>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I am not the definitive judicator of words and their meaning---but I am a damn good judge. You can be one too. Just take a word and, without the rhetoric or emotions added, think on it.

I agree. We're telling you we have meditated on the meaning of freedom, and have come to conclusions that differ from yours.

Winding back to the original comment here, this doesn't mean we "don't understand" freedom, it's that we have a different understanding of it.

Ron Paul is not making some argument against the concept of positive liberty, or responding to the observation that property rights place external constraints on people and therefore their liberty. He's just calling people who raise those questions ignorant.

Which is why we think he's a close minded jerk.

Winstonfield, what you're saying about MLK's tactics is simply wrong. Read MLK's biography by Eric Dyson. MLK wanted to use non-violent "industrial sabotage" to clog up industries and highways in Washington DC, to bring things to a halt until democratic socialist reforms were put into place. He wanted to do this by clogging places up with people so that even "innocent bystanders," as you put it, would have no choice but take notice.

Also I believe MLK supported "sit ins" where black people came in and sat in white-only restaurants, filling them up with black customers. This drove away white customers from stores, and I'm sure owners were annoyed that they were losing so much business to this tactic. Plus, at the time, I'm pretty sure white owners had the legal right to only serve white customers, thus the private property rights of white owners were being violated by MLK's black supporters.

If you disagree with the Occupy Wall Street end goal, OK that's fine. But don't criticize the tactics in the belief that MLK Jr. was not a supporter of the tactics here, because he used them himself.

Why do you think you're the standard for what I'm talking about? You're not running a business, are you? Because those people put in 80 hours a week easily, and are preyed on by the system far more than regular workers.

This isn't rocket science, peeps. If you shovel sh1t for 10 hours and the government takes half of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder? I'm dealing with liberals so I've tried to type as slowly as possible.

Oh, and Genjkerk, I'll remove the splinter from mine eye when you remove the beam from yours.


>> ^HaricotVert:

Since I am salaried and thus taxed at a set rate determined by what tax bracket I fall into based on my income - completely independent of how many hours I actually work - what makes you think that I (or anyone else who works a set # of hours during the week) will work harder simply because the IRS takes less of it?
Even when I wasn't salaried and had a contract position, I was allotted 40 hours a week, and no more, per my contract. Those 40 hours a week were taxed all the same. I still had to show up and put in 8 hours a day.
I assure you, financial incentives are hardly the motivation for hard, productive, and creative work. In fact, monetary bonuses can actually decrease performance for tasks that require any sort of rudimentary cognitive skill.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?
That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."
And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?
That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."

Probably because the first statement is false. Proof can be found on another video: http://videosift.com/video/What-motivates-us

As for "Private property = Freedom", apparently you forgot that this was the chief argument in favor of slavery.

Since I am salaried and thus taxed at a set rate determined by what tax bracket I fall into based on my income - completely independent of how many hours I actually work - what makes you think that I (or anyone else who works a set # of hours during the week) will work harder simply because the IRS takes less of it?

Even when I wasn't salaried and had a contract position, I was allotted 40 hours a week, and no more, per my contract. Those 40 hours a week were taxed all the same. I still had to show up and put in 8 hours a day.

I assure you, financial incentives are hardly the motivation for hard, productive, and creative work. In fact, monetary bonuses can actually decrease performance for tasks that require any sort of rudimentary cognitive skill.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?
That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."
And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?

That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."

And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

@dystopianfuturetoday, you know I'm in your camp, but that reads like a tea-party manifesto. It emphasizes deconstruction without worrying about our lack of agreement on the subsequent reconstruction. In some ways, I'm with @raverman. We need to sort out the ideological differences we've laid bare particularly over these past few years. That's why I think publicized presidential debates between Ron Paul and Barack Obama could be good for the country. IMO, you'd get some good, honest, civil discussion. It would give Paul the opportunity to bring Obama to task on some of the issues where he even loses the left; and it would give Obama an opportunity to talk to the rightwing frankly about the mapping between economics and reality.

Plus, I don't think Paul can win the general anyway. I'll concede that it would be disastrous if he did. Who could he take as a running mate?

Ultimately, I think the crux of the ideological issue is the absoluteness of private property "rights," and the mechanism of common ownership.

The first clue that you've been lied to is the fact that those whom you take your intellectual cues from insist on 'debate' instead of research. Could a skillful debater convince you that the concept of gravity is a lie? Or that the Earth is flat and orbited by the sun? In science, research is how things are debated. Doesn't it give you any pause that those whom you've put your trust in want to keep this scientific 'debate' outside of the realm of science?

One of your biggest problems is that you seem to believe that you know what you are talking about; that the random hodge-podge of political buzzwords and slogans you've been trained to recite are a legitimate and coherent point of view. Not only do you believe you know what you are talking about, but you also believe you've arrived at these conclusions through a process of thought and reason, rather than just mindlessly lapping up propaganda you've been fed by politicians, corporate think tanks and industrial PR firms.

There is no legitimacy to your arguments on this subject. You are completely, provably ignorant when it comes to climate science. It's a farce that we are even having this conversation. Not all points of view are equally valid. In the debate between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5, only one side is correct. You are squarely in the wrong. I don't say this to hurt your feelings, but rather as a service to enlighten you. Rather than getting angry at me for being honest, why not instead turn your anger upon those who have armored you in ignorance and sent you off to battle ill equipped, or better yet, why not turn your anger inward for your own gullibility and lack of independent thought.

Individual freedom starts in the mind.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I wouldn't accuse anyone else of lacking credibility when my avatar is wearing an Obama campaign button.
My political agenda is individual rights, freedom and property rights, all three hated--in varying degrees--by leftists. That damned Constitution, always in the way of free gifts to the people like Obamacare!
Why are you SHEEP are so quick to surrender the last tattered remnants of your freedom for a few faked graphs and a consensus of concerned-about-grants government scientists? You have no hard evidence to tie global warming to man-made activity, only consensus aka a bunch of labcoats in a room agreeing on something without proof. And I'm not jumping on that merry-go-around again. These proud scientitians refuse to debate so-called deniers. WHY? Instead they announced "All debate is over?" BS. BS. BS.
Global warming Climate change ain't about global warming climate change and never was, it's about socialists trying to seize more power and destroy individual and property rights.
Oh, and posting videos isn't 'borrowing' other people's ideas? Please keep your cute little comments stolen from south park out of my comment box.
Global warming BS serves at least one purpose, you libs get a taste of what it feel like to have your religion insulted.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Instead of copying and pasting other peoples ideas, why not try thinking for yourself? If you feel that business shouldn't be hindered for any reason, then say so, but to actually fool yourself into believing that politicians and industry PR agents know more about science than actual scientists is just plain dumb. I've seen other conservatives on this site begin to distance themselves from this brand of ignorance. Why not give it a shot yourself? It would certainly help you to garner more respect and credibility - two categories in which you are sorely lacking.>> ^quantumushroom:
Herp Derp

Wait a second, are you saying that you have a leftist political agenda? So, let me get this straight you're a self-loathing leftist?!

>> ^quantumushroom:

My political agenda is individual rights, freedom and property rights>> ^quantumushroom:
Herp Derp

I wouldn't accuse anyone else of lacking credibility when my avatar is wearing an Obama campaign button.

My political agenda is individual rights, freedom and property rights, all three hated--in varying degrees--by leftists. That damned Constitution, always in the way of free gifts to the people like Obamacare!

Why are you SHEEP are so quick to surrender the last tattered remnants of your freedom for a few faked graphs and a consensus of concerned-about-grants government scientists? You have no hard evidence to tie global warming to man-made activity, only consensus aka a bunch of labcoats in a room agreeing on something without proof. And I'm not jumping on that merry-go-around again. These proud scientitians refuse to debate so-called deniers. WHY? Instead they announced "All debate is over?" BS. BS. BS.

Global warming Climate change ain't about global warming climate change and never was, it's about socialists trying to seize more power and destroy individual and property rights.

Oh, and posting videos isn't 'borrowing' other people's ideas? Please keep your cute little comments stolen from south park out of my comment box.

Global warming BS serves at least one purpose, you libs get a taste of what it feel like to have your religion insulted.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Instead of copying and pasting other peoples ideas, why not try thinking for yourself? If you feel that business shouldn't be hindered for any reason, then say so, but to actually fool yourself into believing that politicians and industry PR agents know more about science than actual scientists is just plain dumb. I've seen other conservatives on this site begin to distance themselves from this brand of ignorance. Why not give it a shot yourself? It would certainly help you to garner more respect and credibility - two categories in which you are sorely lacking.>> ^quantumushroom:
Herp Derp

>> ^ponceleon:

quality
Snap that looks cool! I guess my only question is one of intellectual property rights. A lot of the heroes are still very very recognizable for what they were in Warcraft... can they really publish something and retain those elements of the design?


Well, if they want to get into that territory, Maybe Games Workshop will have a few words for Blizzard, in turn....

Dude, anytime. You rock.

In reply to this comment by Hybrid:
Thanks for the quality! :

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
*quality

Snap that looks cool! I guess my only question is one of intellectual property rights. A lot of the heroes are still very very recognizable for what they were in Warcraft... can they really publish something and retain those elements of the design?

Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
*quality

Snap that looks cool! I guess my only question is one of intellectual property rights. A lot of the heroes are still very very recognizable for what they were in Warcraft... can they really publish something and retain those elements of the design?

*quality

Snap that looks cool! I guess my only question is one of intellectual property rights. A lot of the heroes are still very very recognizable for what they were in Warcraft... can they really publish something and retain those elements of the design?

A. Obama isn't a socialist.

He sure as hell isn't a free market capitalist and is no supporter of individual rights. His answer to every problem is higher taxes (if he had the balls to confess it's his goal) more spending and MOAR government.

B. Socialism doesn't always fail.

Historically it's been around in one form or another and sooner or later always falls prey to human nature. Private property rights are the bane of socialists.

C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.

Not on paper, but that's what it ends up being. The State > Individual at all times. Rights that can be revoked by the State at any time due to not being natural born rights are a fraud.

D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.

Semantics. When the State owns all property, they own you. When the State dictates who may or may not receive health care, they own you.

E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.

Also answering Jigga----I made no claim of a full analysis with pie graphs---the point is this: Russia has far more natural resources than the United States, yet communism failed. Shitty state-made products (tech stolen from USA), long lines for basic staples like bread and gulags for critics.

F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead.

Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Social Security started as protection for a very small part of the populace and expanded to cover more and more year after year. The original architects of Medicare and Medicaid probably didn't imagine leviathan programs losing 60 billion dollars a year to fraud, waste and abuse. But here we are!

Why wouldn't I share the wonderful leftist vision of the future? Because the left measures social programs based on what they're supposed to do, not how well they do. The left also views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This fugue is played every day 'round here. "The rich are evil because their gains are ill-gotten, the poor are innocent victims of exploitation."

You're fooling yourselves if you think taxing the evil rich at 90% tomorrow will change anything. This isn't 1950. The evil rich will simply transfer the bulk of their wealth, investing in other countries. Why would anyone have an incentive to start businesses or create jobs if the federal mafia is going to confiscate most of their profits?

And hero, your little dig at the end of your post indicates you don't have much faith in your answers.


Hey gang, you're skeptical about these candidates? I'm here to tell you I'm not buying what you're selling either. I don't trust the results of the left's good intentions or even that their intentions are good.