On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though...
I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry.
If you haven't served this country then you have no right to send others to war. Go watch this and learn from our past mistakes:
On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though...
I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry.
Everyone outside of America can plainly see that the US' intervention and meddling in other countries has put them in more danger, not less.
On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though...
I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry.
Being a non-interventionalist is dangerous?
The fuck? What planet do you live on?
Aye. It's never worked, it never will work, and trying to make it work has only resulted in bigger, longer, deadlier wars.
Earth. It's pretty nice here, most times.
Perhaps you've never heard of Switzerland? They have not been majorly involved in any conflict since the formal creation of their country in 1815. They are currently leading the world in many areas, including wealth, education and others.
On January 08 2012 20:08 Voros wrote: 3) Good. Slapping "Civil Rights" on an act that erodes property rights and allows government to interfere in your nonviolent use of private property doesn't make it any less odious. Americans need to get it through their heads that people have the right to hold racist, sexist, xenophobic or otherwise unpopular views, and they have the right to use their private property in any way they please (even if that entails discriminating against others). The past 50 years of endless abuses against property rights by the federal and state governments, from the EPA to eminent domain to assert forfeiture laws, can all claim the Civil Rights Act as their grandfather.
And this is just further reasoning of why I can't take libertarians seriously. It seems you're more concerned with the rights of someone to discriminate, rather than the rights of another to not be discriminated against.
You're seriously suggesting that people/businesses/employers be allowed to implement blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic policies? And that it's their right to be able to discriminate as they wish? Is the right of some racist business-owner to not want to hire minorities really more important that the right of members of that minority to fair employment? Or the right of a business-owner to sexually harass his employees, rather than the rights of that employee to not be sexually harassed at work?
I'm sorry, but he's absolutely right, that private property DOES entail the right to discrimination.
I own my vehicle. Because I own it, I can decide who to give rides to and who not to give rides to. If I am racist against blue people, then I can damn well choose to give rides to every red and green person I see, and never pick up a blue person anywhere. That's my right, because it's my property.
The government would have absolutely no right and no justification to FORCE me to give rides to blue people if I didn't want to. They could not tell me "sorry, you are offering rides to red people so you HAVE to give a ride to that blue guy as well." That would imply that the government is the true owner of my vehicle, not me.
Businesses and factories etc. are private property just as much as anything else. If I own a store, I should have the say of who works in my store, for any reason or no reason at all. Ron Paul is absolutely right about Civil Rights Act not only eroding basic liberty, but also slowing the progression of minorities in the US.
Your point about sexual harassment has nothing to do with discrimination by the way, they are two separate and unrelated things, so that point doesn't hold weight.
What gives you the right to live in society at all? How did you earn it? I propose you immediately leave your computer, leave your city, wander off into the wilderness, and never make contact with another human being again for the remainder of your life, if you REALLY want to respect rights.
there is no right to live in society, you merely do or do not...there are those who exist outside of societies on their own as is usually their choice. to force yourself into a position which you do not prefer while there is no tangible reason as to why you must do so and instead out of "respect for rights and your lack of the right to live in society" is retarded...rights are something which are suggested through moral code, in reality rights do not exist they are merely forced upon us by laws to ensure that those who would not have these "rights" on their own are capable of receiving them...in many moral codes there is slavery involved, in other words the right to own another person and strip them of their rights as you see fit...as such the absence of rights is the norm while everyone receiving equal rights is in itself out of the ordinary
On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though...
I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry.
Being a non-interventionalist is dangerous?
The fuck? What planet do you live on?
Aye. It's never worked, it never will work, and trying to make it work has only resulted in bigger, longer, deadlier wars.
Earth. It's pretty nice here, most times.
It worked in WWII and in korea yo.
bush is a dumbass and we shouldn't have gone into iraq...but if there really is a good reason for intervention then its necessary.
Yeah that's all that's left. There's also people like Buddy Roemer, but he's been excluded from the outset and Gary Johnson is now with the Libertarians. But there really aren't any else besides the six.
