[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
No it is you who doesn’t understand! The rights of the majority are being trampled by the rights of the minority to take advantage of them.
[/quote]
The only institution I can think of that has been given the power to “trample” on the rights of anyone is government. Government is the only entity I can think of that has been given the right to initiate force in order to gain compliance with its demands.
What “rights” of the majority are being trampled by the minority?[/quote]
Very simple. If the masses do not have a specialized knowledge they are at the “whim” of those who do. When the minority with specialized knowege have the ability to conspire against the masses they are trampling on their rights. One must have knowledge to understand the choices. Otherwise their choices are skewered with the choices given to them by those who conspire against them. No conflicts of interest by law. What is the essence of conflicts of interest?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
This guy is either an idiot or a sicko who wants to control others-take your pick.
Regulations are a decrease in freedom. There is no arguing against that point.
Increases in health, safety, and education have nothing to do with freedom.(not that I agree that government improves any of those things, but they have nothing to do with freedom)
[/quote]
Um yeah, you are trying to tell this to someone who for pages tried to argue that government telling its citizens where they can and can’t work was a good thing, and didn’t infringe on liberty…
Good luck with that. [/quote]
He is quite stupid, isn’t he? [/quote]
I don’t think he is stupid, not at all. I think he is a poor spokes person for collectivism and statist everywhere, however. And I also think he is awful at debate. But those aren’t character flaws, just skills that need to be improved. [/quote]
To say that an individual should have the right to be put in a position which gives him the ability to trample on the rights of the unknowing is not freedom. And for you to assume so is sloppy thinking. [/quote]
You speak as if the unknowing cannot undo their lack of knowledge.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
You speak as if the unknowing cannot undo their lack of knowledge.
[/quote]
As if it is anyone’s fault but their own, in 2013, they are ignorant of the world around them. In the information age, ignorance is a choice.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Very simple. If the masses do not have a specialized knowledge they are at the “whim” of those who do. When the minority with specialized knowege have the ability to conspire against the masses they are trampling on their rights. One must have knowledge to understand the choices. Otherwise their choices are skewered with the choices given to them by those who conspire against them. No conflicts of interest by law. What is the essence of conflicts of interest?[/quote]
So what solution would you propose to deal with the “problem” of uninformed choice?
Maybe each person could take a test of some sort before making each purchase? Who would create the test?
Conflicts of interest occur because of government. They would not exist in a free market. You actually love conflicts of interest. You are just too ignorant to realize that.
You want some sort of utopian society in which human nature doesn’t exist.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Very simple. If the masses do not have a specialized knowledge they are at the “whim” of those who do. When the minority with specialized knowege have the ability to conspire against the masses they are trampling on their rights. One must have knowledge to understand the choices. Otherwise their choices are skewered with the choices given to them by those who conspire against them. No conflicts of interest by law. What is the essence of conflicts of interest?[/quote]
So what solution would you propose to deal with the “problem” of uninformed choice?
Maybe each person could take a test of some sort before making each purchase? Who would create the test?
Conflicts of interest occur because of government. They would not exist in a free market. You actually love conflicts of interest. You are just too ignorant to realize that.
You want some sort of utopian society in which human nature doesn’t exist. [/quote]
Zep wants the willfully ignorant to be awarded victim status. That’s what he thinks the role of the government is: to protect the willfully ignorant from their ignorance.
There’s a huge difference between protecting those who can’t protect themselves and protecting those who won’t protect themselves. It’s the difference between liberty and socialism.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Zep wants the willfully ignorant to be awarded victim status. That’s what he thinks the role of the government is: to protect the willfully ignorant from their ignorance.
There’s a huge difference between protecting those who can’t protect themselves and protecting those who won’t protect themselves. It’s the difference between liberty and socialism.
[/quote]
I hope that’s all he thinks. I have a feeling that his real thoughts are far more sinister. I think he believes in democracy. He believes that if three people are in a room and two of them decide to rob and kill the third, then they have a right to do so.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Zep wants the willfully ignorant to be awarded victim status. That’s what he thinks the role of the government is: to protect the willfully ignorant from their ignorance.
