Rush Limbaugh against Video Game Sin Tax

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Bentusi16:

You've argued it so many times and you've stamped your feat and whined like a baby SO MANY TIMES I'm getting sick of the whole cause you profess to support. You are literally killing my urge to actually fight for peoples rights because of the shitty childish way you act like and the way you treat others.

I don't giev a shit who fucks what hole but god dammit I cannot stand whiny little bastards. And if you're doing it for me then god only knows how other people with less patience then I do feel.

Sorry that actually having a passion about maintaining the basic liberty of being able to have same sex lovers without being imprisoned for it bugs you, but when I hear people profess a desire to reenable states to go right back to that status quo, I get a tad defensive and hostile. Maybe you're removed from the issue, but I'm not. So no, I'm not going to shut up about it so long as people support undoing the progress.

As for "how I treat others", I really honestly care nothing for the feelings of people who wish to enable the people who would happily ruin my life.

GunsmithKitten:

jetriot:

Except that he agrees with you. He simply didn't agree with the way in which it was done. You argument is basically like saying someone agrees with rape because they don't agree that rapists should be tossed in an incinerator. His disagreement with a process has no correlation to the end result of that process.p

not even close to the same thing. Ron Paul's beliefs directly enable my rights to be trampled on by the state and county. He would give them the power to oppress me, something that the federal government took away from them. I have nothing but disgust for anyone who would enable a government to do such a thing. And I have nothing but disgust for you for wanting to enable racial segregation in this country, something that people got killed to fight against. You and I are done, sir, kindly go to hell and take your communitarian garbage with you.

You just don't get it. Label me with whatever nonsense you want(I am a libertarian) but it doesn't change the fact that you want to use FORCE to get others to adhere to your beliefs. I urge you to just think through everything you have stated and try to find the logical fallacies, because there are many. You don't stop racism, or bigotry by forcing your beliefs upon others and limiting freedom. Taking that path only entrenches those beliefs.

I don't want any level of government forcing their beliefs upon another and neither does Ron Paul. I understand people that disagree with me. The problem is you don't disagree with me on this, you are simply so locked in your perception of the world that you are unable to see a logical fallacy and misperception for what it is.

Yeah, even blind chickens are right twice a blue moon. Really not that surprised. Doesn't change too much, either, but sure, let him have that little bit of credit.

As for that whole states rights thing? Civil rights were in rather dire straits without federal imposition. I really don't see a reason to allow the states, especially those who have messed up on these issues so many times, to be allowed to decide something so fundamental. The federal level is there to provide a basic framework for the state governments to exist in, but I obviously think civil rights are so basic that they must be a part of that framework already.

jetriot:
He isn't against civil rights, he is against the Civil Rights Act because it gave the federal government unprecedented power over private business and private property. He also said anti-sodomy laws are rediculous but said the Lawrence V Texas used imaginary constitutional language that gave privacy a priority over the 9th and 10th amendments(State rights). He doesn't want states to pass stupid laws, he just believe the fed should follow the constitution.

Wait, you're using the 9th Amendment to say that people don't have a right to privacy? The one that says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Which is usually interpreted to mean that the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the rights given in it don't supersede rights which are not explicitly written. Because I'd use that to say a right to privacy does exist, and it is not superseded by "States' rights".

GunsmithKitten:

Bentusi16:

You've argued it so many times and you've stamped your feat and whined like a baby SO MANY TIMES I'm getting sick of the whole cause you profess to support. You are literally killing my urge to actually fight for peoples rights because of the shitty childish way you act like and the way you treat others.

I don't giev a shit who fucks what hole but god dammit I cannot stand whiny little bastards. And if you're doing it for me then god only knows how other people with less patience then I do feel.

Sorry that actually having a passion about maintaining the basic liberty of being able to have same sex lovers without being imprisoned for it bugs you, but when I hear people profess a desire to reenable states to go right back to that status quo, I get a tad defensive and hostile. Maybe you're removed from the issue, but I'm not. So no, I'm not going to shut up about it so long as people support undoing the progress.

As for "how I treat others", I really honestly care nothing for the feelings of people who wish to enable the people who would happily ruin my life.

Then why should I bother treating you like a person?

See, when your willing to dehumanize your enemies, then why shuold anyone humanize you?

You are literally feeding into people who already dislike you and giving them ammo to use against you.

Passion does not excuse rudeness or treating others badly, and acting like a child when discussing an issue doesn't endear people to your side, it just makes them think your a child. You are quite literally doing more damage to your own side then your so called 'enemy' is.

See, people, generally speaking, are not going be against you because your gay. Even if they don't necessary like it...they won't bother you about it. Yes, there are people who will, but they're a small minority in relative terms. BUT, people HATE jackasses. People will side against someone who they think is a jackass even if they agree with them up to a point.

