The Heritage Foundation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[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]

Defend your arguments instead of being knee-jerk. Where is your proof that his study is faulty. He backed up his arguments with cited sources, where are yours? just because it goes against your ideology how is that proof?

42

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[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]

Defend your arguments instead of being knee-jerk. Where is your proof that his study is faulty. He backed up his arguments with cited sources, where are yours? just because it goes against your ideology how is that proof?
[/quote]

I never said his study was faulty. I can’t be bothered to click on your scam site. If it is posted somewhere other than a known radical progressive propaganda site - then I will gladly click on it and read it. Nothing knee jerk about refusing to engage, or support people who wish an end to what few freedoms I have left.

Now how about you defending your position that the piece of shit scam site is not a radical progressive propaganda source?

43

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[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]

Defend your arguments instead of being knee-jerk. Where is your proof that his study is faulty. He backed up his arguments with cited sources, where are yours? just because it goes against your ideology how is that proof?
[/quote]

I never said his study was faulty. I can’t be bothered to click on your scam site. If it is posted somewhere other than a known radical progressive propaganda site - then I will gladly click on it and read it. Nothing knee jerk about refusing to engage, or support people who wish an end to what few freedoms I have left.

Now how about you defending your position that the piece of shit scam site is not a radical progressive propaganda source?

[/quote]
Because you can’t produce evidence to debunk his findings.

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda statements may be partly false and partly true. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

44

[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]

This is a segment on Oil Companies that are unregulated , I know you will probably not watch it because of what ever . But it points out why regulations are mandatory other wise So called free market will pillage our society

45

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is a segment on Oil Companies that are unregulated , I know you will probably not watch it because of what ever . But it points out why regulations are mandatory other wise So called free market will pillage our society

[/quote]

That last guy sure seems to believe the government is the problem. At least that’s the way it seemed when he crossed his fingers and said the government is in bed with the companies.

The villagers’ problem seems to be that they are not and have not been reimbursed in any way for either the oil that is taken from them, or the damages caused during the transportation of that oil. Theft and property damage(AKA already existing property crimes).

Another statist argument fail.

46

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is a segment on Oil Companies that are unregulated , I know you will probably not watch it because of what ever . But it points out why regulations are mandatory other wise So called free market will pillage our society

[/quote]

That last guy sure seems to believe the government is the problem. At least that’s the way it seemed when he crossed his fingers and said the government is in bed with the companies.

The villagers’ problem seems to be that they are not and have not been reimbursed in any way for either the oil that is taken from them, or the damages caused during the transportation of that oil. Theft and property damage.

Another statist argument fail.[/quote]

Oh it is a story of a corrupt Government and the predation of an Oil Company on a poor society. Sorry but could you use another word for statist so that I may make some sense from that sentence

47

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
That last guy sure seems to believe the government is the problem. At least that’s the way it seemed when he crossed his fingers and said the government is in bed with the companies.

The villagers’ problem seems to be that they are not and have not been reimbursed in any way for either the oil that is taken from them, or the damages caused during the transportation of that oil. Theft and property damage.

Another statist argument fail.[/quote]

Oh it is a story of a corrupt Government and the predation of an Oil Company on a poor society. Sorry but could you use another word for statist so that I may make some sense from that sentence [/quote]

I’ll just translate for you: That was another failed attempt by an advocate of the practice of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy to show that more government control is needed.

48

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
That last guy sure seems to believe the government is the problem. At least that’s the way it seemed when he crossed his fingers and said the government is in bed with the companies.

The villagers’ problem seems to be that they are not and have not been reimbursed in any way for either the oil that is taken from them, or the damages caused during the transportation of that oil. Theft and property damage.

Another statist argument fail.[/quote]

Oh it is a story of a corrupt Government and the predation of an Oil Company on a poor society. Sorry but could you use another word for statist so that I may make some sense from that sentence [/quote]

I’ll just translate for you: That was another failed attempt by an advocate of the practice of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy to show that more government control is needed.[/quote]

It sounds as we agree

49

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It sounds as we agree
[/quote]

We may, if you meant that laws keeping the government out of the economy are a necessary regulation.

50

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It sounds as we agree
[/quote]

We may, if you meant that laws keeping the government out of the economy are a necessary regulation.[/quote]

No, what I meant was the Government should make the Oil Companies keep their promises and they should make the oil companies pay the residents a fair price to use their land

I am not even sure what laws you are speaking of where the government is kept out of the economy

51

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No, what I meant was the Government should make the Oil Companies keep their promises and they should make the oil companies pay the residents a fair price to use their land

I am not even sure what laws you are speaking of where the government is kept out of the economy
[/quote]

Governments should not be in the business of enforcing promises. If there is a contract, then it’s a different story. To really form a reasonable opinion on the situation, I would need more information on what happened in the first place.

52

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No, what I meant was the Government should make the Oil Companies keep their promises and they should make the oil companies pay the residents a fair price to use their land

I am not even sure what laws you are speaking of where the government is kept out of the economy
[/quote]

Governments should not be in the business of enforcing promises. If there is a contract, then it’s a different story. To really form a reasonable opinion on the situation, I would need more information on what happened in the first place.[/quote]

Government’s job is just that , A promise is a contract

53

Contract : A written or spoken agreement, esp. one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

54

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No, what I meant was the Government should make the Oil Companies keep their promises and they should make the oil companies pay the residents a fair price to use their land

I am not even sure what laws you are speaking of where the government is kept out of the economy
[/quote]

Governments should not be in the business of enforcing promises. If there is a contract, then it’s a different story. To really form a reasonable opinion on the situation, I would need more information on what happened in the first place.[/quote]

Government’s job is just that , A promise is a contract [/quote]

I agree. I’m tired and am not sure how I was reading what you said. The government should enforce any contract/promises involving the transfer of property.