There’s a huge difference between protecting those who can’t protect themselves and protecting those who won’t protect themselves. It’s the difference between liberty and socialism.
[/quote]
I hope that’s all he thinks. I have a feeling that his real thoughts are far more sinister. I think he believes in democracy. He believes that if three people are in a room and two of them decide to rob and kill the third, then they have a right to do so.[/quote]
I think the people he would cede his rights to - the radical progressive movement - is far more sinister. But kids like Zep are precisely what the progtard movement feeds upon.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
I think the people he would cede his rights to - the radical progressive movement - is far more sinister. But kids like Zep are precisely what the progtard movement feeds upon.
[/quote]
You’re probably right. He does seem too stupid to be sinister.
This thread started out as a investigative piece on the Heritage Foundation’s bias towards those who own them. Mr. Black has shown the fake empiricism with which this so called think tank has reached it’s conclusion to it’s paymaster. If you can show evidence to the contrary then please do so.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
This thread started out as a investigative piece on the Heritage Foundation’s bias towards those who own them. Mr. Black has shown the fake empiricism with which this so called think tank has reached it’s conclusion to it’s paymaster. If you can show evidence to the contrary then please do so.[/quote]
Your source as been thoroughly debunked as a sham and exposed as a corporate shill for the radical progressive movement.
When you can site a REAL source to back up your progressive propaganda, then maybe an actual debate can occur. Until then - you are nothing more than a delusional, radical, progressive sycophant.
If you can show evidence to the contrary, then please do so.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Regulations are a decrease in freedom.
[/quote]
bullshit
I would say the more civil the society to more regulation
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Regulations are a decrease in freedom.
[/quote]
bullshit
[/quote]
…says the utterly clueless pot head.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Regulations are a decrease in freedom.
[/quote]
bullshit
[/quote]
…says the utterly clueless pot head.
[/quote]
Says Drunk that can’t think outside the box
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
This thread started out as a investigative piece on the Heritage Foundation’s bias towards those who own them. Mr. Black has shown the fake empiricism with which this so called think tank has reached it’s conclusion to it’s paymaster. If you can show evidence to the contrary then please do so.[/quote]
Your source as been thoroughly debunked as a sham and exposed as a corporate shill for the radical progressive movement.
When you can site a REAL source to back up your progressive propaganda, then maybe an actual debate can occur. Until then - you are nothing more than a delusional, radical, progressive sycophant.
If you can show evidence to the contrary, then please do so. [/quote]
Where has Mr. Black been debunked?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
This thread started out as a investigative piece on the Heritage Foundation’s bias towards those who own them. Mr. Black has shown the fake empiricism with which this so called think tank has reached it’s conclusion to it’s paymaster. If you can show evidence to the contrary then please do so.[/quote]
Your source as been thoroughly debunked as a sham and exposed as a corporate shill for the radical progressive movement.
When you can site a REAL source to back up your progressive propaganda, then maybe an actual debate can occur. Until then - you are nothing more than a delusional, radical, progressive sycophant.
If you can show evidence to the contrary, then please do so. [/quote]
Where has Mr. Black been debunked?
[/quote]
Asking a question is not providing proof to the contrary.
But you knew that already, right?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
This thread started out as a investigative piece on the Heritage Foundation’s bias towards those who own them. Mr. Black has shown the fake empiricism with which this so called think tank has reached it’s conclusion to it’s paymaster. If you can show evidence to the contrary then please do so.[/quote]
Your source as been thoroughly debunked as a sham and exposed as a corporate shill for the radical progressive movement.
When you can site a REAL source to back up your progressive propaganda, then maybe an actual debate can occur. Until then - you are nothing more than a delusional, radical, progressive sycophant.
If you can show evidence to the contrary, then please do so. [/quote]
Where has Mr. Black been debunked?
