Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[xrebelheartsx]

"i'm not in support of stealing peoples land, under any circumstances, but rather, i fully support protecting all land, public and private."

 

that is literally supporting theft of land. zoning and regulation of someone else's land is theft of their land.

 

 

same situation that i had with casek... maybe i'm not making myself clear enough, or maybe you're not understanding what i'm saying. how the fuck is my belief in protecting ALL land, private and public, supporting the theft of land?? i believe that people have the right to protect the land that belongs to them (regardless of the fact that i have a hard time with the idea of anyone "owning" a portion of the earth), and at the same time, i believe that we have a responsibility to protect what undeveloped lands we currently have.

 

obviously, i'd like to see no more development whatsoever, but that's absolutely impossible. now, if someone owns a huge tract of land, their private land, and they want to build a bunch of shit on it, go for it. it's your land, it's your right. my point is the open, undeveloped land should be protected as much as possible.

 

if this didn't clear up my view on this for you, i don't know what the fuck else i can do to clear it up more.

 

 

as far as some of my statements on ron paul, and his stances on "seperation of church and state" (which i'm fully aware is never actually said in the constitution, i was simply using it as a terminology most people are familiar with), see my little exchange with casek. i said i may be wrong, i was only getting my info from a site casek himself referred people to several times.

[xrebelheartsx]

sure, it makes sense. to rebut, i ask if it also makes sense to teach both sides instead of just evolution? i don't see it as hurting anything. i do agree with you that teacher led prayer might not be a good thing. in fact, i think it's a bad thing. but if a group of students wants to pray together at some free time during school, fine. freedom of speech is great. it should extend into the school in that manner.

 

i don't agree with taking away christmas plays. this is a christian country. i'm ok with that, even though it's not my religion. it's the way it's supposed to be. but it was founded and still is a christian country predominately.

 

edit:

i notice firefox wants me to capitalize "chrisitan"

 

 

yeah i'm absolutely fine with teaching both sides of evolution. but again, that's kind of a slippery slope, since you know damn well there will be teachers leaning heavily on one side or the other. and that's where the problem comes in.

 

i agree with you on the christmas plays, at least as far as a "removing religion from school" standpoint. i understand, perhaps, that there may be some issues of "well, we don't want to offend the non-christians blah blah blah", but as far as completely removing the plays, i don't agree with it.

 

 

i've been at work all day, my brain is jelly.

[Juan Fuentes]

the christmas plays are suggested by the school's staff not the kids.

kids should chose what they want to act out on a play, after all they are up there doing the job.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I am not a fan of religion. I do respect the fact that people do hold these belief's though.

 

In my eye's there should be absolutely no religion involved in anything, outside of your church, mosque, synagogue, or whatever you call it, and house.

 

If you are at school, unless it is a Catholic school, or a Muslim school, or a Hebrew school, etc or etc you should not be forced to partake in events that do not agree with your religious practice. That also goes for everything else.

 

If I were a Coach of some sort, I would set a few moments aside before each game, and have a moment of silence just like teams do normally, and just let people pray or do whatever they would like to motivate themselves. I believe in the seperation of Church and State to it's highest degree.

 

As far as not teaching evolution that's crazy. In my eye's that falls into the Catholic belief on what happened, so that is to basically be ignored. If you are Catholic and a devote Catholic wouldn't you take your beliefs as superior anyway, regardless of the place of you're education.

 

Or to make people happy, you could just include during that period of study, the way each religion puts the way we were created, just for general knowledge purposes. However the first way I explained it would probably be best.

[WORDISM45]

a recent Oreilly - Ron Paul appearance

 

 

its so frustrating the way Oreilly just never allows anyone to finish a fucking sentence if it seems to be going against fox news policy

[angelofdeath]

"same situation that i had with casek... maybe i'm not making myself clear enough, or maybe you're not understanding what i'm saying. how the fuck is my belief in protecting ALL land, private and public, supporting the theft of land?? i believe that people have the right to protect the land that belongs to them (regardless of the fact that i have a hard time with the idea of anyone "owning" a portion of the earth), and at the same time, i believe that we have a responsibility to protect what undeveloped lands we currently have.