I would have to know more about what the original terms of the agreement were to form an educated opinion on what happened over there. I’m not even clear on who(government or oil company) was promising jobs to the villages.

55

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No, what I meant was the Government should make the Oil Companies keep their promises and they should make the oil companies pay the residents a fair price to use their land

I am not even sure what laws you are speaking of where the government is kept out of the economy
[/quote]

Governments should not be in the business of enforcing promises. If there is a contract, then it’s a different story. To really form a reasonable opinion on the situation, I would need more information on what happened in the first place.[/quote]

Government’s job is just that , A promise is a contract [/quote]

I agree. I’m tired and am not sure how I was reading what you said. The government should enforce any contract/promises involving the transfer of property.

I would have to know more about what the original terms of the agreement were to form an educated opinion on what happened over there. I’m not even clear on who(government or oil company) was promising jobs to the villages.[/quote]

Why just transfer of just property , why not all the promises made .

56

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Why just transfer of just property , why not all the promises made . [/quote]

If a woman agrees/promises to marry a man, then backs out before marrying, should she be forced to marry him? Do you really believe that all promises should be enforced at gunpoint?

I’m not sure what was promised, and on what conditions in this instance. It’s possible that all promises made involved the transfer of property.

57

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Why just transfer of just property , why not all the promises made . [/quote]

If a woman agrees/promises to marry a man, then backs out before marrying, should she be forced to marry him? Do you really believe that all promises should be enforced at gunpoint?

I’m not sure what was promised, and on what conditions in this instance. It’s possible that all promises made involved the transfer of property.[/quote]

you have a very odd sense of right and wrong .

A woman promising to marry someone probably did not extract a lot of value from her prospective husband . But if she did I could see that it might be prudent to make her return what ever she did extract from her prospective husband

If I make a promise to return the $100 dollars I borrowed and then change my mind should I be forced to do so.

I would save at gun point for the most severe situations and yes there are situation that would warrant gun play in my opinion .

58

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
you have a very odd sense of right and wrong .

A woman promising to marry someone probably did not extract a lot of value from her prospective husband . But if she did I could see that it might be prudent to make her return what ever she did extract from her prospective husband

If I make a promise to return the $100 dollars I borrowed and then change my mind should I be forced to do so.

I would save at gun point for the most severe situations and yes there are situation that would warrant gun play in my opinion .[/quote]

It has nothing to do with my sense of right and wrong.

A broken engagement does not involve property. The engagement only created an expectation within the man’s mind, the woman did not promise property.

If you promise to pay back $100 you borrow, then fail to do so, you have not just broken a promise. You have stolen that money.

Without knowing exactly what happened, it would seem any promises made to those villagers should be enforced because their oil is being stolen otherwise.

Anything enforced by the government is done at gunpoint.

59

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
you have a very odd sense of right and wrong .

A woman promising to marry someone probably did not extract a lot of value from her prospective husband . But if she did I could see that it might be prudent to make her return what ever she did extract from her prospective husband

If I make a promise to return the $100 dollars I borrowed and then change my mind should I be forced to do so.

I would save at gun point for the most severe situations and yes there are situation that would warrant gun play in my opinion .[/quote]

It has nothing to do with my sense of right and wrong.

A broken engagement does not involve property. The engagement only created an expectation within the man’s mind, the woman did not promise property.

If you promise to pay back $100 you borrow, then fail to do so, you have not just broken a promise. You have stolen that money.

Without knowing exactly what happened, it would seem any promises made to those villagers should be enforced because their oil is being stolen otherwise.

Anything enforced by the government is done at gunpoint. [/quote]

Any thing done by the Government is (NOT) done at gun point. Let’s say your prospective bride got her prospective husband to bail her out of let’s say a $10,000 debt. The Government could not put her in Jail until she paid . They would issue a JUDGMENT against the woman . IF she ever acquired anything worth $10,000 the person with the Judgement could take it

Did you watch the video ?

60

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Any thing done by the Government is (NOT) done at gun point. Let’s say your prospective bride got her prospective husband to bail her out of let’s say a $10,000 debt. The Government could not put her in Jail until she paid . They would issue a JUDGMENT against the woman . IF she ever acquired anything worth $10,000 the person with the Judgement could take it

Did you watch the video ?

[/quote]

If she ever acquired anything worth $10,000, then refused to part with it, what would happen? EVERYTHING the government does is done as gunpoint.

What do you mean when you say, “got her prospective husband…” anyway? How did she get him to help her out?

If he bailed her out only because he assumed she would become his wife, then the government should not(I say should not because I’m not sure how the law works in this case…and I wouldn’t want to say could not because the government CAN take whatever it wants from anyone it wants-I would think someone who is as anti-prohibition as you would realize that just because government can do something, that doesn’t make it right) be able to make her pay anything.

Yes, I watched the video. Why do you ask?