Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

President Donald Trump!

Page 53 of 82 [ 1307 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 ... 82  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

luan78zao
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

13 Mar 2016, 8:58 pm

marshall wrote:
Are you the type of person who would call factory sit-ins by union workers "violence". You would call it "violence" to justify going into the factory with guns and mowing them down for "violating property rights". They "initiated force" by refusing to leave.


So I'm going to barge into your house with a few friends, "occupy" your living room, sit on your couch and drink your beer. It'll be a peaceful use of "force" and therefore okay. I'm certain you won't try to throw us out bodily, or call police to do so, because that would be "violence."

Quote:
I don't understand why a self-professed libertarian would support someone like Trump (who isn't a libertarian at all). If libertarians flock to support Trump


They aren't. Thanks to the magic of Facebook, I am in touch with literally dozens of libertarians, conservatives, and Objectivists. Some support Cruz, others find him too evangelical and root for Rubio, some plan to vote for Gary Johnson. There isn't a single Trump fan among my friends and acquaintances.

Quote:
Alex Jones is just a money-loving cock-sucker


I'm a little out of touch, is homophobia acceptable now?


_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Mar 2016, 9:03 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Bernie should have to disavow the violent far left element of his support that make up a portion of his base, by current political logic him not even acknowledging it must implicitly imply that he in fact supports their means and ends of these violent far left extremists. If you can't play by your own rules then don't make them.

I wouldn't call BLM, Bernie's "base". If you recall, they disrupted his own speech. But unlike Trump, he didn't threaten to have his security beat them up. If you look at most of the actual violence, it involved BLM members and Trump supporters going at each other. I'm not a supporter of BLM tactics.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Mar 2016, 9:11 pm

luan78zao wrote:
marshall wrote:
Are you the type of person who would call factory sit-ins by union workers "violence". You would call it "violence" to justify going into the factory with guns and mowing them down for "violating property rights". They "initiated force" by refusing to leave.


So I'm going to barge into your house with a few friends, "occupy" your living room, sit on your couch and drink your beer. It'll be a peaceful use of "force" and therefore okay. I'm certain you won't try to throw us out bodily, or call police to do so, because that would be "violence."

Quote:
I don't understand why a self-professed libertarian would support someone like Trump (who isn't a libertarian at all). If libertarians flock to support Trump


They aren't. Thanks to the magic of Facebook, I am in touch with literally dozens of libertarians, conservatives, and Objectivists. Some support Cruz, others find him too evangelical and root for Rubio, some plan to vote for Gary Johnson. There isn't a single Trump fan among my friends and acquaintances.

Quote:
Alex Jones is just a money-loving cock-sucker


I'm a little out of touch, is homophobia acceptable now?


The difference between workers taking part in a sit-in, and you and your friends walking into Marshal's house to drink his beer and not leave is that the workers, being employed at the business in question, actually have a reason for being there, while you and your friends would not. Plus, a sit-in is a legally recognized form of protest in order to negotiate for economic goals, whereas you and your friends would just want to steal Marshal's beer.
And calling that raging nutbar Alex Jones a c0ck sucker is not homophobic, as he is not gay... I don't think.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Mar 2016, 9:11 pm

luan78zao wrote:
marshall wrote:
Are you the type of person who would call factory sit-ins by union workers "violence". You would call it "violence" to justify going into the factory with guns and mowing them down for "violating property rights". They "initiated force" by refusing to leave.

So I'm going to barge into your house with a few friends, "occupy" your living room, sit on your couch and drink your beer. It'll be a peaceful use of "force" and therefore okay. I'm certain you won't try to throw us out bodily, or call police to do so, because that would be "violence."

A factory isn't a living room.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't understand why a self-professed libertarian would support someone like Trump (who isn't a libertarian at all). If libertarians flock to support Trump

They aren't. Thanks to the magic of Facebook, I am in touch with literally dozens of libertarians, conservatives, and Objectivists. Some support Cruz, others find him too evangelical and root for Rubio, some plan to vote for Gary Johnson. There isn't a single Trump fan among my friends and acquaintances.

I'm talking about Alex Jones and his fanboys. They once pretended to be libertarian.

Quote:
Quote:
Alex Jones is just a money-loving cock-sucker

I'm a little out of touch, is homophobia acceptable now?

Ugh. I wasn't calling Alex Jones homosexual.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

13 Mar 2016, 9:29 pm

marshall wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Bernie should have to disavow the violent far left element of his support that make up a portion of his base, by current political logic him not even acknowledging it must implicitly imply that he in fact supports their means and ends of these violent far left extremists. If you can't play by your own rules then don't make them.

