>> ^marbles:


I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.
I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.



marbles, tell me honestly, how many people that go to the Jefferson Memorial, on an average day, go there to dance? A rough estimate...?

The thing that makes this pointless is that they are fighting for something that no body wants to do anyway. The only people that care about being able to dance at the Jefferson Memorial are these activists.

Who is this a small battle for? If they were protesting something people do every day or WANT to do every day, I'd be on board. If they were protesting something other, non-activist people did and were arrested for, I'd be all for it.

But, the only instances of the issue they are protesting are their own examples. They don't have any non-protest examples of this great outrage.
That makes it ego maniacal, imo.

1. Yes, that poor man was shot multiple times with a lethal weapon because of the obsessiveness with danger from using weapons.

2. "The PC protection obsession is what leads to a world where kids with a plastic gun can be shot on sight." Really? Not the knowledge about the accessability of lethal guns for children? Not because a child playing with a lethal or toy- weapon for fun without malice is apparently enough reason to shoot the child in your scenario?

3."And some obsessed maniac came along an interpreted it as a threat to society." A police officer, brought up in a militaristic, gun loving culture. Who gets told he did the right thing by this society. Who is set free by this society. Who killed a human being with a gun in this society. And almost all are fine with that.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Nothing bad can come from a widespread disregard for human life and the fragility thereof

Oh, please.
Your link, if anything , proves my point, that poor man was shot partly because of the obsessiveness with danger from using weapons..
The guy was shot because, like the kids in this video, he used a "weapon" for fun, by doing something constructive with it. The PC protection obsession is what leads to a world where kids with a plastic gun can be shot on sight. He had harmless fun with his knife, just like these kids had with their waterpistols. And some obsessed maniac came along an interpreted it as a threat to society. Fuckin relax instead. live in the real world, where woodcarving, waterpistol shooting and the flashing of janet jacksons boob isn't viewed as a threat to our civilization, but for what it is: harmless fun.

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Nothing bad can come from a widespread disregard for human life and the fragility thereof


Oh, please.

Your link, if anything , proves my point, that poor man was shot partly because of the obsessiveness with danger from using weapons..

The guy was shot because, like the kids in this video, he used a "weapon" for fun, by doing something constructive with it. The PC protection obsession is what leads to a world where kids with a plastic gun can be shot on sight. He had harmless fun with his knife, just like these kids had with their waterpistols. And some obsessed maniac came along an interpreted it as a threat to society. Fuckin relax instead. live in the real world, where woodcarving, waterpistol shooting and the flashing of janet jacksons boob isn't viewed as a threat to our civilization, but for what it is: harmless fun.

That's a fairly open road and the pickup was hauling ass. A sportbike can get away pretty easily through traffic or maybe on tight roads, but out there the truck can just floor it and keep pace (apparently).

This looks to have only happened a few days ago. I'm very interested to see the results, if anyone can find more information.

I'd think the motorcyclists open themselves up to prosecution for their dangerous riding, maybe a suspended license and a big fine. Pickup driver, as noted, should be attempted murder. I'd go for 10 years. What an insane maniac.

Oh how I love to guffaw like a lost maniac to someone who looks and sounds like a gigantic metrosexual Keebler elf. At least the luggage bit was seriously interesting material! I don't think airplane related humor has ever really been done before. Lots of golden humor juice left in that untapped well.

@Skeeve: You've obviously never had the pleasure, otherwise you wouldn't so nonsensically blaspheme the hamburger deities. I think those maniacs weren't emotive enough.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?

I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.
Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.
Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.
Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?

I don't know what else to say except that you don't know if your information is faulty or not. You get your information from where? That matters, you seem to not believe in doubt at all. Do you just believe what everyone tells you about their assessment of a situation immediately or do you want to save some doubt for other possibilities? In other words have you ever taken a science class...apply that same thinking here.

I am confidant because I spend so much time studying multiple separate and independent sources. Al Jazeera being one of the ones that seems to be 'better' by and large. It's their own article here that references Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN. Admittedly he had defected from the regime at the point he said this, but clearly he isn't just some nobody he doesn't understand the situation.
"In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly"
Ibrahim Dabbashi,
Deputy Libyan UN ambassador
You can have doubts about some things, but when the evidence is overwhelming you eventually have to act on it.


How about this...have you read history. The history of the US...the history of NATO? My guess is you have...a watered down history that doesn't point to the war crimes we've committed. Yet you're just fine saying without all the information that we're doing the right thing. I'm merely pointing that we SHOULD FUCKING WAIT before just applauding ourselves like idiots.

I hope we did the right thing...however saying we know everything and that the evidence is overwhelming at this stage is just stupid. Your confidence means nothing to me, express some doubt or you're just another moron saying that God exists and there's no such thing as Global Warming.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?

I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.
Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.
Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.
Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?

I don't know what else to say except that you don't know if your information is faulty or not. You get your information from where? That matters, you seem to not believe in doubt at all. Do you just believe what everyone tells you about their assessment of a situation immediately or do you want to save some doubt for other possibilities? In other words have you ever taken a science class...apply that same thinking here.


I am confidant because I spend so much time studying multiple separate and independent sources. Al Jazeera being one of the ones that seems to be 'better' by and large. It's their own article here that references Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN. Admittedly he had defected from the regime at the point he said this, but clearly he isn't just some nobody he doesn't understand the situation.

"In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly"

Ibrahim Dabbashi,
Deputy Libyan UN ambassador

You can have doubts about some things, but when the evidence is overwhelming you eventually have to act on it.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?

I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.
Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.
Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.
Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?


I don't know what else to say except that you don't know if your information is faulty or not. You get your information from where? That matters, you seem to not believe in doubt at all. Do you just believe what everyone tells you about their assessment of a situation immediately or do you want to save some doubt for other possibilities? In other words have you ever taken a science class...apply that same thinking here.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?


I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.

Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.

Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.

Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?

This must be the kid that helped shred up all of Dick Cheney's stuff! He even stole the maniacal laughter Dick made!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Totally disagree. MSNBC & Fox are peas in a pod, just on opposite sides of the pod. MSNBC doesn't lie & distort and it's hosts aren't insane? No offense, but only a person who had been braised for decades in the bile of liberal bias could possibly think that.


I dont live in the US, but from my perspective I have watched rightwing broadcasting in the US descend into utterly paranoid absurd nonsense the last 10 or so years, largely because of FOX. From my perspective, and the rest of the world,, FOX isnt even rightwing, its just insane, a network that has basically constructed its own reality that it operates within, in this pseudo-reality Reagan is still the king, False, Christian versions of the Founding Fathers were infallible gods who freed the slaves and Glenn Beck is considered sane.

The same kind of crazyness is found in places like Italy, where Berlusconi owns most of the media. Luckily there are always alternatives in the US, but because FOX have been so successful in setting up the right wing pseudo-reality far into crazy town, the balance point between left and right is now far off to the right. Everything becomes "socialist" in comparison, MSNBC, BBC, AlJazeera,CNN, compared to Fox, these are basically the red army propaganda channel compared to FOX

So which worldview do you think is closer to the truth: One where FOX is plain nuts, or one where the rest of the world are all brainwashed liberal-socialist-marxist-communist-nazi sympathizers?

Think about it.

Take Obama as an example: Now talk to ANY proffesional political analyst in the WORLD, and they would all say that Obama is a Center-leaning Democrat, more to the right than, say JFK or Jimmy Carter, for instance. But because FOX and others has, ever since Obamas campaign started, and perhaps even a bit before that, they have distorted, lied and insinuated systematically for close to 3 years now, and now you'd do extremely well to convince even one person at a tea-party rally that he isnt a reincarnation of Stalin. Just forget about even trying to place him on the political spectrum in america, Fox and friends have made him into a socialist maniac. A SANE analisys of Obama would perhaps land him as a right-center leaning democrat.. Now what does this tell you about how fucked up FOX really is?

He's talking to our president like a teacher would talk to a student. He's a complete douche. That's Jon Stewart's problem is that he legitimizes this ego-maniacal "how does the moon work?","If you answer me, even if it's true: You're a pinhead".

That is the person interviewing the president. His science is as complicated as a second-grade class requiring no critical thinking, him offering opinionated options and blanket statements mean nothing to me; he can't logically think himself to the library or a book store.

(That's right Bill some of the questions you think are reducible to a simmering comical pun like, "pinheads" shows that you don't know that people older than your great grandfather could have answered you. Now, you make yourself look like an ignorant ass, unless you have a Nielsen Family™ watching--a rating system that has been shown to have a bias; their selection process is, very, selective.)

I can't upvote this for the shear fact someone doesn't feel a disgrace for doing what Bill'O does. The questions asked were all slanted; even though a laid back night was in store. Also, and I really hate to say this: if Jone Stewart keeps acting as though O'Reilly is different somehow than the rest of Fox, I may stop watching him (and I know others who feel the same, since we're pinheads, and Bill'O lacks the ability to actually fend off an answer "that is wrong" in the right way, proof of deniability, facts countering the afore-mentioned answer, etc... He answers within his realm of knowledge: nothing. Then he must resort to ignorance, because the great Bill'O knows all.

P.S. Can we get him on a episode of BS?

>> ^blankfist:

All land is owned but people buy land all the time. There's not some evil Bill Gates sitting on the land, laughing maniacally because he won't sell any of it. If you want to "rent" the land, then it's in the interest of the landlord to offer that land at a competitive price. Again, it's not a crazy Bill Gates charging a poor family a zillion dollars just because he can.

I think you're missing my point. My point is why should I give a shit what Bill Gates thinks? Why does he get to threaten me with violence unless I give him something, just so I can create my own food to sustain myself?

Because he or some government drew a line in the sand, put a gun in my face, and told me I can't?

>> ^blankfist:
What threats of violence? You mean if you "steal" the food from the grocer who in turn had to pay the shippers and the farmers?

Why did the grocer "have to" pay the shippers and farmers? Threats of violence if he didn't?

>> ^blankfist:
If you create a victim out of the grocer and steal his property, then of course he'd have the right to protect it. It seems like you're grasping at straws trying to paint self-defense and defense of property (that which is purchased by the profit of your own labor) as the same violence used by the state. It is not.

