me power of land, sea, and animals, I certainly can. I just don’t see how this is any better or worse than starting with my natural right to exist, and to myself.

I think you at least agree that your argument isn?t a logical one either. Which is what I?m saying, none of it is a logical argument.
[/quote]
I think both are logical, they just start with different truths or axioms. My arguement was not that one couldn’t use god’s teachings as a jumping off point for natural rights, it was just that you don’t need god to do this.

Not quite my definition of religion but I am ok with this. It really doesn’t matter what you call self worth and the right to exist. Just that the concept is understood.

I wouldn’t call this spiritual but again, not important what you call it.

Well I certainly don’t beleive in higher power. I also don’t claim to know for a fact that there is no higher power. I really don’t spend much time thinking about or caring about the possibility of there being a higher power.

I do know that what I have read of various religions is interesting, but not very plausable in my mind. I guess I feel fairly confident that if there is a higher power, man has not stumbled upon it or doesn’t have the capacity to explain it.

I guess I really don’t care what that make me. It just is what it is.

92

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

I had heard about you from friends, from people on other message boards, but having never met one I always thought that you were exaggerated, made up. But apparently you do exist, and try as I might, I cannot find even a hint of irony in your post.

Yeah, it sucks when you run across a critical thinker who isn’t currently brainwashed by leftist ideals as most students are.

It’s a bitch huh?

It’s OK kid, I once was a tree hugging eco-socialists in the late 80’s and early 90’s.
[/quote]

But did you also have to wait for your first blowjob until you were 28?

Noone is going to get the reference…

Noone.

93

[quote]orion wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

I had heard about you from friends, from people on other message boards, but having never met one I always thought that you were exaggerated, made up. But apparently you do exist, and try as I might, I cannot find even a hint of irony in your post.

Yeah, it sucks when you run across a critical thinker who isn’t currently brainwashed by leftist ideals as most students are.

It’s a bitch huh?

It’s OK kid, I once was a tree hugging eco-socialists in the late 80’s and early 90’s.

But did you also have to wait for your first blowjob until you were 28?

Noone is going to get the reference…

Noone.
[/quote]

You got me…???////

94

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
orion wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

I had heard about you from friends, from people on other message boards, but having never met one I always thought that you were exaggerated, made up. But apparently you do exist, and try as I might, I cannot find even a hint of irony in your post.

Yeah, it sucks when you run across a critical thinker who isn’t currently brainwashed by leftist ideals as most students are.

It’s a bitch huh?

It’s OK kid, I once was a tree hugging eco-socialists in the late 80’s and early 90’s.

But did you also have to wait for your first blowjob until you were 28?

Noone is going to get the reference…

Noone.

You got me…???////

[/quote]

There is a Dennis Leary rant where he basically complains that he was a pussy and he blames 70´s folk rock.

That was back when MTV was cool.

95

[quote]orion wrote:

You do not need a deity to argue for innate human rights.

Basically what it comes down to is this:

Who owns you?

If you own yourself every other natural right naturally follows, they are really just logically extensions of the right to own yourself the first and most important property right.

Of course you cannot really “prove” that you belong to yourself but neither can anyone else who claims, openly or because it follows from his ideas, that you belong to him, someone else or to some collective like your race, gender, religion or nation.

Some ideas do of course work with the inherent idea that you do belong to someone else, like the draft, drug laws and the income tax.

[/quote]

Ownership is a right over property. You are assuming a right to derive rights. That doesn’t make sense as a beginning to me.

You also cannot prove it because a right is theoretical construct. It’s not real, and there is no logic to it.

Without a higher power we are essentially reduced to large clusters of atoms continuing out a chemical reaction. Life itself in this state becomes an arbitrary concept that differentiates between scientifically like matter. Matter itself isn’t considered alive, but you get a clump of it together in certain theoretical patterns and we label it life. There is no logical way to assign value to metaphysical concepts which things like life, property, rights, evil, good, est. are.

If I were to swallow a mineral (labeled not alive) does it become “alive” once it’s in my mouth? In my stomach? Absorbed in my blood stream? Does it ever make sense to call a mineral alive? What then is the magical concept of life even? Isn’t it nothing more than the label of a general reaction similar to oxidation or other chemical processes? Does oxidation have a “worth”?

Much less, more obscure constructs such as one group of matter in flux to “own” another group of matter in flux. The word own doesn’t even have a sensible definition at this point.

I mean ownership is one of the main endeavors of metaphysics. When you speak of ownership, you have already crossed from science to philosophy.

I personally cannot correlate an (positive) atheist worldview with my natural notions of even the basic elements of ideas like property, and life, and consciousness, est… I’ve tried many times.

I don’t expect everyone to agree, that isn’t why I started explaining my thoughts. I was merely pointing out that the notion that belief in god is somehow inherently crazy or illogical is ignorant. There are logical thoughtful people that approach the eternal question with an open mind and land on the belief side of the fence. And I think if people took a true inward look at what they already believe, there are some theological beliefs at the most basic level in almost everyone.

Then again everyone may just be at least a little crazy.

96

[quote]timbofirstblood wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
You think a non-citizen can “renounce” the citizenship of an American child?

RE: renunciation:

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

I can’t believe this discussion is even taking place.[/quote]

I’m not surprised at all. Hang out on this site awhile and you’ll read all kinds of good stuff. Any of the “renounce citizenship” crowd want to continue the argument?

Actually my biggest surprise is no one is here arguing that Obama was born in Kenya…

…no one is here arguing this yet anyway

97

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Sloth wrote:
From what I can tell, the tea parties are definitely outside of, and greater than, the GoP. There may be a good many GoPers supporting it (since it nicely coincides against Obama’s agenda). However, just from my reading, and catching footage on the news, it isn’t about the GoP at all. In fact, I’ve seen both parties catching hell from attendees. Many of the folks seem to be Libertarian and disgruntled Conservatives (the Ron Paul/Const. Party variety). Hardly GoP operatives or cheerleaders.

Seems to me the movement isn’t about the GoP. It’s about an underlying philosophy of governance. These are small government folks, angry they’ve been cheated out of the inheritance our founders left us.

The nanny state, the debt/deficit, talks of nationalization, patriot act, tax burdens, the cost of our foreign policy, etc… They have real grievances against the central government. This of course doesn’t sit well with socialists and welfare state lickspittles, so they attempt to reduce these gatherings of freedom minded citizens to nothing more than a GoP rally.

This is the only really good legitamate reply to the OP topic and not one response to it, instead the two party warriors are going back and forth about shit they can’t control, and no one in power really cares about. Instead they could stop areguing against eachother and look at what the fuck real people are DOING about big government. But alas, most people would rather talk and complain or cheer than get out and do work to actually effect change.

The Tea Party has nothing to do with GOP, in fact it is just as much against the modern GOP as it is against the Democrats. It is entirely a libertarian/small government/campaign for liberty/info warriors etc… movement. All of these small groups are starting to band together sure there are differences, some think the govenment did 9-11, others think they know who did but are covering it up, and still others don’t believe the government did anything other than drop the ball. Some people like some social programs, others want a harder society with less safety nets and handouts. The bottom line is that more and more people are listening and participating in a movement in some way, that is sending a message to The people running this here ship, WE DON"T WANT BIG GOVERNMENT TELLING US HOW TO LIVE OUR LIVES AND SPENDING OUR MONEY TO FIT THIER INTERESTS. It’s the same message the colonies sent to the royal family during the origional tea party. For people to not make the connection is stupid, and for people to be ridiculed for doing something so patriotic that we are tought these men WERE AMERICA these are the people who built our contry with thier blood sweat and tears and now if we act like them we are crazy? Fuck these people and you idiots who can’t see through thier web. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
/lecture

V[/quote]

Nice try Sloth and Veg, for attempting to cogently answer the OP’s semi-retarded article. But no one is listening because they’re too busy throwing feces at each other over stupid shit.

98

[quote]orion wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
orion wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

I had heard about you from friends, from people on other message boards, but having never met one I always thought that you were exaggerated, made up. But apparently you do exist, and try as I might, I cannot find even a hint of irony in your post.

Yeah, it sucks when you run across a critical thinker who isn’t currently brainwashed by leftist ideals as most students are.

It’s a bitch huh?

It’s OK kid, I once was a tree hugging eco-socialists in the late 80’s and early 90’s.

But did you also have to wait for your first blowjob until you were 28?

Noone is going to get the reference…

Noone.

You got me…???////

There is a Dennis Leary rant where he basically complains that he was a pussy and he blames 70´s folk rock.

That was back when MTV was cool.
[/quote]

Yep, from what I recall he laid a lot of blame on Dan Fogelberg, haha!

99

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:

You do not need a deity to argue for innate human rights.

Basically what it comes down to is this:

Who owns you?

If you own yourself every other natural right naturally follows, they are really just logically extensions of the right to own yourself the first and most important property right.

Of course you cannot really “prove” that you belong to yourself but neither can anyone else who claims, openly or because it follows from his ideas, that you belong to him, someone else or to some collective like your race, gender, religion or nation.

Some ideas do of course work with the inherent idea that you do belong to someone else, like the draft, drug laws and the income tax.

Ownership is a right over property. You are assuming a right to derive rights. That doesn’t make sense as a beginning to me.

You also cannot prove it because a right is theoretical construct. It’s not real, and there is no logic to it.

Without a higher power we are essentially reduced to large clusters of atoms continuing out a chemical reaction. Life itself in this state becomes an arbitrary concept that differentiates between scientifically like matter. Matter itself isn’t considered alive, but you get a clump of it together in certain theoretical patterns and we label it life. There is no logical way to assign value to metaphysical concepts which things like life, property, rights, evil, good, est. are.

If I were to swallow a mineral (labeled not alive) does it become “alive” once it’s in my mouth? In my stomach? Absorbed in my blood stream? Does it ever make sense to call a mineral alive? What then is the magical concept of life even? Isn’t it nothing more than the label of a general reaction similar to oxidation or other chemical processes? Does oxidation have a “worth”?

Much less, more obscure constructs such as one group of matter in flux to “own” another group of matter in flux. The word own doesn’t even have a sensible definition at this point.

I mean ownership is one of the main endeavors of metaphysics. When you speak of ownership, you have already crossed from science to philosophy.

I personally cannot correlate an (positive) atheist worldview with my natural notions of even the basic elements of ideas like property, and life, and consciousness, est… I’ve tried many times.

I don’t expect everyone to agree, that isn’t why I started explaining my thoughts. I was merely pointing out that the notion that belief in god is somehow inherently crazy or illogical is ignorant. There are logical thoughtful people that approach the eternal question with an open mind and land on the belief side of the fence. And I think if people took a true inward look at what they already believe, there are some theological beliefs at the most basic level in almost everyone.

Then again everyone may just be at least a little crazy.[/quote]

You are trying to make too big an argument for a practical question that must be answered one way or the other.

Since someone must decide what you do and to whom the fruits of your labor really belong there really are only two options:

Either you or someone else.

If you are alive and have the right to stay alive it directly follows that you also have a right, or at least more of a right than others, to own the things you have produced, because otherwise your cannot exercise your right to be and stay alive.

Now you may question that something like “rights” exist in the first place, but that those not only not help you to make those decisions described above but is also irrelevant because any concept that a collectivist will come up with is flawed as well.

Who do you belong to?

That is a powerful question because if you want it to be that way or not, the notion of property rights and self ownership, aka liberty, are still very strong and every “liberal” should better have a good answer why he advocates a form of servitude.

100

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Sloth wrote:
From what I can tell, the tea parties are definitely outside of, and greater than, the GoP. There may be a good many GoPers supporting it (since it nicely coincides against Obama’s agenda). However, just from my reading, and catching footage on the news, it isn’t about the GoP at all. In fact, I’ve seen both parties catching hell from attendees. Many of the folks seem to be Libertarian and disgruntled Conservatives (the Ron Paul/Const. Party variety). Hardly GoP operatives or cheerleaders.

Seems to me the movement isn’t about the GoP. It’s about an underlying philosophy of governance. These are small government folks, angry they’ve been cheated out of the inheritance our founders left us.

The nanny state, the debt/deficit, talks of nationalization, patriot act, tax burdens, the cost of our foreign policy, etc… They have real grievances against the central government. This of course doesn’t sit well with socialists and welfare state lickspittles, so they attempt to reduce these gatherings of freedom minded citizens to nothing more than a GoP rally.

This is the only really good legitamate reply to the OP topic and not one response to it, instead the two party warriors are going back and forth about shit they can’t control, and no one in power really cares about. Instead they could stop areguing against eachother and look at what the fuck real people are DOING about big government. But alas, most people would rather talk and complain or cheer than get out and do work to actually effect change.

The Tea Party has nothing to do with GOP, in fact it is just as much against the modern GOP as it is against the Democrats. It is entirely a libertarian/small government/campaign for liberty/info warriors etc… movement. All of these small groups are starting to band together sure there are differences, some think the govenment did 9-11, others think they know who did but are covering it up, and still others don’t believe the government did anything other than drop the ball. Some people like some social programs, others want a harder society with less safety nets and handouts. The bottom line is that more and more people are listening and participating in a movement in some way, that is sending a message to The people running this here ship, WE DON"T WANT BIG GOVERNMENT TELLING US HOW TO LIVE OUR LIVES AND SPENDING OUR MONEY TO FIT THIER INTERESTS. It’s the same message the colonies sent to the royal family during the origional tea party. For people to not make the connection is stupid, and for people to be ridiculed for doing something so patriotic that we are tought these men WERE AMERICA these are the people who built our contry with thier blood sweat and tears and now if we act like them we are crazy? Fuck these people and you idiots who can’t see through thier web. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
/lecture

V[/quote]

good post.

aside from the ironies of calling them modern day tea partys…

even if mccain won, and the republicans controlled congress. i imagine these would have happened for the same exact reasons.