Bentusi16:

Then why should I bother treating you like a person?

You already are fine with my state being allowed to throw me in a case, so I'd say you're already fairly close to not having a tinker's piss worth of regard for me as a person anyway.

See, when your willing to dehumanize your enemies, then why shuold anyone humanize you?

I'd ask the same thing? Why should I humanize anyone who thinks it's okay for a state to cage me like a goddamned animal?

Passion does not excuse rudeness or treating others badly, and acting like a child when discussing an issue doesn't endear people to your side, it just makes them think your a child. You are quite literally doing more damage to your own side then your so called 'enemy' is.

Oh, so I'm the one calling for states to be reenabled to make laws such as this?

Bentusi16:

GunsmithKitten:

Bentusi16:

Then why should I bother treating you like a person?

You already are fine with my state being allowed to throw me in a case, so I'd say you're already fairly close to not having a tinker's piss worth of regard for me as a person anyway.

See, when your willing to dehumanize your enemies, then why shuold anyone humanize you?

I'd ask the same thing? Why should I humanize anyone who thinks it's okay for a state to cage me like a goddamned animal?

Passion does not excuse rudeness or treating others badly, and acting like a child when discussing an issue doesn't endear people to your side, it just makes them think your a child. You are quite literally doing more damage to your own side then your so called 'enemy' is.

Oh, so I'm the one calling for states to be reenabled to make laws such as this?

By acting like a jackass you are literally making people who WANT to be on your side be against you because your acting like a jackass. That's it. Period. Do you not understand this concept? I can't put it any more simply. You are driving people away with your attitude EVEN IF THEY AGREE WITH YOU.

And no, I'm NOT willing to do that because true libertarianism isn't 'tyranny of the majority' any more then it is 'tyranny of the minority'. No one has any business in the bedroom that isn't in the bedroom with the sole exception of children or non consensual acts. Self determinition does not extend to you putting your beliefs on someone else and telling them what they can and cannot do unless it violates the big three (rape, murder, theft). We have laws for those in place because without them society would cease functioning. You buggering another man in the asshole does not, therefore I do not give a shit and no one else should either, so any law passed REGARDING your buggery of other men in the asshole is NOT LIBERTARIAN, it is the anathema of it.

Fine then, we're on the same page, but don't ask me to be nice to the people like Jerihot who want to enable the states to change that, which I promise you many would do.

GunsmithKitten:

Bentusi16:

GunsmithKitten:

You already are fine with my state being allowed to throw me in a case, so I'd say you're already fairly close to not having a tinker's piss worth of regard for me as a person anyway.

I'd ask the same thing? Why should I humanize anyone who thinks it's okay for a state to cage me like a goddamned animal?

Oh, so I'm the one calling for states to be reenabled to make laws such as this?

By acting like a jackass you are literally making people who WANT to be on your side be against you because your acting like a jackass. That's it. Period. Do you not understand this concept? I can't put it any more simply. You are driving people away with your attitude EVEN IF THEY AGREE WITH YOU.

And no, I'm NOT willing to do that because true libertarianism isn't 'tyranny of the majority' any more then it is 'tyranny of the minority'. No one has any business in the bedroom that isn't in the bedroom with the sole exception of children or non consensual acts. Self determinition does not extend to you putting your beliefs on someone else and telling them what they can and cannot do unless it violates the big three (rape, murder, theft). We have laws for those in place because without them society would cease functioning. You buggering another man in the asshole does not, therefore I do not give a shit and no one else should either, so any law passed REGARDING your buggery of other men in the asshole is NOT LIBERTARIAN, it is the anathema of it.

Fine then, we're on the same page, but don't ask me to be nice to the people like Jerihot who want to enable the states to change that, which I promise you many would do.

There's a line between being a jackass and not being a jackass; I don't ask you to like him, or be nice to him. Winston Churchill said it best. "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite". And it can make you seem a lot more appealing then the other guys side, especially if you can goad him into foaming at the mouth.

Bentusi16:

Then why should I bother treating you like a person?

See, when your willing to dehumanize your enemies, then why shuold anyone humanize you?

You are literally feeding into people who already dislike you and giving them ammo to use against you.

Passion does not excuse rudeness or treating others badly, and acting like a child when discussing an issue doesn't endear people to your side, it just makes them think your a child. You are quite literally doing more damage to your own side then your so called 'enemy' is.

See, people, generally speaking, are not going be against you because your gay. Even if they don't necessary like it...they won't bother you about it. Yes, there are people who will, but they're a small minority in relative terms. BUT, people HATE jackasses. People will side against someone who they think is a jackass even if they agree with them up to a point.