 

obviously, i'd like to see no more development whatsoever, but that's absolutely impossible. now, if someone owns a huge tract of land, their private land, and they want to build a bunch of shit on it, go for it. it's your land, it's your right. my point is the open, undeveloped land should be protected as much as possible.

 

if this didn't clear up my view on this for you, i don't know what the fuck else i can do to clear it up more."

 

sorry bro, but i rest my case. you openly said that you support regulating ALL land to 'protect' it. that is telling landowners what they can and cannot do. supporting regulation or land (i.e. zoning) is essentially theft, because you are not allowing someone to use their own property how they see fit. you are essentially running their lives. and you said you have a 'problem' with anyone 'owning' a portion of the earth, which if that is not commie, i dont know what is.

 

how can you say that you support allowing people who own land to 'go for' what they want, but yet say that you support forcible regulation of people's property and that they have a responsibility to use their land in the way that you see fit?

[MekA_OnES?]

I like what he has to say, but I'm torn between Ron Paul or Obama....

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Any sane person should love Ron's message. That is if you're way of living has nothing to do with big buisness or the military industrial complex.

[Seffiks]

The Ron Paul Song (Shelby with Friends)

 

[lord_casek]

[El Mamerro]

"or that somehow a more expensive but environmentally sustainable energy source would flourish on its own in a free market."

 

i never said that. i said that the market will handle things. i know of a few places that sell bio-diesel in various cities in the southeast. i hardly ever see anyone buying it. in fact it is so expensive one of my good friends was in the market for a car and she was asking me about bio diesel. i told her the expense involved and she completely forgot about that idea. the enviro's have it in thier capacity to run their cars on bio diesel, walk, ride bikes, and very few actually walk the talk.

 

True, you didn't say that. But you seem to be implying that it would be perfectly OK for the market to settle on a cheap but environmentally destructive energy source, and that's fine you know, cause that's the market for ya.

 

That's not right, period.

 

You're headed for some serious problems when you believe that abstract political ideas of freedom and private property should take priority over the responsibility of keeping the Earth healthy enough for us to stay alive in it.

 

It's like a bunch of people moving into an old house, each taking a room, and then proceeding to do whatever they want with it, including knocking down structural walls and pillars, cause you know, hey it's your fucking room and you want to be more comfortable in it and that's your right. Sorry, but I'm not gonna let you bring down our house just cause you felt you needed some extra room to lay your feet on. You either think this is fine, or believe that individuals will be responsible and educated enough to avoid doing such things. Both mindsets are completely bewildering to me.

[xrebelheartsx]

sorry bro, but i rest my case. you openly said that you support regulating ALL land to 'protect' it. that is telling landowners what they can and cannot do. supporting regulation or land (i.e. zoning) is essentially theft, because you are not allowing someone to use their own property how they see fit. you are essentially running their lives. and you said you have a 'problem' with anyone 'owning' a portion of the earth, which if that is not commie, i dont know what is.

 

how can you say that you support allowing people who own land to 'go for' what they want, but yet say that you support forcible regulation of people's property and that they have a responsibility to use their land in the way that you see fit?

 

dude seriously, where the fuck are you seeing in my words that i support regulation of people's private land???

 

let me break it down for you as simple as i possibly fucking can:

 

private land - it's yours, do what you want, protect your shit.

 

public land (existing parks, reserves, etc.) - should be COMMON FUCKING SENSE to protect these lands. i'm NOT saying to take land away from people, tell them what to do with their land, or ANY of that shit. i really don't know where the fuck you're coming up with this shit.

 

and as far as my having a problem with anyone "owning" a portion of the earth, how is that "commie"? that makes no fucking sense to me. my problem is that land that already existed, was essentially claimed by people, and then in turn those people made profit off of it. that's much more of a native american type of view than a fucking communist one.

 

jesus christ.

[xrebelheartsx]

You're headed for some serious problems when you believe that abstract political ideas of freedom and private property should take priority over the responsibility of keeping the Earth healthy enough for us to stay alive in it.

 

exactly what i was trying to get at, but was evidently failing to make clear enough. while i support people's right to do what they want with their land, their should be a (common sense) higher responsibility to take care of ALL land.

 

what is your private land gonna matter if the entire world is fucked?

[the.crooked]

at least it will be yours...

[lord_casek]

exactly what i was trying to get at, but was evidently failing to make clear enough. while i support people's right to do what they want with their land, their should be a (common sense) higher responsibility to take care of ALL land.

 

what is your private land gonna matter if the entire world is fucked?

 

 

so, am i getting you right in saying that you would rather governments step in and manage your land for you? to save the environment?

[angelofdeath]

you act as if it is in peoples interest to destroy property. if you pollute the air and/or some one else's property inadvertantly, the guy who polluted the property MUST be held responsible. this includes the air. a free society does not entail destroying the earth. if a farmer dumps massive amounts of shit into a river and destroy's the next farmers drinking water or his cattle lot from the runoff, the guy who destroyed the property should be held accountable and would be held accountable if property rights were strictly enforced. now a person who's land is destroyed by the 'corporation' cannot sue the violators property. thanks uncle sam.

 

"private land - it's yours, do what you want, protect your shit."

 

ok, so if i want to strip mine my own private land and i guarantee that nothing will hurt you in any way what so ever, you dont have a problem with that? your previous posts make it clear that you dont want this to happen. but isnt that 'fucking up the earth.?' all the land that is so called 'destroyed' is just about privately owned.

 

"But you seem to be implying that it would be perfectly OK for the market to settle on a cheap but environmentally destructive energy source, and that's fine you know, cause that's the market for ya.

 

That's not right, period.

 

You're headed for some serious problems when you believe that abstract political ideas of freedom and private property should take priority over the responsibility of keeping the Earth healthy enough for us to stay alive in it."

 

sure its right. who exactly determines that something is 'environmentally destructive?' its sort of like 'who is a terrorist?' one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. it must be that people want cheap gas instead of bio diesel. it must be that people want cheap chinese goods at walmart instead of expensive american goods. all environmentalists have it within their capacity to walk the walk. hardly none do.

 

it is in the peoples BEST interest to care for the earth. corporations run wild because they are not held accountable for their actions. that is not the fault of regulation, it is the fault of not allowing property rights to be totally defended in courts of law.

 

freedom isnt perfect. with it comes responsibility. you cant force people to live the proper life. it is not morally right to do so either. but freedom is far better than fascism or communism.

[lord_casek]

world elects ron paul

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

[the.crooked]

you act as if it is in peoples interest to destroy property. if you pollute the air and/or some one else's property inadvertantly, the guy who polluted the property MUST be held responsible. this includes the air. a free society does not entail destroying the earth. if a farmer dumps massive amounts of shit into a river and destroy's the next farmers drinking water or his cattle lot from the runoff, the guy who destroyed the property should be held accountable and would be held accountable if property rights were strictly enforced. now a person who's land is destroyed by the 'corporation' cannot sue the violators property. thanks uncle sam.

 

"private land - it's yours, do what you want, protect your shit."

 

ok, so if i want to strip mine my own private land and i guarantee that nothing will hurt you in any way what so ever, you dont have a problem with that? your previous posts make it clear that you dont want this to happen. but isnt that 'fucking up the earth.?' all the land that is so called 'destroyed' is just about privately owned.

 

"But you seem to be implying that it would be perfectly OK for the market to settle on a cheap but environmentally destructive energy source, and that's fine you know, cause that's the market for ya.

 

That's not right, period.

 

You're headed for some serious problems when you believe that abstract political ideas of freedom and private property should take priority over the responsibility of keeping the Earth healthy enough for us to stay alive in it."

 

sure its right. who exactly determines that something is 'environmentally destructive?' its sort of like 'who is a terrorist?' one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. it must be that people want cheap gas instead of bio diesel. it must be that people want cheap chinese goods at walmart instead of expensive american goods. all environmentalists have it within their capacity to walk the walk. hardly none do.

 

it is in the peoples BEST interest to care for the earth. corporations run wild because they are not held accountable for their actions. that is not the fault of regulation, it is the fault of not allowing property rights to be totally defended in courts of law.

 

freedom isnt perfect. with it comes responsibility. you cant force people to live the proper life. it is not morally right to do so either. but freedom is far better than fascism or communism.

 

freedom under the auspice of social contract is not freedom.

 

 

regardless, I think Mam's point is that people are fuckin retarded. Putting your faith in the commons is what he seems to be questioning.

 

Personal "responsibility" is a hard thing to even pin down. Responsible to what set of confines.

 

The notion of social responsibility is dependent upon some sort of laid down and agreed upon rules, which ends up translating into governmental procedure and legislative precedent.

 

I agree with mam's, I do not have enough belief in the ability of people in general to see past what small differences they have to come together on the issues that matter to all.

 

Tragedy of the Commons. Fuck everyone.

[xrebelheartsx]

so, am i getting you right in saying that you would rather governments step in and manage your land for you? to save the environment?

 

 

no, i think people (i'm talking private individuals, not companies/corporations) generally would take care of their own land. this may be putting too much faith in people, but regardless, it's what i think.

 

what i'm saying is more of a (perhaps foolish) belief in people in general. not in government. obviously, most members of the US government could give a flying fuck about the environment.

 

what i'm saying is, you look after your land, take care of what's yours, but keep in mind the world as a whole. realize there's more than what's outside of your property boundaries at stake. know what i mean?

[El Mamerro]

sure its right. who exactly determines that something is 'environmentally destructive?' its sort of like 'who is a terrorist?' one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. it must be that people want cheap gas instead of bio diesel. it must be that people want cheap chinese goods at walmart instead of expensive american goods. all environmentalists have it within their capacity to walk the walk. hardly none do.

 

Who determines? I dunno maybe the scientific community, the people who for centuries have been dedicating their lives to researching this? I dunno if your plan is to go on some "They're not necessarily 100% right" tirade, I'm not interested in hearing that cause that is the biggest cop-out you could possibly pull off. The recent devaluing of the scientific community in the political and economic spheres is absolutely disgusting, and resting on arguments like that to propose continued "do whatever you want" attitudes is shameful.

 

Again, your argument rests on people being educated and responsible enough to know what not to do with their property. This is not only improbable, it is bordering on the impossible. How the hell is one guy supposed to know that eliminating the bothersome beehives in his backyard can have a drastic effect in the pollination of a farmer's crops a few miles down the road? Now I'm not suggesting to make a law forbidding exterminating pests in your property, but that's just to point out an example of how exceedingly complex and intertwined relationships are in nature to leave things completely at the mercy of landowners (most of who will be much more prone to make decisions for their own comfort and wellbeing as opposed to keeping the big picture in mind), and how being a landowner entails WAY more than just staking claim to an area within a boundary.

 

I'd really love for people and society to work the way you envision, but it's pretty obvious that we are not conditioned to think about our effects on the world in that capacity, and the more the scientific community gets shunned, the less we're gonna listen to what they've been saying for years.

 

And I don't understand why you keep bringing environmentalists into this. What I am arguing doesn't have to do with them in any way.

[xrebelheartsx]

you act as if it is in peoples interest to destroy property. if you pollute the air and/or some one else's property inadvertantly, the guy who polluted the property MUST be held responsible. this includes the air. a free society does not entail destroying the earth. if a farmer dumps massive amounts of shit into a river and destroy's the next farmers drinking water or his cattle lot from the runoff, the guy who destroyed the property should be held accountable and would be held accountable if property rights were strictly enforced. now a person who's land is destroyed by the 'corporation' cannot sue the violators property. thanks uncle sam.

 

"private land - it's yours, do what you want, protect your shit."

 

ok, so if i want to strip mine my own private land and i guarantee that nothing will hurt you in any way what so ever, you dont have a problem with that? your previous posts make it clear that you dont want this to happen. but isnt that 'fucking up the earth.?' all the land that is so called 'destroyed' is just about privately owned.

 

 

i think you and i agree more on this than you (or i, for that matter) initially realized. i never once acted like or implied it was in people's best interest to destroy property. if that somehow came across in what i've said, it wasn't intended at all. i fully agree that anyone that pollutes any property, private or public, must be held accountable, be it an individual or a corporation.

 

as for the second part... seriously, look at what i said, "protect your shit". how in the world would that make you think i'd be ok with strip mining? again, this goes back to my stupid belief that most people would take care of their property, and their earth. i know that's sort of a utopian viewpoint, but whatever. i do not believe that most corporations have this viewpoint, and unfortunately, that means we have to rely more on individuals who may or may not care.

 

 

it is in the peoples BEST interest to care for the earth. corporations run wild because they are not held accountable for their actions.

 

EXACTLY. are we finally starting to see eye to eye on this shit?

 

i could never be on the debate team, i tend ot have problems expressing myself as clearly as i should.

[El Mamerro]

I got stuck on the bottom post of the last page. Moved here:

 

sure its right. who exactly determines that something is 'environmentally destructive?' its sort of like 'who is a terrorist?' one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. it must be that people want cheap gas instead of bio diesel. it must be that people want cheap chinese goods at walmart instead of expensive american goods. all environmentalists have it within their capacity to walk the walk. hardly none do.

 

Who determines? I dunno maybe the scientific community, the people who for centuries have been dedicating their lives to researching this? I dunno if your plan is to go on some "They're not necessarily 100% right" tirade, I'm not interested in hearing that cause that is the biggest cop-out you could possibly pull off. The recent devaluing of the scientific community in the political and economic spheres is absolutely disgusting, and resting on arguments like that to propose continued "do whatever you want" attitudes is shameful.

 

Again, your argument rests on people being educated and responsible enough to know what not to do with their property. This is not only improbable, it is bordering on the impossible. How the hell is one guy supposed to know that eliminating the bothersome beehives in his backyard can have a drastic effect in the pollination of a farmer's crops a few miles down the road? Now I'm not suggesting to make a law forbidding exterminating pests in your property, but that's just to point out an example of how exceedingly complex and intertwined relationships are in nature to leave things completely at the mercy of landowners (most of who will be much more prone to make decisions for their own comfort and wellbeing as opposed to keeping the big picture in mind), and how being a landowner entails WAY more than just staking claim to an area within a boundary.

 

I'd really love for people and society to work the way you envision, but it's pretty obvious that we are not conditioned to think about our effects on the world in that capacity, and the more the scientific community gets shunned, the less we're gonna listen to what they've been saying for years.

 

And I don't understand why you keep bringing environmentalists into this. I am talking about everyone in general, not a specific group.

[lord_casek]

mamerro's world

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=3424&in_page_id=2

[El Mamerro]

Haha

 

I set about 4 anthills on fire to secure our campground this past weekend.

[lord_casek]

he's official

http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1107/475839.html

[angelofdeath]

"Who determines? I dunno maybe the scientific community, the people who for centuries have been dedicating their lives to researching this? I dunno if your plan is to go on some "They're not necessarily 100% right" tirade, I'm not interested in hearing that cause that is the biggest cop-out you could possibly pull off. The recent devaluing of the scientific community in the political and economic spheres is absolutely disgusting, and resting on arguments like that to propose continued "do whatever you want" attitudes is shameful."

 

what it boils down to is that you have any utter disdain for property rights. as long as someone doesnt hurt you or your property in any way, they should be free to do what they want, when the want with their property. im not against science. but the problem with using government power to try to 'correct' things, you almost always make things worse and the solutions are always ridden with unintended consequences. not only are some of these 'expert scientists' totally inhumane (some actually wish that the planet should be rid of all humans)all the decisions for the 'environmentalist' agenda are literally determined by popular votes for things like determining which animals look more cuddly. they destroy property rights and freedom to pursue vague government goals.

 

i always liked this case since it sort of pertains to the predicament my family found themselves in decades ago. in fishkill new york in 1999 a guy put up a wire mesh fence around his concrete business to keep out rattle snakes. the state took him to court for violating the endangered species act. the fence could have the effect of (and i quote) 'disturbing, harrying, and worrying' the 'threatened' timber rattlers according to state biologist theordore kerpez. he also said the fence could cause 'physiological stress.' the state said they have to protect all species reguardless if they are lethal or disgusting or whatever. which is pretty hilarious to me because governments according to the constitution and the new york constitution are only supposed uphold property rights.

i mean what is next? those poor little harmless small pox germs all cooped up in jars in moscow and atlanta need to be set free?

 

but lets talk more about this evil free market that everyone hates. it is nothing more than a way of describing the results of insane amounts of voluntary transactions that are mutually beneficial. it must be that both parties benefit from the transaction, otherwise they wouldn't take part in the transaction unless coercion was involved. as long as private property is still around, hardly anything of value disappears. if you look at african elephants. it is the elephants in socialist areas like kenya where there is no private ownership where these elephants are facing extinction. in the free areas, they charge to hunt or photograph the elephants and the elephants are doing pretty damn good.

 

i never understood it though. the free market allows all the coercive state socialist tree huggers to pool money together, and buy acres and acres of land in the US and protect it. it must be that they really dont want to protect the land if they cant put their money where their mouth is. in fact this is what im trying to do. (im a crazy right wing survivalist peckerwood with to many guns, in case you didnt know) i dont hear of that many limousine liberals giving up their bmw's and buying desolate acreage or mosquito infested swamps. what it really means by not 'trusting the market' (the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in history right?) is that they would rather hire jack booted bully men to force others to fund their little fuzzy whims and force property owners to go to confess their sins in court for 'destroying' the environment by owning property. they like to use said jack booted thugs to coerce property owners with threat of jail time or charges if they want to do anything with their property that the greens dont like or if they irritate the local bugs, weeds or poisonous pests that live on the property. they would probably support calling in the military in cattle trailers to subdue these evil property owners that build mesh fences around their perimeter.

 

it obviously wasnt the methods of the earlier generations of big government twits used when they said things like...'i suggest the policy makers look at the solutions that are most effective at eliminating jews, slavs and the other subhuman races from our midst.' that the modern big government twits are against. they are just applying the tactics to another area. the only problems were the GOALS of hitler or stalin, not that statism. the methods of statism that they used like propagandizing kids in 'public' schools to memorize the religion of statism or to snitch on their parents werent really that bad at all. hell, they can use those methods! the greens just need to use those methods with a more noble goal, you see. like saving the 'environment.'

 

its fun for the arm chair environmentalists to sit back and come up with these ideas and solutions to these problems. but the only real alternative to the free market is a 'market' in which people who take part in transactions you disapprove of are charged, jailed, arrested, beaten, herded on cattle cars, sent to gulags or shot and dumped in mass graves. in the end that is always what it means to not 'trust' the market.

 

sorry for the rant. i've been reading to much of one of my favorite writers.

[Juan Fuentes]

he's official

http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1107/475839.html

 

yes!

 

he is doing very well money wise. over 10 M

 

he also have been doing well on straw polls.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

i see a lot of 1s there...

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

rant away aod, rant away.

[El Mamerro]

what it boils down to is that you have any utter disdain for property rights.

 

It's taken me forever to respond to this because this opening line is just so incredibly unencouraging that I read it and go "argh, I'll respond later"... it reminds me that no matter how much any of us would like to engage you in discussion, you eventually regress to the same talking points over and over, not addressing any of the real issues being brought up. You also love to take your grey area-walking opponents and pretend they sit on black ground, where its easy for you to rant away from your white podium. ie: I am against total landowner omnipotence and dismissal of landowner responsibility towards nature, therefore I am COMPLETELY against any kind of property rights. It's not that simple.

 

I still see no response to the house analogy. Again, are we to allow tenants to do whatever they want to their rooms even if it brings the house down? You seem to be agreeing with me that they shouldn't, because that affects other tenant's properties, but then you ridicule scientists when they try to warn and regulate that that's precisely what's gonna happen if tenants keep up with their frivolous "exercising of their rights". So which one is it? It's lovely to think that all threats to nature come in big broad easy-to-point-out swipes, but the truth is that within the complexity of nature it's the small incremental changes that do the most damage.

 

I just took a break and went out to lunch and now I'm all sleepy. Maybe I'll continue later.

[vanfullofretards]

http://www.libertystickers.com/5856562_38289.htm