And really of the six, I can't see Huntsman and Gingerich lasting too much longer funding wise. Perry's got deeper pockets, but unless he get's a miracle, he seems running on political fumes. I guess he can play it out for awhile and hope he has better success when the field narrows. Santorum? I have no idea- maybe he can get a ton of funding now? But does he have people on the ground and does it really matter? (Anything but Romney vote.) Ron Paul- I don't know, he just can't gain the traction he needs to be considered 'mainstream' (which might be a moving goal post anyways.) Romney- can't seem to win the anti-Romney's over, but I wonder if people will start resigning themselves to him.
On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote: Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle.
I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today.
Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks.
Uh....
You mentioned an example of judging someone you want to marry or date based on their appearances...
Do you really judge the people who you want to vote for on physical appearances? I understand judging a potential mate on their physical appearances, but a politician? How on earth could that possibly be a good idea?
Actually, physical attractiveness correlates positively with leadership ability, intelligence, good character and good health, all of which are rather important attributes for the "leader of the free world".
Just saying.
People up in arms about libertarians wanting to repeal the civil rights act. If people want to discriminate against women/blacks/hispanics/aborigines/whatever, they should have the right to do so. Economic forces will push them out of business if said discrimination is not justified. If I want to employ only (ashkenazi) jews, have sex only with jews, befriend only jews, then I should have the right to do so.
On January 09 2012 11:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
On January 09 2012 11:37 Rodimus Prime wrote:
On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote: Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle.
I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today.
Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks.
Uh....
You mentioned an example of judging someone you want to marry or date based on their appearances...
Do you really judge the people who you want to vote for on physical appearances? I understand judging a potential mate on their physical appearances, but a politician? How on earth could that possibly be a good idea?
Actually, physical attractiveness correlates positively with leadership ability, intelligence, good character and good health, all of which are rather important attributes for the "leader of the free world".
Just saying.
People up in arms about libertarians wanting to repeal the civil rights act. If people want to discriminate against women/blacks/hispanics/aborigines/whatever, they should have the right to do so. Economic forces will push them out of business if said discrimination is not justified. If I want to employ only (ashkenazi) jews, have sex only with jews, befriend only jews, then I should have the right to do so.
And you're saying you can't do all of that as it is? And I mean really, is anyone forcing friends or sex on you?
That said, discrimination doesn't just go away naturally. It's laughable to think so with history in mind.
On January 09 2012 11:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
On January 09 2012 11:37 Rodimus Prime wrote:
On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote: Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle.
I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today.
Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks.
Uh....
You mentioned an example of judging someone you want to marry or date based on their appearances...
Do you really judge the people who you want to vote for on physical appearances? I understand judging a potential mate on their physical appearances, but a politician? How on earth could that possibly be a good idea?
Actually, physical attractiveness correlates positively with leadership ability, intelligence, good character and good health, all of which are rather important attributes for the "leader of the free world".
Just saying.
People up in arms about libertarians wanting to repeal the civil rights act. If people want to discriminate against women/blacks/hispanics/aborigines/whatever, they should have the right to do so. Economic forces will push them out of business if said discrimination is not justified. If I want to employ only (ashkenazi) jews, have sex only with jews, befriend only jews, then I should have the right to do so.
And you're saying you can't do all of that as it is? And I mean really, is anyone forcing friends or sex on you?
That said, discrimination doesn't just go away naturally. It's laughable to think so with history in mind.
History shows us that the only way discrimination goes away is thru education, not by "forcing" people to not be prejudiced.
What's laughable is the complete joke that we have now when we think of equal opportunity. "Multicultural" means "we hired a black guy so that we look compliant".
On January 09 2012 11:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
On January 09 2012 11:37 Rodimus Prime wrote:
On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote: Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle.
I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today.
Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks.
Uh....
You mentioned an example of judging someone you want to marry or date based on their appearances...
Do you really judge the people who you want to vote for on physical appearances? I understand judging a potential mate on their physical appearances, but a politician? How on earth could that possibly be a good idea?