[/quote]
The drunk is incapable of communicating , this is a game that he pretends to win , sorry 
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
This thread started out as a investigative piece on the Heritage Foundation’s bias towards those who own them. Mr. Black has shown the fake empiricism with which this so called think tank has reached it’s conclusion to it’s paymaster. If you can show evidence to the contrary then please do so.[/quote]
Your source as been thoroughly debunked as a sham and exposed as a corporate shill for the radical progressive movement.
When you can site a REAL source to back up your progressive propaganda, then maybe an actual debate can occur. Until then - you are nothing more than a delusional, radical, progressive sycophant.
If you can show evidence to the contrary, then please do so. [/quote]
Where has Mr. Black been debunked?
[/quote]
Asking a question is not providing proof to the contrary.
But you knew that already, right?
[/quote]
Try looking at his study you fucking moron. The proof is there. But it is more important for people like you to ignore the facts when your ideology comes under the weight of the evidence. Mr. Black has proven but his study that The Heritage Foundation makes up fake empiricism to come out with the conclusions. They do this for a reason. Their paymaster need to keep up the facade of which you eat it up. It is your job to debunk Mr. Black since he has debunked The Heritage Foundation. Corporate controlled “think tank”.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
This thread started out as a investigative piece on the Heritage Foundation’s bias towards those who own them. Mr. Black has shown the fake empiricism with which this so called think tank has reached it’s conclusion to it’s paymaster. If you can show evidence to the contrary then please do so.[/quote]
Your source as been thoroughly debunked as a sham and exposed as a corporate shill for the radical progressive movement.
When you can site a REAL source to back up your progressive propaganda, then maybe an actual debate can occur. Until then - you are nothing more than a delusional, radical, progressive sycophant.
If you can show evidence to the contrary, then please do so. [/quote]
Where has Mr. Black been debunked?
[/quote]
Asking a question is not providing proof to the contrary.
But you knew that already, right?
[/quote]
Try looking at his study you fucking moron. The proof is there. But it is more important for people like you to ignore the facts when your ideology comes under the weight of the evidence. Mr. Black has proven but his study that The Heritage Foundation makes up fake empiricism to come out with the conclusions. They do this for a reason. Their paymaster need to keep up the facade of which you eat it up. It is your job to debunk Mr. Black since he has debunked The Heritage Foundation. Corporate controlled “think tank”.[/quote]
You can’t link anything but a known scam site that is nothing more than a left-wing progressive propaganda mouthpiece - and I’m the fucking moron?
Sorry, kiddo - but until you can venture outside your cultish little world of TRN dot com - you’re doing nothing more than wiping your ass with your hand and telling everyone you invented toilet paper.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
This thread started out as a investigative piece on the Heritage Foundation’s bias towards those who own them. Mr. Black has shown the fake empiricism with which this so called think tank has reached it’s conclusion to it’s paymaster. If you can show evidence to the contrary then please do so.[/quote]
Your source as been thoroughly debunked as a sham and exposed as a corporate shill for the radical progressive movement.
When you can site a REAL source to back up your progressive propaganda, then maybe an actual debate can occur. Until then - you are nothing more than a delusional, radical, progressive sycophant.
If you can show evidence to the contrary, then please do so. [/quote]
Where has Mr. Black been debunked?
[/quote]
Asking a question is not providing proof to the contrary.
But you knew that already, right?
[/quote]
Try looking at his study you fucking moron. The proof is there. But it is more important for people like you to ignore the facts when your ideology comes under the weight of the evidence. Mr. Black has proven but his study that The Heritage Foundation makes up fake empiricism to come out with the conclusions. They do this for a reason. Their paymaster need to keep up the facade of which you eat it up. It is your job to debunk Mr. Black since he has debunked The Heritage Foundation. Corporate controlled “think tank”.[/quote]
You can’t link anything but a known scam site that is nothing more than a left-wing progressive propaganda mouthpiece - and I’m the fucking moron?
Sorry, kiddo - but until you can venture outside your cultish little world of TRN dot com - you’re doing nothing more than wiping your ass with your hand and telling everyone you invented toilet paper. [/quote]
Just dripping with wit (not:)