Shut up already would you?

You've argued it so many times and you've stamped your feat and whined like a baby SO MANY TIMES I'm getting sick of the whole cause you profess to support. You are literally killing my urge to actually fight for peoples rights because of the shitty childish way you act like and the way you treat others.

I don't giev a shit who fucks what hole but god dammit I cannot stand whiny little bastards. And if you're doing it for me then god only knows how other people with less patience then I do feel.

You then proceed to passionately treat someone badly and have already acted like a jackass. Good job, achievement unlocked.

jetriot:

I am also ok with American businesses practicing racial segregation. It is their property and their business. Who am I or you to tell them who they and and can not serve. I would hope that they go out of business because of their stupid beliefs but it is not my or your or the majority's right to tell them, at the point of a gun, who they must serve.

Here's the thing. When a town is dominantly white and the majority of it's inhabitants are either indifferent or in agreement, that shop isn't going to go out of business. The Market decided, and it hates blacks, gays, jews and irish. Say that we are no longer talking about a town but an entire state where you are pretty much unwelcome and a second class citizen. Your life has to change drastically and you would have to pick up and move thousands of miles (Something most people can not do, mind you) just because 90% of the business around you are hostile and wont accommodate you. Welcome to pre-segregation America.

As for your other point. There is nothing wrong with standing for your principles even when it harms a cause you believe in. Government must adhere to its laws and the Constitution or it gains the ability to stop serving the people and start serving itself.

I don't think I'm being out of line when I say that the constitution is old enough to be completely obsolete and needs amendments to continue to work within a modern society. Blindly following a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago, to the letter, sounds a lot like a religion, Mr. Libertarian.

Anyway, you have already conceded that Ron Paul does not believe religion has a place in government and you can not claim he is a racist for standing for limited government. Your arguments are incredibly flawed. Ron Paul stands more for freedom and liberty than any Democrat in the federal government and nearly every Republican. His definition of freedom means individual choice and liberty. Yours means choice and liberty that you want people to have while stripping them of choices you don't think they should be allowed to make.

Like the choice to commit murder. Look, most people will never murder someone in their lifetime, most people are good, law abiding people. With that in mind, I don't see why we need a law against murder that punishes someone for making a choice. I agree they should be punished but we should take the government out of the process and just let things take their course.

Except that he agrees with you. He simply didn't agree with the way in which it was done. You argument is basically like saying someone agrees with rape because they don't agree that rapists should be tossed in an incinerator. His disagreement with a process has no correlation to the end result of that process.

If a lawmaker removes laws on rape and rapes increase and the majority of rapists are now free to go out and rape more because there is no law against rape, then he's responsible for all that rape that is happening. When you are electing an official representative, his disagreement with a process has a direct correlation with the result because he is capable of effecting it through legislation.

jetriot:
You just don't get it. Label me with whatever nonsense you want(I am a libertarian) but it doesn't change the fact that you want to use FORCE to get others to adhere to your beliefs.

That's rubbish. Acting against discrimination and providing equal rights is not some form of oppression. After all, there's no such thing as a right to discriminate. And if there was, abolishing it would need to be legislate priority nr 1.

That's often a central tenet of libertarianism: A belief that oppressing others and forcing your religion onto them is somehow part of your personal freedom, and not being able to oppress others is somehow curtailing that personal freedom.

You see the same in regards to healthcare: Libertarians often want to impose Christian values by force through shady financial constructs, like for instance wanting to cease coverage for contraceptives. They claim it's because they don't want to pay for other people's sluttiness (to which my answer is ussually to ask what gave them the right to be the judge of that) but the real reason is they want to impose the Christian value of no sex untill marriage by force.

Another good example is the libertarian version of the abortion ban: Cease all payments towards that under the fake excuse of not wanting to subsidise it, this effectively bans abortion for almost everyone, and you've succeeded in imposing Christianity on others.


I think it could all be accurately summed up as the same old shit of conservative/reactionary authoritarianism, except it's been coated in a sauce of "Don't give a damn about anyone except yourself".

Me, I don't see a reason to even distinguish libertarianism from other forms of reactionary thinking. It's the same agenda dressed in different language.

Blablahb:

jetriot:
You just don't get it. Label me with whatever nonsense you want(I am a libertarian) but it doesn't change the fact that you want to use FORCE to get others to adhere to your beliefs.

That's rubbish. Acting against discrimination and providing equal rights is not some form of oppression. After all, there's no such thing as a right to discriminate. And if there was, abolishing it would need to be legislate priority nr 1.

That's often a central tenet of libertarianism: A belief that oppressing others and forcing your religion onto them is somehow part of your personal freedom, and not being able to oppress others is somehow curtailing that personal freedom.

You see the same in regards to healthcare: Libertarians often want to impose Christian values by force through shady financial constructs, like for instance wanting to cease coverage for contraceptives. They claim it's because they don't want to pay for other people's sluttiness (to which my answer is ussually to ask what gave them the right to be the judge of that) but the real reason is they want to impose the Christian value of no sex untill marriage by force.

Another good example is the libertarian version of the abortion ban: Cease all payments towards that under the fake excuse of not wanting to subsidise it, this effectively bans abortion for almost everyone, and you've succeeded in imposing Christianity on others.


I think it could all be accurately summed up as the same old shit of conservative/reactionary authoritarianism, except it's been coated in a sauce of "Don't give a damn about anyone except yourself".

Me, I don't see a reason to even distinguish libertarianism from other forms of reactionary thinking. It's the same agenda dressed in different language.

Again, he's not a libertarian, Blab. Anyone who thinks that government AT ANY LEVEL should have a right to police bedrooms does not deserve the label. People like Jeriot thinks that certain levels of government should be allowed to police bedrooms.

Blablahb:
That's often a central tenet of libertarianism: A belief that oppressing others and forcing your religion onto them is somehow part of your personal freedom, and not being able to oppress others is somehow curtailing that personal freedom.

You see the same in regards to healthcare: Libertarians often want to impose Christian values by force through shady financial constructs, like for instance wanting to cease coverage for contraceptives. They claim it's because they don't want to pay for other people's sluttiness (to which my answer is ussually to ask what gave them the right to be the judge of that) but the real reason is they want to impose the Christian value of no sex untill marriage by force.

Another good example is the libertarian version of the abortion ban: Cease all payments towards that under the fake excuse of not wanting to subsidise it, this effectively bans abortion for almost everyone, and you've succeeded in imposing Christianity on others.

I think it could all be accurately summed up as the same old shit of conservative/reactionary authoritarianism, except it's been coated in a sauce of "Don't give a damn about anyone except yourself".

Me, I don't see a reason to even distinguish libertarianism from other forms of reactionary thinking. It's the same agenda dressed in different language.

Actually the central tenet of of being a libertarian is not using coercion by force of law.

It sounds like you want to use the law, like a bully, for political ends.

This is why you hate libertarians.

aelreth:

Actually the central tenet of of being a libertarian is not using coercion by force of law.

Then why allow local and state governments to use coercion and bully minorities?

Lilani:
O'Reilly

Funny you should mention that guy. Because everything you just said about Rush in your post is exactly how I feel about O'Reilly. O'Reilly is actually my second favorite commentator (behind Shepard Smith, but that is a very big gap between first and second place still), and while I will listen to Rush and he has times I am like "Ok, that is a good point." for the most part I am not really a fan of him, while I am a fan of O'Reilly and just think he has a tendancy to stick his foot in his mouth when attempting to get his point across (but get through to the point, and they are good).

OT: As others have already said, "broken clock" and all that. Not much else to say really.

*is not touching Ron Paul and "states rights" debate going on with 5 mile long pole.*

GunsmithKitten:

aelreth:

Actually the central tenet of of being a libertarian is not using coercion by force of law.

Then why allow local and state governments to use coercion and bully minorities?

Please cite the law & Municipality in question.

Then apply 18 USC 242.

BOOM headshot65:
Funny you should mention that guy. Because everything you just said about Rush in your post is exactly how I feel about O'Reilly. O'Reilly is actually my second favorite commentator (behind Shepard Smith, but that is a very big gap between first and second place still), and while I will listen to Rush and he has times I am like "Ok, that is a good point." for the most part I am not really a fan of him, while I am a fan of O'Reilly and just think he has a tendancy to stick his foot in his mouth when attempting to get his point across (but get through to the point, and they are good).

OT: As others have already said, "broken clock" and all that. Not much else to say really.

*is not touching Ron Paul and "states rights" debate going on with 5 mile long pole.*

Maybe it's just that I haven't listened to enough of Rush, but BillO has lost my good opinion just for proving himself to be one of the highest-paid and least educated people on television that has the nerve to pretend he knows what he's talking about. How does a 60 year old man whose job it is to have a broad knowledge of the world not know that the tide is caused by the moon? Maybe it wasn't in the textbooks when he was in gradeschool, but surely sometime in the last four decades or so he would have heard it somewhere.

And then he's got this odd fixation on finding every reason to disapprove of anything that isn't from his generation. Like when he talked about Gangnam Style saying that it's a sign music today "has no meaning" and that it's just about dancing and avoiding reality. Completely ignoring the fact that the music of his generation brought us the Twist, the Monster Mash, The Purple People Eater, and the Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini. Music was irreverent and centered around simple, trendy dances long before Gangnam Style, hell irreverent dances is what defined the pop music of the 60s. It's clear he was just trying to take it and have a "Look at how stupid the younger generation is compared to us" moment. He's just so prone to transparent stuff like that I really can't muster an ounce of respect for him anymore.

But again, perhaps I've just not heard enough of Rush's ego stroking to know better.

Lilani:
snip

Just call it a difference of opinion I guess. I respect him for going his own way rather than following anyo one set (he is registered Independant [while obviously leaning right], and has critisized Republicans without delay if he thought they dun goofed), and the 2 examples you cited were just some of the "Sticking foot in mouth" instances I was talking about. As it stands, he does buck the conservative agenda HARD sometimes. He believes in Global Warming, and thinks we should be doing more to make ourselves energy independant with alternative fuels ("...If Brazil can develop an ethanol industry that makes it independant of foreign oil, then the US can."), he is opposed to the Death Penalty (but thinks we should have gulog style prisions in Alaska to replace it. Make of that what you will), I whole heartedly agree with him that affirmative action programs should be income based rather than race based, and he does have people on the other side of the party lines that he likes (MLK Jr and JFK, to be exact) and in an even bigger thing right now, believes that while people should be able to own semi-auto weapons, they MUST be registered, have harder background checks, and they must have a permit for it.

GunsmithKitten:
He's still a social conservative. Find out about his views on gays and religions other than judeo-Christianity for confirmation on that.

I'd say he's largely libertarian/federalist. He does appear to have sort of politically incorrect views though and can be wildly insensitive:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/homophobia-rush-limbaughs-top-anti-gay-quotes/discrimination/2009/03/05/517

There's a new video game (Family Guy? South Park?) that is also pretty bad being un-PC. But they've also both had very pro-gay episodes. (Brian fought for gay marriage, Big Gay Al wants into the Boy Scouts, not by force, but because people appreciate him and see that it is fair).

My bet on, for instance, gay marriage? I think... think, given his other positions, that he thinks its fine as long as it is enacted by the legislature rather than the judiciary.

On video games, Rush is being Libertarian. The tax is meant to have an impact on legal speech. Verboten.

As for my link... ghad, you could have a whole topic:

1) Is being gay a gene, born with it thing? If not, a choice that can be judged? (personally I think not).
2) If we could ID the gene, would selective abortion increase, based upon the effort to avoid having gay kids? I'm afraid I think so.
3) Does the gay community have a pro choice bias? If so, would they switch to pro-life?

4) And a fun bonus question!!!! Would pro life anti gay religious fundamentalists be impacted by the finding of a pre-natal gay gene?

Like I write, huge question worthy of its own thread.

Can someone link me to a news article with information about the tax? I figure it's just a knee-jerk reaction from someone stupid enough to buy into the scapegoating but i live in one of the states where the taxes were proposed and i'd like to see a few more details. I'd do it myself but for some reason i can't find anything.

Gorfias:

There's a new video game (Family Guy? South Park?) that is also pretty bad being un-PC.

You're thinking of the new Family Guy videogame.

Family Guy offends me, but not for those reasons. Seth McFarlane's politics are fairly transparent and he has no truck with hard right wingers. No, I can't stand the new videogame because it reuses the same lame jokes, not because it has some fun at LGBT's expense.

(Brian fought for gay marriage, Big Gay Al wants into the Boy Scouts, not by force, but because people appreciate him and see that it is fair).

Matt and Trey (South Park) are different animals altogether, but I still don't mind them so much. They're actual bona-fide libertarians. For as much as they rag on liberals (which is a LOT) they don't give Christian conservatism any mercy either (they even say that the Republican party is a tool of Satan and that the Church is screwed up beyond repair)

My bet on, for instance, gay marriage? I think... think, given his other positions, that he thinks its fine as long as it is enacted by the legislature rather than the judiciary.

You'd be wrong.

However, it's easy why one would think that; he actually stays away from sexuality topics on his shows and rarely even touches on them in his book.

1) Is being gay a gene, born with it thing? If not, a choice that can be judged? (personally I think not).

Not a gene as far as has been researched, but it sure as hell is not a choice.

2) If we could ID the gene, would selective abortion increase, based upon the effort to avoid having gay kids? I'm afraid I think so.

Definitly. And it'd happen in good Christian demographics no less.

3) Does the gay community have a pro choice bias? If so, would they switch to pro-life?

I have no idea of the stance in the first place as I rarely talk abortion. Seriously, it's an issue that's a non-issue for me personally. Hell, personally, I'm against abortion period, but want to keep the law at all levels out of it.

4) And a fun bonus question!!!! Would pro life anti gay religious fundamentalists be impacted by the finding of a pre-natal gay gene?