I wouldn't call BLM, Bernie's "base". If you recall, they disrupted his own speech. But unlike Trump, he didn't threaten to have his security beat them up. If you look at most of the actual violence, it involved BLM members and Trump supporters going at each other. I'm not a supporter of BLM tactics.


Bernie isn't disavowing them as he should, he wouldn't dare of course. Did his campaign organize it? I doubt it but people that professed support for Bernie or at least people who wanted to make it look liked they were Bernie supporters were front and center in front of that fiasco in Chicago.



luan78zao
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

13 Mar 2016, 9:38 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
The difference between workers taking part in a sit-in, and you and your friends walking into Marshal's house to drink his beer and not leave is that the workers, being employed at the business in question, actually have a reason for being there, while you and your friends would not.


They have a reason to be there if they were invited to be there by the owner of the factory. If not, not. If you hire a plumber to come to your home to fix the toilet, would it be okay if HE stayed indefinitely after completing the work, sitting on your couch and watching HBO on your TV?

I am disagreeing with the notion, floating around for decades, that some people can go anywhere and do anything, occupy buildings, block streets, and it's harmless "force," while those who remove them are guilty of "violence." If this were taken literally all of the time, civilized life would be impossible.

Quote:
Plus, a sit-in is a legally recognized form of protest in order to negotiate for economic goals,


Appeal to authority. There are many laws, some are rational, some are not.

Quote:
And calling that raging nutbar Alex Jones a c0ck sucker is not homophobic, as he is not gay... I don't think.


So homophobic slurs are acceptable if the target is not actually gay? How's that work? (I agree that he's a raging nutbar.)


_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Mar 2016, 9:48 pm

luan78zao wrote:
So homophobic slurs are acceptable if the target is not actually gay? How's that work? (I agree that he's a raging nutbar.)

I didn't know the term was strictly homophobic. I just like how it sounds. Besides, Raptor thinks it's funny. If you really want, I'll say he's a wrinkly-scrotum-sack instead of a cock-sucker.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Mar 2016, 9:55 pm

luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The difference between workers taking part in a sit-in, and you and your friends walking into Marshal's house to drink his beer and not leave is that the workers, being employed at the business in question, actually have a reason for being there, while you and your friends would not.


They have a reason to be there if they were invited to be there by the owner of the factory. If not, not. If you hire a plumber to come to your home to fix the toilet, would it be okay if HE stayed indefinitely after completing the work, sitting on your couch and watching HBO on your TV?

I am disagreeing with the notion, floating around for decades, that some people can go anywhere and do anything, occupy buildings, block streets, and it's harmless "force," while those who remove them are guilty of "violence." If this were taken literally all of the time, civilized life would be impossible.

Quote:
Plus, a sit-in is a legally recognized form of protest in order to negotiate for economic goals,


Appeal to authority. There are many laws, some are rational, some are not.

Quote:
And calling that raging nutbar Alex Jones a c0ck sucker is not homophobic, as he is not gay... I don't think.


So homophobic slurs are acceptable if the target is not actually gay? How's that work? (I agree that he's a raging nutbar.)


Were it up to you conservatives, all forms of strikes for the sake of collective bargaining would be illegal. All the power is in the hands of the business owner, so it's only fair that organized labor has some sort of means to demonstrate for the sake of attaining desired goals.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Mar 2016, 10:17 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The difference between workers taking part in a sit-in, and you and your friends walking into Marshal's house to drink his beer and not leave is that the workers, being employed at the business in question, actually have a reason for being there, while you and your friends would not.


They have a reason to be there if they were invited to be there by the owner of the factory. If not, not. If you hire a plumber to come to your home to fix the toilet, would it be okay if HE stayed indefinitely after completing the work, sitting on your couch and watching HBO on your TV?

I am disagreeing with the notion, floating around for decades, that some people can go anywhere and do anything, occupy buildings, block streets, and it's harmless "force," while those who remove them are guilty of "violence." If this were taken literally all of the time, civilized life would be impossible.

Quote:
Plus, a sit-in is a legally recognized form of protest in order to negotiate for economic goals,


Appeal to authority. There are many laws, some are rational, some are not.

Quote:
And calling that raging nutbar Alex Jones a c0ck sucker is not homophobic, as he is not gay... I don't think.


So homophobic slurs are acceptable if the target is not actually gay? How's that work? (I agree that he's a raging nutbar.)


Were it up to you conservatives, all forms of strikes for the sake of collective bargaining would be illegal. All the power is in the hands of the business owner, so it's only fair that organized labor has some sort of means to demonstrate for the sake of attaining desired goals.

It seems the right to strike is a mute point these days as organized labor has been crushed by cheap overseas competition.

I still think most libertarians have a seriously stilted moral perspective. I do not want to live in their cruel vision of utopia.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,808
Location: the island of defective toy santas

13 Mar 2016, 10:19 pm

just that some folk are thinking one day they're be that CEO hence they don't want workers to have a fair shake.



luan78zao
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

13 Mar 2016, 10:24 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Were it up to you conservatives,


For the umpteenth time, I am not a conservative.

Quote:
all forms of strikes for the sake of collective bargaining would be illegal.


Are you capable of arguing without deploying straw men? I don't know of anybody who believes this.

Quote:
All the power is in the hands of the business owner,


False. Nobody has to work for him. There are always alternatives.

Quote:
so it's only fair that organized labor has some sort of means to demonstrate for the sake of attaining desired goals.


They have the right to organize, to strike, to picket. They don't have the right to take over property which does not belong to them, nor to assault those who disagree with them. Those who initiate the use of force against others are in the wrong.


_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Mar 2016, 10:26 pm

marshall wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The difference between workers taking part in a sit-in, and you and your friends walking into Marshal's house to drink his beer and not leave is that the workers, being employed at the business in question, actually have a reason for being there, while you and your friends would not.


They have a reason to be there if they were invited to be there by the owner of the factory. If not, not. If you hire a plumber to come to your home to fix the toilet, would it be okay if HE stayed indefinitely after completing the work, sitting on your couch and watching HBO on your TV?

I am disagreeing with the notion, floating around for decades, that some people can go anywhere and do anything, occupy buildings, block streets, and it's harmless "force," while those who remove them are guilty of "violence." If this were taken literally all of the time, civilized life would be impossible.

Quote:
Plus, a sit-in is a legally recognized form of protest in order to negotiate for economic goals,


Appeal to authority. There are many laws, some are rational, some are not.

Quote:
And calling that raging nutbar Alex Jones a c0ck sucker is not homophobic, as he is not gay... I don't think.


So homophobic slurs are acceptable if the target is not actually gay? How's that work? (I agree that he's a raging nutbar.)


Were it up to you conservatives, all forms of strikes for the sake of collective bargaining would be illegal. All the power is in the hands of the business owner, so it's only fair that organized labor has some sort of means to demonstrate for the sake of attaining desired goals.

It seems the right to strike is a mute point these days as organized labor has been crushed by cheap overseas competition.

I still think most libertarians have a seriously stilted moral perspective. I do not want to live in their cruel vision of utopia.


Maybe, just maybe, the IWW's dream of the one big, world wide union will see fruition someday, and that cheap overseas labor will be organized, too. Then the plutocracy will be on their knees (hey, if Trump can say it about Romney... :twisted: ).
And I totally agree, I want no part of the libertarian/Randian dystopia, either.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

13 Mar 2016, 10:35 pm

for a chilling depiction of a post-randian dystopia, read "the water thief" by soutter.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Mar 2016, 10:38 pm

luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Were it up to you conservatives,


For the umpteenth time, I am not a conservative.

Quote:
all forms of strikes for the sake of collective bargaining would be illegal.


Are you capable of arguing without deploying straw men? I don't know of anybody who believes this.

Quote:
All the power is in the hands of the business owner,


False. Nobody has to work for him. There are always alternatives.

Quote:
so it's only fair that organized labor has some sort of means to demonstrate for the sake of attaining desired goals.


They have the right to organize, to strike, to picket. They don't have the right to take over property which does not belong to them, nor to assault those who disagree with them. Those who initiate the use of force against others are in the wrong.


You're not a conservative? Well, you're certainly not liberal. And before you say you're a libertarian, I'll raise yuh by saying libertarians are a sub-species of conservatives.
And, yes, it has always been the wet dream of conservatives to roll back labor laws back to the good old days, which were only good for the rich.
And no, no one is forcing anyone to work for an employer, save for their stomachs, and the stomachs of their families. The problem with that way of thinking is that almost all businesses had treated their workers very much the same way, because there was no other game in town for employment.
And strikers don't have the right to take over an employer's property? The same logic could be used against workers striking outside the company entrance. Still not the same as you stealing Marshal's beer.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,808
Location: the island of defective toy santas

13 Mar 2016, 10:54 pm

cathylynn wrote:
for a chilling depiction of a post-randian dystopia, read "the water thief" by soutter.

thanx for that, i'll have to dig up that one. :idea: EDIT- from the sound of that novel, it makes me think that the right libs who think untrammeled randian corporatism is the panacea of all the ills they care about, they may be in for a reckoning when this comes to pass. they are just trading one "boss" [gov't] for another [Corporations]. i'd rather that uncle sam were my boss than some amoral kochian conglomeration of corporations charging me money just to breathe.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Mar 2016, 11:34 pm

marshall wrote:
I still think most libertarians have a seriously stilted moral perspective.


That people should be free to pursue their own happiness?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez