Thread: Handcuffed man beaten, tazed, and killed by Border Control Police.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 88
  1. #61  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,029
    As someone once said "play stupid games win stupid prizes", I think they went to easy on them, there should be machine gun nests at the border mowing them down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #62  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I've never expressed sympathy or support for totalitarian governments murdering people.

    Aren't you an Obama supporter? And didn't Obama sign the National Defence Authorization Act into law -- which allows the federal government to assassinate US citizens on US soil without a trial? Or are you saying that governments murdering people is okay, as long as the government isn't strictly totalitarian?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #63  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Aren't you an Obama supporter?
    No I'm not.

    And didn't Obama sign the National Defence Authorization Act into law -- which allows the federal government to assassinate US citizens on US soil without a trial?
    Yes he did, and many stupid party-towing liberals didn't seem to have a problem with it. The conservatives I see on Fox News regularly were happy about it also.

    I, however, was staunchly opposed to it.

    Or are you saying that governments murdering people is okay, as long as the government isn't strictly totalitarian?
    Not at all.
    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  
     

  4. #64  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    No I'm not.



    Yes he did, and many stupid party-towing liberals didn't seem to have a problem with it. The conservatives I see on Fox News regularly were happy about it also.

    I, however, was staunchly opposed to it.



    Not at all.
    Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #65  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?
    You're not going to get an honest answer.
    "Inequality is a false notion propagated by those who are made to feel guilty for what they have by those who are jealous for what they don't"-Former MTV Host Kennedy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #66  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    No I'm not.
    No? Okay, then who do you plan to vote for? Who did you vote for in 2008?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Yes he did, and many stupid party-towing liberals didn't seem to have a problem with it. The conservatives I see on Fox News regularly were happy about it also.

    I, however, was staunchly opposed to it.
    Why? Socialism is inherently coercive. The individual right to property is the basis for all other rights, and without it, there are no other rights. A state that demands control of property is one that recognizes no other rights. The state cannot dictate the absolute control of property without force, and the ultimate force is lethal force. For the state to control all property, it must have the power to kill its own citizens. If you favor socialism, communism or any other form of collectivist state, then you favor the state having the power to enforce its confiscatory policies with full lethality. You won't admit this, of course, and you may not even recognize it, but we do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Not at all.
    Of course not. A non-totalitarian state would govern through consensus or persuasion. It is only a totalitarian state that demands the ability to kill its people at will. Given your philosophical outlook, you therefore would not condone a non-totalitarian state killing its own citizens, but a lethal totalitarian state would not be a problem for you.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #67  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    ...The conservatives I see on Fox News regularly...
    Personally, I think that's an oxymoron. Or at least, there is a very small-tent narrow definition of conservatism that seems prevalent in the media. It happens to be a big government variety. Which, when you look at who owns the media outlets, it makes some sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #68  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,131
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Personally, I think that's an oxymoron. Or at least, there is a very small-tent narrow definition of conservatism that seems prevalent in the media. It happens to be a big government variety. Which, when you look at who owns the media outlets, it makes some sense.
    Not long ago I heard that fox news was 85 % registered Democrat, I wish I had saved the link.
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #69  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?
    I voted for Obama.

    I've admitted multiple times on this site that I naively got swept up in the hype and empty rhetoric, the symbolic gesture of voting for a black man, and that I still had one last shred of support for the Democratic party that had let me down many times before.

    I admitted that since then I've abandoned that group of clowns and in person I am more staunchly and vocally critical of the Democratic party than I am of the Republicans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    No? Okay, then who do you plan to vote for? Who did you vote for in 2008?
    I'm not sure who I plan to vote for. I'm not going to be naive though. I know my vote doesn't matter to the outcome of this election, and I know the outcome of this election doesn't really matter in the larger scheme of things. Both major parties are corporatist, big-government, socialism-for-the-wealthy, war mongering, plutocratic parties who only serve the interests those with the financial/institutional power to help them.

    Getting caught up in the Dem vs GOP thing is worthless. It's just a game, just a spectacle. They hype it up just so people feel like they actually have some control over their government, but a false choice between two bad candidates isn't really exercising democratic control.

    Politics should be engaged at the local level, in your community with organization. Huffing and puffing about tabloid cable news and casting a pointless vote every few years is just a pacifier.



    Why? Socialism is inherently coercive. The individual right to property is the basis for all other rights, and without it, there are no other rights.
    Whoa now. You're going to have to show me a line of logical reasoning to support this assertion. I understand it's a philosophic argument, but it seems to fly in the face of our most basic practices.

    Children do not have to right to purchase property, but they have powerful protection of their rights to not be killed, abused, forced into slave labor, etc.

    Even prisoners are given rights when they aren't allowed to purchase property.

    Explain how a person having the right to own private property is a precondition or basis for their rights to life, their rights to worship freely, etc.

    In a nation like Cuba, people have not had the right to own private property (means of production), but their government explicitly recognizes other rights, such as the right to free education or access to health care. This is not an argument concerning the quality of their education or healthcare so don't bother, it's about their government recognizing their rights to the education and healthcare that they do have, while denying the right to private property.

    How is that possible?

    A state that demands control of property is one that recognizes no other rights. The state cannot dictate the absolute control of property without force, and the ultimate force is lethal force. For the state to control all property, it must have the power to kill its own citizens.
    Okay your argument is:

    A. The state can only forbid control of property if they reserve the right to use lethal force.
    B. A state that has the power to kill its own citizens recognizes no rights.


    This line of logic applies to any state government with any laws. The United States enforces all of our laws by giving the police the authority to kill citizens if they resist the enforcement of those laws.

    Our government kills people not just as a means to enforce laws (like shooting someone resisting arrest), but even as a punishment for breaking laws.

    Your logic says that if a government reserves the right to kill its own citizens to enforce its authority, that said government recognizes no rights.

    The United States reserves the right to kill its own citizens to enforce its authority (and it exercises this right regularly). So if your logic is sound, you must admit that the US government recognizes no 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  
     

  10. #70  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I voted for Obama.
    Say no more.
    "Inequality is a false notion propagated by those who are made to feel guilty for what they have by those who are jealous for what they don't"-Former MTV Host Kennedy
    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
  •