No he isnt dangerous YOU are just stupid. If they dont want any government strings they shouldnt have taken taxpayer money. IF they had been able to get money from a bank that bank would also have put strings upon it. You are a moron Daryll. Incredibly stupid and a fool

No Obama is not a socialist but you are a liar a fool and an astonishingly stupid moron. Too stupid to even know what Socialism is. Why dont you STFU and stop humiliating yourself by showing just how stupid you are.

July 9th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
______________

I always knew Jeb Bush was one of the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx!

You do realize that he will be 159 years old, don’t you? And 163 when he finished his first term!

I remember your brother George saying during the 2000 debates that we had our troops overextended around the world and we should bring them home. And he DID lose the 2000 and 2004 elections. You handed him Florida, even though he lost it.

Organized labor is what’s bankrupting this country, plain and simple. Retirees under the age of 55 who have full benefits until death will render us unable to get out of this hole. That’s the elephant in the room that everyone is afraid to address, and the blame cannot be pinned on the Republicans.

These retiree worked many years to get to a full pension which is funded by the employer. Unions use employer contributions to fund medical insurance for retired employees but it is not cheap. My father was a Teamster and until my mother could qualify for Social Security, my parents paid about $400 per month for insurance.

Organized labor is not bankrupting the country. Look to Wall Street and the billions that have passed through their hands, particularly the salary paid to many bankers and CEO’s. Don’t give us the crap about organized labor when the white collar criminals have fleeced us of billions of dollars.

You’ve got this ‘let me decide for myself’ thing going on, but you refuse to recognize that everything is interconnected and interdependant. No man is an island. No ‘products’ can be produced or sold independent of our shared and interconnected resources and history.

So we have to decide together. And work together.
‘Freedom’ does not equal ‘doing what you damn well please.’
Freedom comes with responsibility to all of us. We share that responsibility.

Explain to me how this won’t be EXACTLY what happens when you weaken the federal government… seems that Fiefdoms have been with us for a long time… and the power usually resides with the men with guns, or swords, or sharpened sticks in a fiefdom… does it not?

So the Cherokee have the right to hire someone to evict the people who are living on lands granted them by treaty in Oklahoma?

But, hey, for many years those tobacco companies said it DIDN’T cause cancer. Remember? Even though they KNEW (or should have known) differently.
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/cancerstats1925.htm

belaccifer lacca Says:
Kidnapping someone and imprisoning them is NOT violence?

Ahh, then are you also against the arrest and imprisonment of someone who refuses to leave ‘your property’? What if you employer decides that your paycheck should be half what it normally is because your work was lacking… is that theft? Who decides?

You’re getting ridiculous. The person refusing to leave, say, your house is the aggressor. You have the right to throw him out yourself or hire someone to do it for you. And no, I don’t advocate imprisoning them. Well, unless they repeatedly did it and the only way to keep the out of your house is to lock them up, then so be it.

You say you have simple systems for determining rights.

I’m waiting for the answer to a simple question.

Who decides what ’simple system’ is most correct?

The people who are interacting. On a small scale, this is much easier to accomplish.

And our current “simple system” in the federal government isn’t even analogous to any kind of “agreement.” It’s just corporations ruling us through force.

You’ve got this who decides thing going on, but really, the best person to decide anything, when it comes to your life, is yourself. I don’t need men with guns and jail cells to tell me what I can and can’t put into my body, or what papers I have to have to move from one location to another, or what permits and licenses I need to sell and buy things.

belaccifer lacca Says:

If a progressive system is truly all about freedom, then would my non-licensed, cash-only clinic be within the law?

But I never said it was all about freedom. I asked you to define freedom.

Well, actually, the clinic set-up was mentioned in a response to either smidget or shoeless, I can’t remember. But he/she said that progressive government was all about protecting individual liberty. That’s when I brought up the clinic thingie.

Freedom is when I can do what I want as long as I’m not harming anyone else. Who decides if harm has been done? That’s what courts are for. It’s far from perfect. Actually, it’s a terrible way to settle disputes, but it’s better than all the rest.

And hey, I’m not against democracy, like some people. I just don’t think it works on a massive scale. In a country the size of the US, direct democracy would be horrible, but democracy works fairly well on a small scale, say at the municipal level. So that’s another way to determine “the law.” The main problem with direct democracy, though, is the old tyranny of the majority thing.

No- I don’t support your unlicensed, cash-only clinic. I think that unlicensed, cash-only clinics lead to too much fraud and bad medicine. And we both agree that fraud is not ok.

But, in your libertarian system, who gets to decide that it’s fraud?

Again, some sort of arbitration is called for here. Either courts or something similar.

What if you really believed that your tonic worked?

The veracity of your belief would come out in court/arbitration. If you did harm, regardless of whether you knew it or not, you still owe reparations, either monetary reparations or some form of punitive measures.

If you knowingly harmed people, the penalties would be higher.

Again, this isn’t anarchy.

What if most people who bought it agreed? Is it still fraud? Who decides?!?

If I think a product (like a drug) does X and you think it does X, then no, no fraud has taken place. No one lied.

It might be proved in court that it was negligence, perhaps.

But, hey, if you smoke two packs of cigarettes a day and die of cancer, then you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. And no one owes you anything. You were told of the dangers and made your choice.

And that is why we have elections… where we appoint representatives who advocate for the ‘model’ of government we want.

And we compromise. And those compromises become law. And we all agree to abide by that law for the sake of the common good.

One of those laws is the income tax. That’s why We ‘The People’ will arrest you if you don’t pay them. It’s not kidnapping. Sorry.

Ahh, then are you also against the arrest and imprisonment of someone who refuses to leave ‘your property’? What if you employer decides that your paycheck should be half what it normally is because your work was lacking… is that theft? Who decides?

You say you have simple systems for determining rights.

I’m waiting for the answer to a simple question.

Who decides what ’simple system’ is most correct?