Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 11-13-2012, 03:57 PM  
American
 
leadarrows's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 251 | Kudos: +61
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
That's not true. There's no real call for bestiality. There's no real call for pederasty or pedophilia. There's no real call for the wearing of plates in lips, or any of those other things I mentioned.

You don't get to decide what other people consider normal. You can only decide for yourself. If most people agree with you, someone who disagrees will be abnormal.

Yes, our culture is evolving into one where "anything goes that makes someone happy". Sort of. The caveat is "So long as it doesn't harm anyone participating". Isn't that the definition of "liberty"?
You are misinformed.

North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors, and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion. Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings, and that as of the late 1990s, to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters. Around 1995, an undercover detective discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls. As of 2005, a newspaper report stated that NAMBLA was based in New York and San Francisco, and held an annual gathering in New York City and monthly meetings around the country.

NAMBLA has been defended by poet and rights advocate Allen Ginsberg and gay rights activist Harry Hay.
__________________

__________________
Life's A HOOT!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 05:22 PM  
Senior Member
 
mrmurdoc34's Avatar

Stafford, Virginia
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 582 | Kudos: +55
Images: 1
No matter what any one liberal says. The USA is the best place to live even with Odumbo at the helm. The nice thing about him is he is to busy golfing and partying in Vegas to do too much harm.

Other than that, I don't feel that the government state or federal should make any law supporting or denying gay marriage. Marriage is a religious act and it is not needed to live in the same house and love another person of the same or opposite sex. The government has no right to be in my bedroom, livingroom, garage or what not. All marriage laws are illegal in my eyes. If you look at the first amendment it says " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". That to me means that the government has no place what so ever in church matters. Marriage is solely a church matter. If you can find a religious person that will marry you to your crazy Uncle Joe because you and he are in love so be it. If you find one that will marry two men or women fine.

My USA it should be OK to do as you please as long as it does not endanger another person, cause harm to another person or hurt or harm a child of animal. Other than eating animals for yummy food. If you want to be gay whether it is a mental illiness or not you should be free to do so. I see some here hinting that all gays are kid touchers. I know plenty of gay men and women that are just as normal as anyone else. The go to work come home take care of their home and family, they are good neighbors that will help you when needed. That is what people should be focused on. Being more friendly to everyone. Do I like most liberals not really, but I am so close to the fence If I took a wiz it would shock the crap out of me (I don't care what mythbusters said it happened to me). I believe pot is not as harmful as we have been taught and that if it were legal and sold as regular cigs and booze are we would see a big decrease in many drug crimes that are just petty. Sorry how many pot heads to you hear of knocking over quickie marts? How many violent pot heads have you ever seen where 3 officers with tazers can't stop them. NONE the worst thing a pot head will do is eat all the darn cheetos.

With the tax revenu from pot sales we could put that into education. Which is so lacking in this country it is embarrassing. I work in a 2000+ student High school. We have some kids that are done with 2 years of college before the even get out of high school. We also have kids who can't read or write that graduate as well. Inner city schools should have everything a suburban school has from buildings, to equipment, to supply's and technology. There is no reason for any kid to graduate from high school with out having a proper and good education. We need to move all prisons to the back woods of Alaska make a huge came give them the bare basics to survive and call it a day. Spend less money on prisons and more on education you wouldn't need as many prisons.

I am going to stop ranting for now.
__________________

__________________
I'm not Sheldon! I'm the Flash! And now I'm going to the Grand Canyon to scream in frustration *takes two quick steps* I'm back
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 05:56 PM  
American
 
leadarrows's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 251 | Kudos: +61
I would like to be able to grow hemp if I want. Henry Ford ran his car on Hemp extract.

You might agree with this then.

IRIGHT (from "Individual Right") - An adult individual's right to do anything with one's own body or property that does not violate any other individual's right to do what they want with their own body or property.

CFORCE (from "Coercive Force") - An act by an individual that violates, or presents a viable threat to violate, the IRIGHT of another individual (without consent).

IFORCE (from "Initial Force") - 1. Use of deliberate or negligent CFORCE against someone that reasonably appears to not be using CFORCE. 2. Use of deliberate or negligent CFORCE against someone who reasonably appears to be using RFORCE.

RFORCE (from "Reactive Force") - CFORCE that is used in response, reaction or retaliation to what reasonably appears to be IFORCE.

Given these definitions, the libertarian "non-aggression principle" can be stated as: No one has the right to use IFORCE.

The IMPLICATIONS of this principal follow...



Continued)
IMPLICATIONS:

1) Every form of CFORCE is either IFORCE or RFORCE.