Oh, like a lot of Christian conservative demographics, they'd be unswayed PUBLICALLY, but behind the scenes, they'll be gettting more and more abortions. Seriously, some people find being gay a worse thing than abortion.

GunsmithKitten:

My bet on, for instance, gay marriage? I think... think, given his other positions, that he thinks its fine as long as it is enacted by the legislature rather than the judiciary.

You'd be wrong.

However, it's easy why one would think that; he actually stays away from sexuality topics on his shows and rarely even touches on them in his book.

Your post was a very fun read! Thanks. Do you have any links supporting your position on Rush above?
[/quote]

IIRC Rush invited at least one gay performer to sing at his latest wedding. I don't recall the name.

Before I engage in this entirely futile effort I would like to make a couple things clear. Firstly, fuck Ron Paul and most other constitutionalists. You're impeding progress in order to satisfy rules written by men who were, from a modern perspective, fundamentally illiberal writers of a document that is much the same. When the constitution stands in the way of liberty, it is the constitution that is wrong, not liberty. Secondly, why? Just why?

Blablahb:

jetriot:
You just don't get it. Label me with whatever nonsense you want(I am a libertarian) but it doesn't change the fact that you want to use FORCE to get others to adhere to your beliefs.

That's rubbish. Acting against discrimination and providing equal rights is not some form of oppression. After all, there's no such thing as a right to discriminate. And if there was, abolishing it would need to be legislate priority nr 1.

That's often a central tenet of libertarianism: A belief that oppressing others and forcing your religion onto them is somehow part of your personal freedom, and not being able to oppress others is somehow curtailing that personal freedom.

Surprisingly we agree on the first part, which also outlines why it is I hate constitutionalists. As for the second part, the Libertarian platform is explicitly against using force to do much of anything except in cases of utmost necessity. And Libertarians are also explicitly against forcing religious values onto others, or any values for that matter.

You see the same in regards to healthcare: Libertarians often want to impose Christian values by force through shady financial constructs, like for instance wanting to cease coverage for contraceptives. They claim it's because they don't want to pay for other people's sluttiness (to which my answer is ussually to ask what gave them the right to be the judge of that) but the real reason is they want to impose the Christian value of no sex untill marriage by force.

I would definitely not use the word sluttiness. Rather I would say recreation. I do not understand why I or others must pay for the recreation of others. Oh, and apparently you're a mind reader. Who also fails to realize that the Libertarian candidate last year had been living with his girlfriend for quite some time. I think it's fair to assume they weren't married.

Another good example is the libertarian version of the abortion ban: Cease all payments towards that under the fake excuse of not wanting to subsidise it, this effectively bans abortion for almost everyone, and you've succeeded in imposing Christianity on others.

The libertarians you are talking about don't want any medical treatments to be subsidized, so this is hardly an evil plot to control the womenfolk and more likely just bad, but consistent, healthcare policy (as you can guess this is an area where my opinion differs from the norm).

I think it could all be accurately summed up as the same old shit of conservative/reactionary authoritarianism, except it's been coated in a sauce of "Don't give a damn about anyone except yourself".

Me, I don't see a reason to even distinguish libertarianism from other forms of reactionary thinking. It's the same agenda dressed in different language.

Firstly, their stance on immigration is very much so mindful of others, considering it is quite open. I could also point out their many social stances where they wish to expand the rights of minorities, but that's just the same old song and dance at this point. Finally, it is naive to say that all reactionaries are the same, and that they are all conservative. All types of reactionaries exist. I resent being told that my particular branch of reactionary thinking is the same as the rest. I am far more unique than that.

I don't agree with him on gays, but he makes a good point. Video games are just long interactive movies. When will people realize that, so instead of limiting, and taxing them we should use our common sense vs the Oh but what of the the children, and just said no. Videos games are media too.

GunsmithKitten:

aelreth:

Actually the central tenet of of being a libertarian is not using coercion by force of law.

Then why allow local and state governments to use coercion and bully minorities?

I think it's just easier to manger from a state's point of view instead of a country wide point of view. That being say what do you mean by minorities? Explain that?

Revnak:
Before I engage in this entirely futile effort I would like to make a couple things clear. Firstly, fuck Ron Paul and most other constitutionalists. You're impeding progress in order to satisfy rules written by men who were, from a modern perspective, fundamentally illiberal writers of a document that is much the same. When the constitution stands in the way of liberty, it is the constitution that is wrong, not liberty. Secondly, why? Just why?

Blablahb:

jetriot:
You just don't get it. Label me with whatever nonsense you want(I am a libertarian) but it doesn't change the fact that you want to use FORCE to get others to adhere to your beliefs.