Like I said, you might think the violent threats are justified. That doesn't change that you're talking about threatening violence against someone whose only crime is violating the edict of some authority who said "don't eat this food, or I'll inflict violence on you".

All you're doing is saying you side with the violent authoritarian, because you think his authority is legitimate.

>> ^blankfist:
The state, in your scenario, is more like the person who claims he's in need of the food and must take his fair share from the grocer. This is in fact stealing. What's the difference?

Absolutely backwards. The grocer is the one who's saying he must take his "fair share" from the hungry man. If he doesn't get it, he'll use violence. That certainly deters our starving poor from trying to take food from grocery stores without paying the grocer's ransom.

I don't see the difference between what the state does and that, honestly.

>> ^blankfist:
And this is the important part, so feel free to grab your pad and pen: One is offensive violence, and one is defensive violence. There's a big difference between a woman being attacked and using pepper spray versus, say, a group of white Mississippi cops spraying a bunch of "negro" protestors during a 1960s civil rights march.

But those are examples of person-on-person violence. The hungry man who eats the grocer's food isn't being violent at all, yet he will have violence inflicted on him for defying the wishes of the grocer.

Not unlike the poor non-violent resident of California who will have electrodes strapped to his nuts for failing to pay his taxes.

>> ^blankfist:
I don't think California is a "better deal". You're way off base. It's not a better deal. It's my fucking home. The US is my home.

Okay, but it's also not a prison. If you wanted to leave, you could. Staying is a choice, and one you make absent any coercion.

The US is also not your property. The allodial title is held by the US government. Buying real estate in California does not grant you a tract of sovereign territory. You are still obligated to follow the laws of California, and the US, including the ones regarding taxes.

If you don't like the rules and obligations that come with living in the US, you don't have to live in the US, just like if you don't like your local grocer's rule of "no shirt, no shoes, no service" you can shop somewhere else.

In both cases, you can complain all you like, and try to persuade the property owners to change things to be more to your liking. But according to your own views on property, there is no issue of "rights" that would compel either property owner to accede to your desires.

However, if you just take what you think you're entitled to over the objections of the property owner, then you're committing the same crime you accused my hungry man of: stealing.

>> ^NetRunner:


Actually, first I need land to hunt and farm on. But it's all "owned." So first, I need to accede to the demands of the landlord. That means I need to pay them license fees/rent/tribute, etc. or otherwise appeal to their capricious generosity. I can't skip that step because of the implied threats of violence surrounding the claims of "ownership".


All land is owned but people buy land all the time. There's not some evil Bill Gates sitting on the land, laughing maniacally because he won't sell any of it. If you want to "rent" the land, then it's in the interest of the landlord to offer that land at a competitive price. Again, it's not a crazy Bill Gates charging a poor family a zillion dollars just because he can.

>> ^NetRunner:


Not really, I'm just pointing out that there's more food than I could ever possibly need in a grocery store, but thanks to threats of violence I can't just go in and eat what I need and move on, even if I'm starving.
Maybe you think said threats of violence are justified, but it doesn't change the fact that you're condoning the violence implicit in the very concept of talking about "offering goods and services".


What threats of violence? You mean if you "steal" the food from the grocer who in turn had to pay the shippers and the farmers? If you create a victim out of the grocer and steal his property, then of course he'd have the right to protect it. It seems like you're grasping at straws trying to paint self-defense and defense of property (that which is purchased by the profit of your own labor) as the same violence used by the state. It is not.

The state, in your scenario, is more like the person who claims he's in need of the food and must take his fair share from the grocer. This is in fact stealing. What's the difference? And this is the important part, so feel free to grab your pad and pen: One is offensive violence, and one is defensive violence. There's a big difference between a woman being attacked and using pepper spray versus, say, a group of white Mississippi cops spraying a bunch of "negro" protestors during a 1960s civil rights march.

>> ^NetRunner:


Let me turn that one back on you, are the tax-free, regulation-free areas of Somalia and Afghanistan not good enough for you? Is it just too inconvenient?
I think that you're making a voluntary choice. You believe the benefits of living in California and paying taxes is a better deal than living in Somalia without them, so you keep accepting the offer of Californian residency, with all its benefits and obligations.
You wish the lunch was free, or at least that the meal was less expensive because you don't think they should offer discounts to seniors, but that's not really a question of morality; it's a question of preference.


I don't think California is a "better deal". You're way off base. It's not a better deal. It's my fucking home. The US is my home. I was born here, I have as much right to live here as you do, and just because you want some political body to march into my house and steal my money doesn't mean I must "like it or leave it".

To me this really shows the paper thin faults in the statist argument. To you, you see no difference between moving out of an apartment and moving out of a country of origin. I'm in absolute awe.

Do you believe services and goods should be offered under the threat of violence or death? So far the statist answer to this has been as follows:

NetRunner: "Actually, first, let's talk about grocery stores."
DFT: "Yes to taxes. No to death."
Volumpy: "You're just trying to sidetrack the conversation."

Talk about dodging a goddamn question.