2) The purpose of libertarian government is to specify and clarify exactly what actions constitute IFORCE in what situations through a system of justice that is comprised of laws, police, courts, retribution and punishment.

3) Issues that fall into the realm of need-for-resolution include specifying what level of RFORCE is appropriate for a given situation, and when RFORCE becomes IFORCE (shooting a child for stealing a banana is an example of RFORCE becoming IFORCE). For example, the difference between IFORCE and RFORCE could be seen with respect to a warranted search by police (RFORCE), and an unwarranted search (IFORCE).

4) Examples of IFORCE: murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, vandalism, theft, trespassing, fraud, libel, child pornography, reckless driving, driving under the influence (reckless endangerment), shooting a gun into the air in a city (reckless endangerment), arresting someone for behavior that does not involve use of IFORCE, passing a law that prohibits behavior that does not involve the use of IFORCE, a lifeguard (committed to saving by contract) choosing not to save someone because he wants them to die.

5) Taxation without unanimous consent is IFORCE (consent can be given by an a priori agreement to abide by the will of majority of a given community when one chooses to join that community).

6) When police arrest someone it is RFORCE if it is reasonable for them to assume that someone has committed IFORCE. It is therefore IFORCE to interfere with such an arrest even if the police happen to be mistaken. Since it is very difficult for a 3rd party to ascertain whether police have good reason to arrest, it is practically always IFORCE to interfere with any arrest.
__________________
Life's A HOOT!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 05:57 PM  
American
 
leadarrows's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 251 | Kudos: +61
And the flip side.

The Bill of Non-Rights

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President.


"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters.

We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from.

(lastly....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!
__________________
Life's A HOOT!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 07:39 PM  
Mr. Happy
 
RiponredTJ's Avatar

Montreal, Quebec
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,908 | Kudos: +139
Images: 7
I appreciate multiculturalism just like the next guy. Probably more so. But that was a little over the top.
__________________
Алекс says don't drink and derive
.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 07:48 PM  
AK 47 toting Liberal!
 
rainbow's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 309 | Kudos: +17
Okay. Later!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 08:38 PM  
Senior Member
 
mrmurdoc34's Avatar

Stafford, Virginia
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 582 | Kudos: +55
Images: 1
Quote:
You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God.
Wrong they say god. They do not specify which one.
__________________
I'm not Sheldon! I'm the Flash! And now I'm going to the Grand Canyon to scream in frustration *takes two quick steps* I'm back
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 09:28 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
The only thing I could say to answer you would be this:

If the framers of the constitution and bill of rights were asked about abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, and the like what would they say about it? Do you think that those were the things they had in mind? My definition of liberty does include not preventing people from doing things that only effect them and not others. However, it also includes not condoning things that are morally reprehensable and an abomination to our creator. And by accepting things such as legal abortion and gay marriage, is to condone them or normalize those things. Desensitizing society to those things is not the direction we need to go. What we are doing is trying to make good bad and bad good.


Isaiah 5:20--"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"
And in that, your definition of liberty differs from that of the nation. You have no authority to enforce your religious ideology on any person without that person's consent. I do not recognize the values imposed by your ideology.

By all means, stand up and say that your beliefs are good and that my beliefs are not good. Go ahead. But, as a citizen, you should recognize where your authority begins and ends.

In the case of abortion, you have a little room to argue that you're protecting the rights of an unborn person. In the case of gay marriage, you have plenty of room to argue that the religious institution of marriage should not extend to homosexuals. You can argue that the religious definition of marriage should be the 1950's version, with strictly-defined gender roles for the participants. But, you have zero room to argue that the legal definition of marriage should be anything other than what the participants in that marriage determine it should be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadarrows View Post
You are misinformed.

North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors, and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion. Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings, and that as of the late 1990s, to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters. Around 1995, an undercover detective discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls. As of 2005, a newspaper report stated that NAMBLA was based in New York and San Francisco, and held an annual gathering in New York City and monthly meetings around the country.

NAMBLA has been defended by poet and rights advocate Allen Ginsberg and gay rights activist Harry Hay.
I'm aware of NAMBLA exists and that it is ostensibly an organization calling for the repeal of age of consent laws and promoting pederasty. I don't consider this organization in any way significant to American culture.

If we go through all the practices I mentioned, I'm sure we could find a few people in the US who would like to practice all of them. But these would be the rare exceptions. The items I listed are not significant parts of American cultural norms.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 09:48 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by leadarrows View Post
I would like to be able to grow hemp if I want. Henry Ford ran his car on Hemp extract.

You might agree with this then.

IRIGHT (from "Individual Right") - An adult individual's right to do anything with one's own body or property that does not violate any other individual's right to do what they want with their own body or property.

CFORCE (from "Coercive Force") - An act by an individual that violates, or presents a viable threat to violate, the IRIGHT of another individual (without consent).

IFORCE (from "Initial Force") - 1. Use of deliberate or negligent CFORCE against someone that reasonably appears to not be using CFORCE. 2. Use of deliberate or negligent CFORCE against someone who reasonably appears to be using RFORCE.

RFORCE (from "Reactive Force") - CFORCE that is used in response, reaction or retaliation to what reasonably appears to be IFORCE.

Given these definitions, the libertarian "non-aggression principle" can be stated as: No one has the right to use IFORCE.

The IMPLICATIONS of this principal follow...



Continued)
IMPLICATIONS:

1) Every form of CFORCE is either IFORCE or RFORCE.

2) The purpose of libertarian government is to specify and clarify exactly what actions constitute IFORCE in what situations through a system of justice that is comprised of laws, police, courts, retribution and punishment.

3) Issues that fall into the realm of need-for-resolution include specifying what level of RFORCE is appropriate for a given situation, and when RFORCE becomes IFORCE (shooting a child for stealing a banana is an example of RFORCE becoming IFORCE). For example, the difference between IFORCE and RFORCE could be seen with respect to a warranted search by police (RFORCE), and an unwarranted search (IFORCE).

4) Examples of IFORCE: murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, vandalism, theft, trespassing, fraud, libel, child pornography, reckless driving, driving under the influence (reckless endangerment), shooting a gun into the air in a city (reckless endangerment), arresting someone for behavior that does not involve use of IFORCE, passing a law that prohibits behavior that does not involve the use of IFORCE, a lifeguard (committed to saving by contract) choosing not to save someone because he wants them to die.

5) Taxation without unanimous consent is IFORCE (consent can be given by an a priori agreement to abide by the will of majority of a given community when one chooses to join that community).

6) When police arrest someone it is RFORCE if it is reasonable for them to assume that someone has committed IFORCE. It is therefore IFORCE to interfere with such an arrest even if the police happen to be mistaken. Since it is very difficult for a 3rd party to ascertain whether police have good reason to arrest, it is practically always IFORCE to interfere with any arrest.
Clearly, this is not something that you agree with, as you've expressed a consistent desire to interfere with "IRIGHTS" in a variety of circumstances.


Quote:
Originally Posted by leadarrows View Post
And the flip side.

The Bill of Non-Rights

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President.


"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters.

We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from.

(lastly....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!
Actually, that 11th amendment was never ratified into the bill of no rights. The original 10 appear to be correct. They were penned not by Mitchell Kaye, but by Lewis Napper, a Libertarian. http://www.snopes.com/language/document/norights.asp

The principles of Libertarianism don't match up with that last claim. Specifically, the idea that you are "given" the freedom to believe. You're not. That freedom is not "given", it is inherent. "In God We Trust" was adopted in the 1950's; it's not really part of our "heritage". Nor is there any indication that the nation was founded on the belief in "one true God" - the constitution sources it's authority from the will of the people, not a divine entity. The Declaration of Independence refers to a creator, but does not specify any particular entity. The language of the Declaration follows deistic traditions. "Deism" is, basically, the idea that a god set things in motion and then stepped back to watch rather than interfering in the day-to-day operations of the universe. There is no personal relationship with god to be had under a deistic philosophy.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 05:43 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
And in that, your definition of liberty differs from that of the nation. You have no authority to enforce your religious ideology on any person without that person's consent. I do not recognize the values imposed by your ideology.

By all means, stand up and say that your beliefs are good and that my beliefs are not good. Go ahead. But, as a citizen, you should recognize where your authority begins and ends.

In the case of abortion, you have a little room to argue that you're protecting the rights of an unborn person. In the case of gay marriage, you have plenty of room to argue that the religious institution of marriage should not extend to homosexuals. You can argue that the religious definition of marriage should be the 1950's version, with strictly-defined gender roles for the participants. But, you have zero room to argue that the legal definition of marriage should be anything other than what the participants in that marriage determine it should be.
I am against what the liberals stand for. The libs stand for a larger centralized government that thinks that what works for me will work for you and it will work with whoever gay abortionist etc.... The best thing for issues in which there are fundamental diffeences would be delegating those things to the states. Maybe there should be some sort of FAIR TAX setup to where there is no need for exemptions and such therefore no need for the govenment to legislate marriage. I don't know. I think I could stomach a "civil union" but calling gay marriage marriage attempts to put it on the same level of normalcy and acceptance as conventional marriage. I just think we are a clearly divided nation. It is just sad. One side is for a more traditional America and the other is for a "new" America.
__________________

__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."

--Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.