Actually, physical attractiveness correlates positively with leadership ability, intelligence, good character and good health, all of which are rather important attributes for the "leader of the free world".
Just saying.
People up in arms about libertarians wanting to repeal the civil rights act. If people want to discriminate against women/blacks/hispanics/aborigines/whatever, they should have the right to do so. Economic forces will push them out of business if said discrimination is not justified. If I want to employ only (ashkenazi) jews, have sex only with jews, befriend only jews, then I should have the right to do so.
And you're saying you can't do all of that as it is? And I mean really, is anyone forcing friends or sex on you?
That said, discrimination doesn't just go away naturally. It's laughable to think so with history in mind.
History shows us that the only way discrimination goes away is thru education, not by "forcing" people to not be prejudiced. What's laughable is the complete joke that we have now when we think of equal opportunity. "Multicultural" means "we hired a black guy so that we look compliant".
On January 09 2012 14:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I haven't really been keeping up with the debates, but I was wondering how many Republican candidates are "officially" left in the primary.
Is it 6? Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Romney, Perry, and Santorum? Have all others withdrawn?
(And follow-up question: Even if there are more, are they truly relevant at this point in time?)
Thats who is officially left. But realistically it's really a 4way between Gingrich, Paul, Romney, and Santorum. Though it's really in the bag for Romney.
On January 09 2012 11:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
On January 09 2012 11:37 Rodimus Prime wrote:
On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote: Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle.
I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today.
Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks.
Uh....
You mentioned an example of judging someone you want to marry or date based on their appearances...
Do you really judge the people who you want to vote for on physical appearances? I understand judging a potential mate on their physical appearances, but a politician? How on earth could that possibly be a good idea?
Actually, physical attractiveness correlates positively with leadership ability, intelligence, good character and good health, all of which are rather important attributes for the "leader of the free world".
Just saying.
People up in arms about libertarians wanting to repeal the civil rights act. If people want to discriminate against women/blacks/hispanics/aborigines/whatever, they should have the right to do so. Economic forces will push them out of business if said discrimination is not justified. If I want to employ only (ashkenazi) jews, have sex only with jews, befriend only jews, then I should have the right to do so.
Well I've never heard of physical attractiveness actually correlating with intelligence or good character in a significant way, but there is the Halo Effect, which means people attribute good traits with more good traits. So when we see good-looking people we tend to assume they're nicer, happier, smarter people simply because we associate Good Things together. I don't know how you'd do a study on "good character," so the studies were probably doing it on the perception of others.
Think of the way people idolize their heroes and see past their rather glaring flaws.
People claim that market forces will push out discriminatory practices. I'm not convinced that is true though. If anything I think it could lead to legitimizing discriminatory practices socially. I don't see any reason why that would make society progress in any way.
On January 09 2012 11:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
On January 09 2012 11:37 Rodimus Prime wrote:
On January 09 2012 11:34 AUGcodon wrote: Huh, Haemonculus's point was that judging her on the merit of her sex is not only sexist but irrelevant. yet somehow the next three successive posters just managed to do that. I think this qualify as a small, but dumb miracle.
I disagree. I think it is very relevant. In fact, most advertisements use 'sex' and females to advertise a product. Sex is very relevant to the world today.
Secondly, if you look at the world - a lot of females are judged by their appearances above all else. When considering whether you want to marry a woman - you seriously don't expect anyone to believe that looks isn't going to play a MAJOR factor in whether or not you want to marry someone. Females are judged by their looks. Sexist? If by sexist you mean recognising that men and women are judged on different things by people and recognising the fact that 90% of men judge women based on their looks.
Uh....
You mentioned an example of judging someone you want to marry or date based on their appearances...
Do you really judge the people who you want to vote for on physical appearances? I understand judging a potential mate on their physical appearances, but a politician? How on earth could that possibly be a good idea?
Actually, physical attractiveness correlates positively with leadership ability, intelligence, good character and good health, all of which are rather important attributes for the "leader of the free world".
Just saying.
People up in arms about libertarians wanting to repeal the civil rights act. If people want to discriminate against women/blacks/hispanics/aborigines/whatever, they should have the right to do so. Economic forces will push them out of business if said discrimination is not justified. If I want to employ only (ashkenazi) jews, have sex only with jews, befriend only jews, then I should have the right to do so.
Well I've never heard of physical attractiveness actually correlating with intelligence or good character in a significant way, but there is the Halo Effect, which means people attribute good traits with more good traits. So when we see good-looking people we tend to assume they're nicer, happier, smarter people simply because we associate Good Things together. I don't know how you'd do a study on "good character," so the studies were probably doing it on the perception of others.
Think of the way people idolize their heroes and see past their rather glaring flaws.
People claim that market forces will push out discriminatory practices. I'm not convinced that is true though. If anything I think it could lead to legitimizing discriminatory practices socially. I don't see any reason why that would make society progress in any way.
The real kicker for this is that Washington D.C. left the states and businesses alone for over a century, allowing them to make the changes on their own. "Market forces" did little to correct the injustice, and instead perpetuated a culture of segregation and inequality. Local business would have to fight local culture in order to expand customer base (which wasn't possible alone), and national retailers could always continue segregation the same way states did, with specified sections. The result was a large group of people grew up indoctrinated with the idea that this is how it is supposed to be, and in turn forced it to be after growing up.
As for today, the U.S. is still trying to correct the injustice served to minorities (mainly blacks) for 200 years. It's hard to imagine that "quotas" are beneficial to society as a whole, but one also has to look at it from a perspective of how screwed up the opportunities for those same people were. We have studies showing an education that your parents or grandparents have can directly contribute to your success today. We essentially denied that lineage-based investment through culture and laws, and now there is a responsibility to correct it today. Soon it will no longer be needed, but it's definitely a Blizzard "Soon™" and not a 3 year old's "soon."
(I'm definitely aware of how unpopular this opinion will be in this topic.)
Ron Paul is the best answer for America. Why? Because Ron Paul isn't being controlled by someone else.
I'm tired of the Government lying to us to make the rich richer and to fuck the US over for their own gain. I'm tired of us always being at fucking war. Why not use the soldiers back in the US to help rebuild?
If Ron Paul isn't the nominee, then Obama is for sure going to win again. They're all fucking cheating anyways against Ron Paul. They're scared of him and what he's going to do. He's going to stop their empire.
A couple fun facts; Obama has put the US in the same state as Germany back before WWII. Hitler put Germany under Martial Law before shit went crazy.
Iran is bullshit and ANYONE wanting to invade Iran is calling for WWIII because China and Russia will kindly tell us to "GTFO"
Obama was the one who wanted the NDAA amended to affect all US citizens as well. Not the Senate.
On January 09 2012 11:38 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I don't like Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. His isolationism is dangerous, IMO. Domestically he's almost perfect though...
I don't like Romney! I'm starting to think we should go full circle and come back to Perry.
Everyone outside of America can plainly see that the US' intervention and meddling in other countries has put them in more danger, not less.
The same was thought when the Nazis were killing the Jews in the 30s. It was better not to get involved in europe, just let them take care of their own business. Ron Paul would like to go back to this mentality.
Also, take a look at this ABC "match-o-matic." It matches the best candidate to the answers of a quiz you can take. Some of the questions are pretty stupid, and they either have no good answers or answers that are too similar, but it is still mildly entertaining.
On January 10 2012 01:06 Ab0miNaTioN_BoB wrote: How can we help others if we cannot help ourselves?
That's completely disingenuous. First of all, helping others does help ourselves. Secondly, we can always do better. You can literally always say this to justify never helping anyone.
Quite frankly, America's meddling in others affairs ensures that pretty much no one else is going to go to war. Even India/Pakistan, China/Taiwan, Middle East stuff. They don't want to go to war because America will step in. This is a good thing. That means if America doesn't go to war, then there is no war. Military should be last resort, but that doesn't mean we can't influence countries diplomatically, politically, and economically.
EPT
