Liberals - Worst Sort of Racists

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]vroom wrote:
the crimes of the left

Ahahahaha. And you don’t see statements like this as the other side of the sword I was talking about earlier?

Holy shit, step back from the nuclear weapons, neither side is inherently evil in this way.

You guys are freaking me out![/quote]

Ok vroom, how do you deal with the people who refuse to be a productive member of society? Those able-bodied people who will not work.

No one wants to cut off those that just need a hand to move up and be successful. But what about those that don’t? Can you let them roam the streets because they just don’t want to take advantage of what is being offered?

You can have great programs designed to help people achieve, but at some point you have to accept their free-will choice to be homeless and a loser.

122

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
There you go again, Vroom. Unbelievable! The main reason you give for having ‘government assistance’ is because the poor would rise up and revolt (could this be connected with plundering your neighbor?). You’ve said this repeatedly. You are truly something else…

You should look through history. When one group is rich and another is poor, the disparity causes problems. Stick your head in the sand all you want… this has been a fact of existence.

Hell, poor countries even invade resource rich countries, that’s the way the world works.

Now for entering our ‘private lives’: Did you even read what I’ve written? You know my beliefs: all relationships between human beings must be VOLUNTARY on all sides. Break that rule and the police/military/judiciary are invoked. How simple do you need it?

Buddy, you’re living in the US is voluntary, you are welcome to leave if you don’t like the same system that everyone else does. Does your staying there not qualify as voluntary?

I won’t call you a ‘jackoff’, because that is beneath my dignity. I will say that I have many students with a lot more intelligience; they don’t change their premises in the middle of a discussion. Sheeesh!!!

Now you are just trolling. They don’t keep you very busy at work do they? You flip-flop on whether or not you should have faith in humanity, yet you mention the frailties of humanity with respect to corruption. You need to make up your mind.

Honestly, if you can put together and support a good argument, other than a half assed restatement of Rand, and if you can support that with some realistic politicy initiatives to get to a better place, then you’ll have something to say…

In the mean time, you are just baiting and trolling with ridiculous statements because you are bored at work and afraid to look at porn because they’ll find out and fire you.[/quote]

LOL!!

Why don’t they fire me for looking at T-Nation between classes or during my off hour?

I should probably be fired for arguing with the Jello Man – the man whose adherence to principles is just as firm as…

123

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why don’t they fire me for looking at T-Nation between classes or during my off hour?

I should probably be fired for arguing with the Jello Man – the man whose adherence to principles is just as firm as…[/quote]

You contradict yourself around here as much as anyone else you know.

Perhaps you should learn to accept that having differing principles (thank goodness) is not an indication that they are lacking.

If you paid closer attention you might be able to see that.

124

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’m in favor of a truly human society, where ALL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS ARE VOLUNTARY on all sides. Anyone who violates this principle is dealt with by the police/military/judicial system.
[/quote]

By strict definition the whole concept of society is, to some extent, collective, insofar as a “Society” is a collection of like-minded individuals - this not only implies a voluntary intellectual relationship on a communalk level, but a voluntary communal relationship as well.

Also, I find it deeply ironic that you purport to support the notion of individual choice and voluntary participation in a society yet state that transgressors of the implicit social rules of these states are summarily punihed by bodies granted authority through the action of the collective.

It’s either one or the other, not both.

The POLITICAL alternative is bureaucratic anarchy, where society operates by indivdual participation with only a minimal bureacratic framework extant - for that is what, technically, anarchism is (as a political movement), the removal of the bureaucracy.

125

[quote]iscariot wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I’m in favor of a truly human society, where ALL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS ARE VOLUNTARY on all sides. Anyone who violates this principle is dealt with by the police/military/judicial system.

By strict definition the whole concept of society is, to some extent, collective, insofar as a “Society” is a collection of like-minded individuals - this not only implies a voluntary intellectual relationship on a communalk level, but a voluntary communal relationship as well.

Also, I find it deeply ironic that you purport to support the notion of individual choice and voluntary participation in a society yet state that transgressors of the implicit social rules of these states are summarily punihed by bodies granted authority through the action of the collective.

It’s either one or the other, not both.

The POLITICAL alternative is bureaucratic anarchy, where society operates by indivdual participation with only a minimal bureacratic framework extant - for that is what, technically, anarchism is (as a political movement), the removal of the bureaucracy.[/quote]

He would want anarchy up until the point someone decides to kill him over one of his possessions. Then he will want someone to VOLUNTARILY save his ass.

126

[quote]Professor X wrote:
iscariot wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I’m in favor of a truly human society, where ALL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS ARE VOLUNTARY on all sides. Anyone who violates this principle is dealt with by the police/military/judicial system.

By strict definition the whole concept of society is, to some extent, collective, insofar as a “Society” is a collection of like-minded individuals - this not only implies a voluntary intellectual relationship on a communalk level, but a voluntary communal relationship as well.

Also, I find it deeply ironic that you purport to support the notion of individual choice and voluntary participation in a society yet state that transgressors of the implicit social rules of these states are summarily punihed by bodies granted authority through the action of the collective.

It’s either one or the other, not both.

The POLITICAL alternative is bureaucratic anarchy, where society operates by indivdual participation with only a minimal bureacratic framework extant - for that is what, technically, anarchism is (as a political movement), the removal of the bureaucracy.

He would want anarchy up until the point someone decides to kill him over one of his possessions. Then he will want someone to VOLUNTARILY save his ass.[/quote]

So, o uncomprehending one, do you understand the implication of opposing my view?

I am in favor of a voluntary society, with an objective administration of just laws. By opposing this, you want a society other than this – one where one group of people may force others to do their will. Isn’t this called ‘slavery’, Professor?

I’ve heard of this phenomena, where black people take on the characteristics of their former white masters. I never thought I’d see it personally. Fascinating!

And you seem to keep implying that I’m somehow a coward? LOL! I just took a shit and it has more integrity and courage than you could ever have.

127

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
the crimes of the left

Ahahahaha. And you don’t see statements like this as the other side of the sword I was talking about earlier?

Holy shit, step back from the nuclear weapons, neither side is inherently evil in this way.

You guys are freaking me out!

Ok vroom, how do you deal with the people who refuse to be a productive member of society? Those able-bodied people who will not work.

No one wants to cut off those that just need a hand to move up and be successful. But what about those that don’t? Can you let them roam the streets because they just don’t want to take advantage of what is being offered?

You can have great programs designed to help people achieve, but at some point you have to accept their free-will choice to be homeless and a loser.

[/quote]

Another great post!

128

[quote]doogie wrote:
Many times, the reason it is hard to come up with viable solutions (to social problems)is that the left prevents honest debate.

Doogie,

Would you regard people who prevent honest debate as being evil?

I am not ‘stirring up shit’, as you say. This is a legit question.

129

Headhunter,

Perhaps you don’t realize it, but the problems exist in the details.

What are just laws? Who decides they are just?

Who enforces the laws? You realize enforcing any law is in fact forcing one person to abide by the rules of another right?

Whatever you are talking about, it certainly is not a democracy, where up to half the population agrees to live by laws that the majority have decided upon.

When you can eliminate the contradictions in your own statements, you might be able to make comparisons that make sense.

Now, you are just making wild comparison to things such as slavery and evil, because they are big bold words that can have an impact, but unfornately, you string the words in, but your own contradictions make your statements next to meaningless.

Come on. Surely as a teacher you must be able to string together cogent theories that are not full of readily apparent self-contradictions and misused emotionally laden words.

I hope you don’t fall for that crap when your students are writing essays, as we keep hearing how intelligent you think they are.