That's rubbish. Acting against discrimination and providing equal rights is not some form of oppression. After all, there's no such thing as a right to discriminate. And if there was, abolishing it would need to be legislate priority nr 1.

That's often a central tenet of libertarianism: A belief that oppressing others and forcing your religion onto them is somehow part of your personal freedom, and not being able to oppress others is somehow curtailing that personal freedom.

Surprisingly we agree on the first part, which also outlines why it is I hate constitutionalists. As for the second part, the Libertarian platform is explicitly against using force to do much of anything except in cases of utmost necessity. And Libertarians are also explicitly against forcing religious values onto others, or any values for that matter.

You see the same in regards to healthcare: Libertarians often want to impose Christian values by force through shady financial constructs, like for instance wanting to cease coverage for contraceptives. They claim it's because they don't want to pay for other people's sluttiness (to which my answer is ussually to ask what gave them the right to be the judge of that) but the real reason is they want to impose the Christian value of no sex untill marriage by force.

I would definitely not use the word sluttiness. Rather I would say recreation. I do not understand why I or others must pay for the recreation of others. Oh, and apparently you're a mind reader. Who also fails to realize that the Libertarian candidate last year had been living with his girlfriend for quite some time. I think it's fair to assume they weren't married.

Another good example is the libertarian version of the abortion ban: Cease all payments towards that under the fake excuse of not wanting to subsidise it, this effectively bans abortion for almost everyone, and you've succeeded in imposing Christianity on others.

The libertarians you are talking about don't want any medical treatments to be subsidized, so this is hardly an evil plot to control the womenfolk and more likely just bad, but consistent, healthcare policy (as you can guess this is an area where my opinion differs from the norm).

I think it could all be accurately summed up as the same old shit of conservative/reactionary authoritarianism, except it's been coated in a sauce of "Don't give a damn about anyone except yourself".

Me, I don't see a reason to even distinguish libertarianism from other forms of reactionary thinking. It's the same agenda dressed in different language.

Firstly, their stance on immigration is very much so mindful of others, considering it is quite open. I could also point out their many social stances where they wish to expand the rights of minorities, but that's just the same old song and dance at this point. Finally, it is naive to say that all reactionaries are the same, and that they are all conservative. All types of reactionaries exist. I resent being told that my particular branch of reactionary thinking is the same as the rest. I am far more unique than that.

What do you mean??

The constitution was to give speech, freedom of arms. Where are we being given more liberty??? Where is the constitution taking more liberty. There are gun control bills that don't let me have the liberty of having a gun. The constitution was not up for debate, and it was made by people who form the foundation of what liberty even means. And back then everyone was like that, and worse, you think Britain follow liberty taking over this, and this country back then. I would pick them over any other party because they won't try to control what i am saying, and what guns I can, and cannot carry. progress what do you mean by that you mean idiots who try to make healthcare for lower class pay by the upper class which the middle class can't even use. Where being racist is against the law even if it's am unpopular idea protect by the 1st and. What you are telling about is social justice, with no limits to anything in government.

Gergar12:

GunsmithKitten:

aelreth:

Actually the central tenet of of being a libertarian is not using coercion by force of law.

Then why allow local and state governments to use coercion and bully minorities?

I think it's just easier to manger from a state's point of view instead of a country wide point of view. That being say what do you mean by minorities? Explain that?

It is easier to manage, sure. And more things being operated at the state level generally means smaller government and better responsiveness, sure. But we are not talking about such things here. We are talking about rights and liberties. The manner in which the are ensured is far less important than that they are ensured. Ron Paul believes that it is more important that the methodology by which we ensure our liberties is consistent with constitutional law than our liberties themselves. He wants to remove federal laws preventing segregation and sodomy laws because they are unconstitutional. Now I, unlike Gunsmith, am not going to jump to conclusions and assume that means he is fine with such laws. I will however argue that Ron Paul has made himself an enemy of liberty by taking up the mantle of state's rights, and also an enemy of Federalism as a whole. I will never vote for the man or anyone who opposes such concepts.

Gergar12:

GunsmithKitten:

aelreth:

Actually the central tenet of of being a libertarian is not using coercion by force of law.

Then why allow local and state governments to use coercion and bully minorities?

I think it's just easier to manger from a state's point of view instead of a country wide point of view. That being say what do you mean by minorities? Explain that?

On many things, I agree, but I do NOT trust civil liberties to state governments. We gave states that chance, and ended up with things like sodomy laws and racial segregation, laws that never died until the feds brought their fists down.

GunsmithKitten:

Gergar12:

GunsmithKitten:

Then why allow local and state governments to use coercion and bully minorities?

I think it's just easier to manger from a state's point of view instead of a country wide point of view. That being say what do you mean by minorities? Explain that?

On many things, I agree, but I do NOT trust civil liberties to state governments. We gave states that chance, and ended up with things like sodomy laws and racial segregation, laws that never died until the feds brought their fists down.

If the states follow the constitution they should allow gay marriage that being said gays should be refused to be married by priest in churches, if that is how the church views it. Civic liberties I believe all cover in the constitution those states just need to follow it better, and if they don't then the government should be involved, but as soon as your on someone's property however....

Gergar12:

GunsmithKitten:

Gergar12:

I think it's just easier to manger from a state's point of view instead of a country wide point of view. That being say what do you mean by minorities? Explain that?

On many things, I agree, but I do NOT trust civil liberties to state governments. We gave states that chance, and ended up with things like sodomy laws and racial segregation, laws that never died until the feds brought their fists down.

If the states follow the constitution they should allow gay marriage that being said gays should be refused to be married by priest in churches, if that is how the church views it. Civic liberties I believe all cover in the constitution those states just need to follow it better, and if they don't then the government should be involved, but as soon as your on someone's property however....

Considering that, under such a law, a secular justice of the peace could not refuse them, and also that there are many religious sects that are just fine to marry same sex couples, I'd have no problem with it. I think we could make a whole lot of progress in this struggle if we removed ourself from the religious aspect.

Revnak:

Gergar12:

GunsmithKitten:

Then why allow local and state governments to use coercion and bully minorities?

I think it's just easier to manger from a state's point of view instead of a country wide point of view. That being say what do you mean by minorities? Explain that?

It is easier to manage, sure. And more things being operated at the state level generally means smaller government and better responsiveness, sure. But we are not talking about such things here. We are talking about rights and liberties. The manner in which the are ensured is far less important than that they are ensured. Ron Paul believes that it is more important that the methodology by which we ensure our liberties is consistent with constitutional law than our liberties themselves. He wants to remove federal laws preventing segregation and sodomy laws because they are unconstitutional. Now I, unlike Gunsmith, am not going to jump to conclusions and assume that means he is fine with such laws. I will however argue that Ron Paul has made himself an enemy of liberty by taking up the mantle of state's rights, and also an enemy of Federalism as a whole. I will never vote for the man or anyone who opposes such concepts.

Everyone is cover under the bill of rights, but why shouldn't companies be able to refuse service others. It's their property government has no right to do anything about that. Shop owners get the right to refuse service to anyone why shouldn't companies too. If it's not public grounds, or government run, then it's another person's property, and they get to do whatever they please as long as it does not mean murder because it's not cover in the constitution. Being federalist has too much risk of endangering our other amendments. The bills go against that unless we can draft a new one I rather protect our rights in other areas, however by common sense no one would refuse service because that would mean less money. It is unconstitutional some of those federal laws because they go against someone's right to property. So yes he would allow some of those federate laws to go away, but most would not use it. Yes I am doing this to protect the other amendments because the other ones are being dangerous changed. I don't think it's right that I support him, and if there is someone who lets the civic laws stay, but he's the only one who will protect them, and atleast when we go to war, we can declare it first. Unless you know someone who protects the constitution better than what Ron Paul does, and let the civic liberties stay I know which group i will vote on in 2014&2016.

For those who say the government should have the right to mandate that a private business shouldn't be allowed deny customers or employees based on race: should an elderly black store owner be able to refuse to hire or serve a Neo-Nazi skin head?

Klepto:
For those who say the government should have the right to mandate that a private business shouldn't be allowed deny customers or employees based on race: should an elderly black store owner be able to refuse to hire or serve a Neo-Nazi skin head?

Erm, isn't the whole point of that rule that he can't deny service based on something like race specifically? I'm pretty sure behaviours, especially disruptive, endangering or threatening, aren't covered by that.
Should a black store owner be able to refuse a Neo-Nazi because he's white? No. Should he be able to refuse because he's a Neo-Nazi? Sure.
I don't quite see where the perceived double-standard is in that.
Should a white business owner be able to refuse a violent Black Liberation Terrorist? Sure. Should he be able to refuse because he's black? No.
The fact that discrimination based on race is prohibited doesn't somehow negate other reasons for not providing service or hiring; that's not that strange or complex a concept.

Klepto:
For those who say the government should have the right to mandate that a private business shouldn't be allowed deny customers or employees based on race: should an elderly black store owner be able to refuse to hire or serve a Neo-Nazi skin head?

Neo nazi'ism and skinhead subcultures =/= race. You join Skinheads. You dont' join your race.

Now if you mean that an elderly black man should be allowed to deny service to whites, hell no they shouldn't, same standard as the reverse applies.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked