Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
  1. #21  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    any regime that does not protect private property does not believe in freedom. period.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The people of Venezuela love him. Obviously he isn't perfect, and has plenty of problems that need to be relentlessly criticized, but for the incredibly vast poor population of Venezuela, Chavez is the leader they've been waiting for. He is doing an awful lot to help the people who need help the most.

    .
    Why don't you move there and take a bunch of your screw ball friends?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,270
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    Why don't you move there and take a bunch of your screw ball friends?
    There is no money there. Communists would rather divide up everything we have earned through our sweat over the years. They see this country as a jackpot to divide up amongst themselves because they are more deserving than those who earned it.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    any regime that does not protect private property does not believe in freedom. period.
    So freedom is all about property rights? Even more so than democracy or representative government?

    So what's your opinion on Feudalism? Feudal systems protected private property like no others. They also thought private property was the single true value, even above democracy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    So freedom is all about property rights? Even more so than democracy or representative government?
    You fucking idiot - democracy is not about freedom - it's about mob rule. Democracies don't give a shit about freedom - which is why our founding fathers did not give us a democracy but a REPUBLIC where freedom was codified and guaranteed as a God given right.
    So what's your opinion on Feudalism? Feudal systems protected private property like no others. They also thought private property was the single true value, even above democracy.
    WTF are you talking about? Feudalism did not protect property rights - it protected inherited rights of supremacy and a class of elites. Becuase the LORD could take what ever he wanted from the surfs.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Ape Articulate_Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NJ, Exit Only
    Posts
    7,967
    Venezuela? They have their own problems, big time. Iran too. Misery loves company, so I say let them hug each other to death. If they get feisty we give them the nuclear bombs they have been craving -- if you know what I mean.
    "The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    You fucking idiot - democracy is not about freedom - it's about mob rule. Democracies don't give a shit about freedom - which is why our founding fathers did not give us a democracy but a REPUBLIC where freedom was codified and guaranteed as a God given right.
    Democracy and representative government both apply to a republic ;)

    Also, I'm not talking about the united states no need to sperg out


    WTF are you talking about? Feudalism did not protect property rights - it protected inherited rights of supremacy and a class of elites. Becuase the LORD could take what ever he wanted from the surfs.
    Um those ARE property rights. How on earth do you think the supreme class of elites were able to enforce their power and domination? Because they were really good looking? NO, because they OWNED ALL THE PROPERTY.

    The laws that protected the ruling class in feudal systems were the right to inherent property, the right to have total control of your property, the right be gracious enough to allow serfs onto your property in exchange for a lifetime of debt and servitude. AKA - Private Property rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Not really, but I'm making a point that we don't need to pre-emptively invade countries for self-defense. We are FAR more powerful than any of these nations we invade, our firepower alone is enough to ensure that America will never be defeated in a Real War waged against us by one of these poor foreign nations.

    Of course I don't support using nukes against conventional attacks, I'm just saying we're so frickin strapped we don't need to act so insecure and invade every country that "threatens us".
    And why should we put American civilians in the line of fire before we consider someone threatening enough to take out?

    Worried about American Soldiers getting killed? Thanks for the thought, but I took that oath knowing it may lead to my death. So did everyone else. We're doing it to keep those civilians safe, and if it means invading some shit hole before they can start launching missiles into Florida, then I'm there ready to pull the trigger.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    And why should we put American civilians in the line of fire before we consider someone threatening enough to take out?

    Worried about American Soldiers getting killed? Thanks for the thought, but I took that oath knowing it may lead to my death. So did everyone else. We're doing it to keep those civilians safe, and if it means invading some shit hole before they can start launching missiles into Florida, then I'm there ready to pull the trigger.
    I'm also worried about people who are not Americans. They have lives too, they have families too, they suffer and feel pain and bleed and die just like we do.

    If there is a Real War, where we must fight to defend ourselves from an enemy that is attacking or invading us or has declared war on us (like in WWII), then it is justified, but every war results in MASSIVE amounts of civilian casualties, destroys their nations, ruins their lives. We should not be so flippant about engaging in action that kills tens or hundreds of thousands of people, just because we "feel threatened".


    Being the most powerful military force in the world is like being an N-th degree blackbelt in some Deadly Martial Art. It's good to have the tools and the skills, and if your life and your family's life is in direct danger then you are justified in using those skills to stop the enemy. However, you shouldn't be going around and breaking the neck of every guy who gives you a dirty look, or busting into their homes and taking them out in their sleep because you think they might attack you one day. These tools are meant to be used as little as possible. This is the first lesson people are supposed to get when they learn martial arts. We should apply this same logic on the national level.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Democracy and representative government both apply to a republic ;)
    democracy applies to a republic only in the shit stained mine of a leftist who thinks communism is a good idea. A republic can integrate DEMOCRATIC principles - but that's quite different from actually being a democracy.
    Also, I'm not talking about the united states no need to sperg out
    you may be talking about the twisted ill informed caricature the left wants to make of the US - but you're not talking about the actual United States of America if speaking of a democracy.



    Um those ARE property rights. How on earth do you think the supreme class of elites were able to enforce their power and domination? Because they were really good looking? NO, because they OWNED ALL THE PROPERTY.
    You fucking idiot - they did not own ALL the property. They owned all the LAND. There is more to property rights than just land. BTW - they gained control of the land through the implementation of progressivist principles. how shocking is that?
    The laws that protected the ruling class in feudal systems were the right to inherent property, the right to have total control of your property, the right be gracious enough to allow serfs onto your property in exchange for a lifetime of debt and servitude. AKA - Private Property rights.
    You dumbass - it had nothing to do with inheriting property- more properly LAND - it was all about inheriting the TITLE because the LAND was tied to the TITLE.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •