2016 Election
Quote: GandlerI have met and know quite a few ancaps. I have never heard of anarcho communism.
I don't see how communism could possibly work without a governing body?
Ancaps I can understand where you are coming from even if I disagree. Ancommunism, sounds like madness, not even feasible. How can you prevent private ownership and control without an enforcement agency? The whole philosophy sounds impossible and country productive.
Right. Overall ancoms don't make sense. If you have facebook look at the anarchyball page. They make a lot of memes that shows the hypocrisy in ancom beliefs. Just in this particular scenario ancoms would have a definitive answer to the problem you presented since they reject all property rights.
Quote: rudeboyoiRight. Overall ancoms don't make sense. If you have facebook look at the anarchyball page. They make a lot of memes that shows the hypocrisy in ancom beliefs. Just in this particular scenario ancoms would have a definitive answer to the problem you presented since they reject all property rights.
I would argue (and it sounds like you would as well), that is not really an answer, as that in it of itself is a violation of individual rights as you are telling people they have no claim to possessions or land regardless of the work put into them.
Quote: GandlerI would argue (and it sounds like you would as well), that is not really an answer, as that in it of itself is a violation of individual rights as you are telling people they have no claim to possessions or land regardless of the work put into them.
There's a lot of different schools of thoughts when it comes to anarchism. Different schools reject different things. Like ancoms reject property rights. Ancaps/voluntaryists believe in property rights and the use of force in defending ones self and property. Anarcho-pacifists reject the use of force in all situations including defense. Anarcho-veganism extends our rights to the rest of the animal kingdom. If rights are natural for us why isn't it natural for all animals? The only thing that unites them all is the rejection of the idea that anyone has the right to rule.
Quote: rudeboyoiThere's a lot of different schools of thoughts when it comes to anarchism. Different schools reject different things. Like ancoms reject property rights. Ancaps/voluntaryists believe in property rights and the use of force in defending ones self and property. Anarcho-pacifists reject the use of force in all situations including defense. Anarcho-veganism extends our rights to the rest of the animal kingdom. If rights are natural for us why isn't it natural for all animals? The only thing that unites them all is the rejection of the idea that anyone has the right to rule.
How do anarchist-vegans ensure animals don't get abused?
Quote: GandlerHow do anarchist-vegans ensure animals don't get abused?
Well ancaps/voluntaryists believe it's okay to use force in defense of others. I assume they extend it a step further, it's okay to use force in defense of all animals not just humans.
Quote: rudeboyoiWell ancaps/voluntaryists believe it's okay to use force in defense of others. I assume they extend it a step further, it's okay to use force in defense of all animals not just humans.
So Milking a cow would result in my death?
Quote: GandlerSo Milking a cow would result in my death?
Idk. Maybe it could result in you getting milked.
Quote: rudeboyoiIdk. Maybe it could result in you getting milked.
I think that will happen in general in an ancap society.
Besides no expereience managing
Here are absurd ideas attributed to the nut
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/05/04/3646780/ben-carson-announcement/
"Anarchy could cancel the 2016 election
Congress should be able to remove judges for voting for marriage equality
Being gay is a choice because prison turns people gay
There’s no such thing as a war crime
Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery
Obama is depressing the economy to keep people on welfare
Obama signed immigration reform to bring in government-dependent voters "
Quote: terapinedRight Wing nut Ben Carson just anounced running for President.
Besides no expereience managing
Here are absurd ideas attributed to the nut
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/05/04/3646780/ben-carson-announcement/
"Anarchy could cancel the 2016 election
Congress should be able to remove judges for voting for marriage equality
Being gay is a choice because prison turns people gay
There’s no such thing as a war crime
Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery
Obama is depressing the economy to keep people on welfare
Obama signed immigration reform to bring in government-dependent voters "
He is also an extremely distinguished neurosurgeon.
Quote: GandlerHe is also an extremely distinguished neurosurgeon.
He wants to give me a check up or physical, thats cool.
No way I want this guy running our govt
Quote: terapinedRight Wing nut Ben Carson just announced running for President.
--the current President was "against" gay marriage before he was "for" it. Did he really change his mind or is he just doing what is politically expedient?
--Obamacare is one of those government program that costs less now than it does later; President Obama will be gone and others will be left to try and fix it
--there is certainly a "Mother Government" mentality that takes comfort in just giving people things and not helping them get to a place where they can work to get them for themselves. Our "War on Poverty" is a failure; why can't we at least look at new ideas?
--making more people dependent on the government would tend to make more people think the Democrats are who wants to help them. Yes...help them stay dependent on the government.
Middle Wing nut Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, was a bad Secretary of State, an average Senator, and may have broken a few laws along the way. The mail server thing is one big issue, and the whole foundation thing (getting donations from foreign governments for a foundation that supports the Clinton's lifestyle and then running for President) may push the envelope. There is also the little matter of not taking care of an Ambassador...maybe nothing illegal there, but she has made some statements that show she really doesn't care.
But freshmen senators are fine, right?Quote: terapinedHe wants to give me a check up or physical, thats cool. No way I want this guy running our govt
Quote: SanchoPanzaBut freshmen senators are fine, right?
Of course, right has a full slate of freshman senators.
if Rubio, Cruz or Paul can get the votes, why not.
Quote: SanchoPanzaBut freshmen senators are fine, right?
Oh, but he has experience now!!
Experience might be important if all other things were equal...but no one in the race has been President.
Quote: ams288No one seems to want to argue the fact that Carson is a right wing nut job. They just deflect and try to compare him to Obama.
He is on the right of the party. Nut job? That is a label some insist on putting on people just because the positions a particular person takes aren't acceptable to them.
It is fair to compare his level experience to that of then candidate Obama. Neither had any.
He opposed gay marriage; so did President Obama.
He is more highly educated and has had much more professional success than President Obama (and many other candidates).
Some of his positions are not acceptable as defined by the statements posted here. I'm not going to go as far as to say that the statements here about his positions are correct; I will have to learn more about the candidate to accept them as what he said and means.
His speeches and statements have resonated with a lot of people. Is it enough to make him a serious contender? Who knows.
Quote: terapinedRight Wing nut Ben Carson just anounced running for President.
Besides no expereience managing
Here are absurd ideas attributed to the nut
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/05/04/3646780/ben-carson-announcement/
"Anarchy could cancel the 2016 election
Congress should be able to remove judges for voting for marriage equality
Being gay is a choice because prison turns people gay
There’s no such thing as a war crime
Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery
Obama is depressing the economy to keep people on welfare
Obama signed immigration reform to bring in government-dependent voters "
I will give you that some of the statements are further to the right than I would like but you are also quoting headlines from a progressive article. If you take the actual statements, some are not as bad as the headlines make it sound:
Headline: "Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery"
Statement: "Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.”
“And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care,” he added. “It was about control.”
Carson has continued to speak out about Obama’s health care plan, saying this year that it’s “a bunch of crap” that politicians say they can’t unravel the legislation.
My comment: the slavery thing may be a touch of over-hype, but there are many of us here who don't think Obamacare is going to work well for the country in the long run.
Quote: RonCHis speeches and statements have resonated with a lot of people. Is it enough to make him a serious contender? Who knows.
I do. It's not enough.
Quote: RonCHe opposes gay marriage; so did President Obama.
Why do conservatives always go to this weird talking point?
Obama was never ever ever as homophobic as this nut job.
Obama "evolved" on gay marriage. Only the naive believe that.... In reality, it's pretty obvious he was always pro-gay marriage. He just pretended not to be to get elected. Does this upset me? Nope. I'd be so much more upset if Sarah Palin was currently VP.
There will never be another Democratic Presidential candidate who isn't pro gay marriage. Thanks to Obama. For that I am truly grateful.
Quote: ams288I do. It's not enough.
You think you know. You may even be right. Heck, you probably will turn out to be right. There are lot of hats being tossed in the ring and many will disappear nearly as fast once the primaries start. You don't really know...that is why we have the election process. Being a "serious contender" is a lot lower bar than being a "nominee."
Quote: ams288
Obama was never ever ever as homophobic as this nut job.
I never quite the the term homophobic. It's not like people are afraid of homosexuals. Being around them is not going to alter my behavior or send me running the other direction like a perturbed Python. There are legitimate divides as to whether homosexuals deserve to be a protected class and what not, but the traction the term homophobic has gotten in mainstream society because as far as I can tell nobody has a phobia of homosexual people
Quote: RonCHe opposed gay marriage; so did President Obama.
Quote: ams288Why do conservatives always go to this weird talking point?
Obama was never ever ever as homophobic as this nut job.
It is only weird because you decided to call it that; was President Obama a supporter of gay marriage before he "evolved"? No.
Quote: ams288Obama "evolved" on gay marriage. Only the naive believe that.... In reality, it's pretty obvious he was always pro-gay marriage. He just pretended not to be to get elected. Does this upset me? Nope.
It is okay to fake your position to gain the position. I don't believe in that. I don't like dishonest politicians of either national brand (or even some of the other brands).
Quote: ams288I'd be so much more upset if Sarah Palin was currently VP.
Obviously, we disagree. I think that the country would be better off had McCain or Romney won. Either VP would have been as good, or better, than the incumbent.
Quote: ams288There will never be another Democratic Presidential candidate who isn't pro gay marriage. Thanks to Obama. For that I am truly grateful.
The gay marriage issue lasts one or two more elections, at best. It'll be settled law after that and we'll move on as a country with some still believing in it and some opposed to it but on to other battles. That will be a good thing overall--we can focus more on things that impact bigger segments of society.
Quote: RonCIt is okay to fake your position to gain the position. I don't believe in that. I don't like dishonest politicians of either national brand
They're ALL dishonest.
I'd personally rather have a winning dishonest candidate on my side than a losing honest candidate. But again, there is no such thing as an honest candidate.
Quote: Gabes22I never quite the the term homophobic. It's not like people are afraid of homosexuals. Being around them is not going to alter my behavior or send me running the other direction like a perturbed Python. There are legitimate divides as to whether homosexuals deserve to be a protected class and what not, but the traction the term homophobic has gotten in mainstream society because as far as I can tell nobody has a phobia of homosexual people
"Homophobic" means that you are not totally supportive and in favor of anything the gay lobby wants. Unless you support their intolerance you are their enemy. I can't respect any group that says they have "pride" but then cries "born that way." A group that will intentionally try to ruin a person for daring to have a different personal or political view. How 1% of the population got so much power should scare anyone.
Quote: AZDuffman"Homophobic" means that you are not totally supportive and in favor of anything the gay lobby wants. Unless you support their intolerance you are their enemy.
Thankfully, these days the "gay lobby" gets just about everything they want.
Quote: ams288Thankfully, these days the "gay lobby" gets just about everything they want.
So, assuming gay marriage becomes law everywhere, what else will they have to ask for?
Quote: RonCSo, assuming gay marriage becomes law everywhere, what else will they have to ask for?
I don't know. Ask AZ, he seems to know a lot about this non-existent "gay lobby."
Quote: RonCSo, assuming gay marriage becomes law everywhere, what else will they have to ask for?
I have a prediction but will not state it here as homophiles will not be able to handle the truth. It may take 20 years, but it will come and that is not a long time. It will be fringe at first, but over time those against will be called "homophobe" and like today many will care that someone is calling them that. When it does happen I will just say I was among those trying to warn the world but got shouted down in the name of PC.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have a prediction but will not state it here as homophiles will not be able to handle the truth. It may take 20 years, but it will come and that is not a long time. It will be fringe at first, but over time those against will be called "homophobe" and like today many will care that someone is calling them that. When it does happen I will just say I was among those trying to warn the world but got shouted down in the name of PC.
This sounds like some serious tin foil hat level stuff.
Quote: ams288This sounds like some serious tin foil hat level stuff.
At the risk of a derail...
I don't always agree with AZD, especially concerning "gay issues", but he did have a point which greatly affected my opinion and way of thinking, and that was on "gay rights" as it pertained to marriage. Because, well, gays are asking for special privileges. I get that marriage as it has been defined does not apply to them. I get that they want a definition that does. And to be completely honest, I am all for granting them the ability to get married. But despite that this right or a law doesn't apply, they do still have it.
Asking for it to be changed is asking for special treatment. And that is fine. Used to be blacks asked for "special treatment" to not be used as animals. Used to be women asked for "special treatment" to count as a voting citizen. "Special treatment" isn't an insult, it's progress.
But many in the gay movement cannot even concede this fact, and many become angry and even combative if you even bring it up. That's intellectual dishonesty, and it's not attractive. Worse, it's unproductive. And unfortunately, at least in my opinion, this attitude is becoming the hallmark of the movement. There seems to be no room for respectful discourse. You either agree completely, or you are the enemy.
It's unfortunate. And too many of our stances, which guide the way we vote, go down in this same fashion.
Quote: ams288This sounds like some serious tin foil hat level stuff.
Nope, it is just looking at history, comparing it to a few things, looking at what is going on today, then making a prediction. "Gay Marriage" would have been was a "tinfoil hat" thing in 1990.
Quote: AZDuffmanNope, it is just looking at history, comparing it to a few things, looking at what is going on today, then making a prediction. "Gay Marriage" would have been was a "tinfoil hat" thing in 1990.
So spit it out.
You can't take credit for predicting something you were too afraid to put in writing.
Plus, I need a good laugh.
Quote: AZDuffmanHow 1% of the population got so much power should scare anyone.
This is the most brilliant "wait, no, I didn't mean it that way" quote I've ever seen on this forum.
Quote: ams288Quote: AZDuffmanNope, it is just looking at history, comparing it to a few things, looking at what is going on today, then making a prediction. "Gay Marriage" would have been was a "tinfoil hat" thing in 1990.
So spit it out.
You can't take credit for predicting something you were too afraid to put in writing.
Plus, I need a good laugh.
Nope. Someone will whine. I don't need public credit. When it happens I will shake my head and say to myself I knew I was right.
I think this important enough to broadcast? Will it affect the election if corporations aren't allowed to have free speech, [$]?
Quote: petroglyph
I think this important enough to broadcast? Will it affect the election if corporations aren't allowed to have free speech, [$]?
Why should free speech not apply to corporations? All a corporation is is a pool of individuals who have formed a legal entity? Unlike unions, you are not forced to give part of your paycheck to a corporation.
Not quite sure how a bill can overturn this. It is settled law, same as gay marriage. A constitutional right, no? The left wingnuts need to quit talking about it.
Quote: terapinedRight Wing nut Ben Carson just anounced running for President.
Besides no expereience managing
Here are absurd ideas attributed to the nut
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/05/04/3646780/ben-carson-announcement/
"Anarchy could cancel the 2016 election
Congress should be able to remove judges for voting for marriage equality
Being gay is a choice because prison turns people gay
There’s no such thing as a war crime
Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery
Obama is depressing the economy to keep people on welfare
Obama signed immigration reform to bring in government-dependent voters "
So if you bang another guy in prison, your just "curious"??
And quoting Think Progress should automatically disqualify you from having a relevant discussion on the financial future of this country.
Quote: RonCSo, assuming gay marriage becomes law everywhere, what else will they have to ask for?
The tar and feathering of anyone against it? Not only have they succeeded in getting it legal, but they have managed to turn the discussion into what is wrong with those against it. The left never stops.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: petroglyph
I think this important enough to broadcast? Will it affect the election if corporations aren't allowed to have free speech, [$]?
Why should free speech not apply to corporations? All a corporation is is a pool of individuals who have formed a legal entity? Unlike unions, you are not forced to give part of your paycheck to a corporation.
Not quite sure how a bill can overturn this. It is settled law, same as gay marriage. A constitutional right, no? The left wingnuts need to quit talking about it.
It makes no sense to me to give a stack of papers the same rights as a human being. A corporation is just a set of legality's with the fees paid. It's saying a rock or a tree or bush has constitutional rights.
It is all legal mumbo jumbo to continue the control of the luddites, and nothing to do with right or wrong or reality. What about one man one vote? Giving corps. personhood and the "right" to vote lets business owners double dip.
Edit: Maybe it is for the best? Americans started out with freedoms and look what they have done with it. Allowing powerful corporations the ability to vote or determine who is in office would be much more truthful than letting citizens believe their votes actually matter.
Rights,, constitutional rights? Those are an illusion. Not since at at least the Patriot Act have any citizens had and "rights". http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-04/ron-paul-warns-usa-freedom-act-just-another-name-lost-liberty
I differ from RP on a few points but that is to be expected. Other than that he is really what America needs, but what they want is someone who is more attractive, and panders to special interests.
We aren't going to have a choice other than this or that. The corporations already own the candidates. Letting them vote is more "in your face", I just prefer to call it what it is. Ever read any "fourth turning"? http://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/92080/neil-howe-what-expect-fourth-turning-were-now " History’s fourth turnings are full of Hobson’s choices, full of grim choices. I think that the what the Fed got into -- back in 2000 as well 2009, 2010 and then with QE -- they got into that with a feeling of they had no choice; this is crisis intervention."
Quote: BozThe tar and feathering of anyone against it? Not only have they succeeded in getting it legal, but they have managed to turn the discussion into what is wrong with those against it. The left never stops.
So you're bothered by people thinking you're abnormal or defective?
Ironic.
Quote: rxwineSo you're bothered by people thinking you're abnormal or defective?
Ironic.
Total fail, which by the way is a liberal, progressive, lazy term used by those unwilling to take credit for their own success or failing in life, but in your case, I think it fits.
Im fine and always have been and always will be. Liberals like you will never face the simple facts that people get out of life what they put into it. If liberals succeed you think you are better than others and they would never would be able to do what you did without your help. Funny to say to people like you but it is a "God like" complex. Again funny because most of you don't believe in a God, but guess what, I don't either.
I was born into shit and climbed out of it and so can most of us and that scares you SO much. Because you need Baltimore and situations like it. It gives you purpose because you believe certain people need you to pull them up. It makes you feel good, doesn't it?
As for gays, I don't care if they are together or not. But don't tell me something is wrong with anyone who thinks a guy sticking his member in another mans anus is not natural. And at the end of the day, that what you people want.
Quote: BozBut don't tell me something is wrong with anyone who thinks a guy sticking his member in another mans anus is not natural.
Something is wrong with anyone who thinks that. :p
I'm gay. I just did what you described here less than half an hour ago and it was great... You guys don't know what you're missing!!
Quote: ams288Something is wrong with anyone who thinks that. :p
I'm gay. I just did what you described here less than half an hour ago and it was great... You guys don't know what you're missing!!
Glad you enjoyed it, but again, don't tell me something is wrong with those who don't think it is natural. That is the way liberals are trying to make the discussion play out. Which his always their goal, moving the goalpost.
See paying low skilled fast food workers $15 an hour. Sounds great....except then the skilled worker making $18 now wants $25 and the entry level $50k college grad expects $70k. You figure out how to pay for it all, while maintaining current retail pricing.
Quote: ams288Something is wrong with anyone who thinks that. :p
I'm gay. I just did what you described here less than half an hour ago and it was great... You guys don't know what you're missing!!
...and that is fine for the 2.2% of the population that likes the whole pitcher and catcher deal. I'm thinking the rest of us (not including the lesbian population) will just continue to prefer sex in the more traditional ways; that is, with a man and a woman.
The gay lobby can't change the percentages...
"More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual."
Based on the 2013 NHIS data
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/15/what-percentage-of-the-u-s-population-is-gay-lesbian-or-bisexual/
Why not? Honestly, we have bigger fish to fry. I want people treated fairly, but I don't have to believe only one way for that to happen. Becoming single issue thinkers distracts us from all the work to be done. I feel the same way about the whole abortion issue.
Poverty--what can we do about it? Liberal ideas have failed; let's try some new ones.
Race--racial politics have done no good to bring us closer together because they are politics of division. Again, how about some new ideas.
Immigration--our policies suck and both parties have people who want them to stay the same. We, the people, are getting screwed by both parties not making any real changes.
Taxes--our system is a failure. Taxing the rich into moving money away from here is no good. There are ways to collect more taxes that could be done fairly, but you can't do it by attacking one group. The rich will always pay more $$ in taxes. Don't hate them; try to join them...they also tend to produce more!!
The big issues are what we need to focus on.
I don't really care what percentages of people were born gay, straight, or bi.
"Natural" is nonsense. This argument (along with every other anti-gay argument) always fails. There are a lot more right handed people than left handed people. Are left handed people unnatural? Nope.
Quote: RonCThe whole LGBT thing should not be allowed to control the election. Quite frankly, I think it should be ignored. Not because it isn't an issue but because it is not really a Federal issue. The States should regulate marriage laws; the Supreme Court can decide if they stand up to the Constitution, but we shouldn't waste time on it at the Federal level.
Why not? Honestly, we have bigger fish to fry. I want people treated fairly, but I don't have to believe only one way for that to happen. Becoming single issue thinkers distracts us from all the work to be done. I feel the same way about the whole abortion issue.
Poverty--what can we do about it? Liberal ideas have failed; let's try some new ones.
Race--racial politics have done no good to bring us closer together because they are politics of division. Again, how about some new ideas.
Immigration--our policies suck and both parties have people who want them to stay the same. We, the people, are getting screwed by both parties not making any real changes.
Taxes--our system is a failure. Taxing the rich into moving money away from here is no good. There are ways to collect more taxes that could be done fairly, but you can't do it by attacking one group. The rich will always pay more $$ in taxes. Don't hate them; try to join them...they also tend to produce more!!
The big issues are what we need to focus on.
The problem is the liberals lose on all those issues and they know it. So why would they want them to be up for debate, you silly racist, homophobic old white guy?
