On October 16 2007 11:41 travis wrote: so many people are so fucking clueless, christ it's so sad
yeah triangleman, he's managed to make it as an honest congressman since 1976, and yet obviously if he was president we'd immediately have a horrific depression overnight.
WHY DO SO MANY OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CLUE
Well we wouldn't have a depression overnight cause he wouldn't get anything done;p
But being an honest congressman for 30 years doesn't have much to do with his policies;p
I would rather have a president that accomplishes nothing and polices the rest of the government than any other presidential candidate.
I don't think Ron Paul would make a bad president, but I would prefer Mike Gravel.
watch the recent democratic debate on msnbc and you will see how much of a retard gravel is. All his answers were just ridiculous.
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
Speaking of the democratic debates... check this out. Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran. Watch how the democrat audience and Hillary Clinton respond.
On October 16 2007 11:41 travis wrote: so many people are so fucking clueless, christ it's so sad
yeah triangleman, he's managed to make it as an honest congressman since 1976, and yet obviously if he was president we'd immediately have a horrific depression overnight.
WHY DO SO MANY OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CLUE
Well we wouldn't have a depression overnight cause he wouldn't get anything done;p
But being an honest congressman for 30 years doesn't have much to do with his policies;p
I would rather have a president that accomplishes nothing and polices the rest of the government than any other presidential candidate.
I don't think Ron Paul would make a bad president, but I would prefer Mike Gravel.
watch the recent democratic debate on msnbc and you will see how much of a retard gravel is. All his answers were just ridiculous.
That's a compelling argument. Thanks for enlightening me!
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
what do you mean
the only instance up to interpretation is this
the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest'
this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary. you can understand his theory of labor to be derivative or at least justified by/based on the idea of self ownership.
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
what do you mean
the only instance up to interpretation is this
the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest'
this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary.
Your post implied that Locke jumped directly from justifying self ownership to using self ownership to justify private property.
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
what do you mean
the only instance up to interpretation is this
the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest'
this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary.
Your post implied that Locke jumped directly from justifying self ownership to using self ownership to justify private property.
only to an audience with no grasp of his theory. quite obviously, to locke, if his theory of self ownership fails, so does his theory of labor and so on, then it is fair to say his theory of property is an extension. i did not try to trace his argument as it is, just a critical overview. lockean theory of property acquires its natural law characteristic largely from the natural impression of self ownership, so drawing this connection is hardly improper.
On October 16 2007 13:46 Vigilante wrote: Speaking of the democratic debates... check this out. Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran. Watch how the democrat audience and Hillary Clinton respond.
On October 16 2007 13:46 Vigilante wrote: Speaking of the democratic debates... check this out. Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran. Watch how the democrat audience and Hillary Clinton respond.
On October 16 2007 13:46 Vigilante wrote: Speaking of the democratic debates... check this out. Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran. Watch how the democrat audience and Hillary Clinton respond.
Ron Paul is brilliant - the closest to Steve Forbes America can get these days. I'm sick of the bloody Democrats hijacking the term 'liberal' for their own purposes, when they are pro-State intervention in the free market and high taxes.
"In his 2000 campaign, Forbes professed his support for social conservatism along with his supply-side economics. Despite holding opposite positions in 1996, for the 2000 campaign, Forbes announced he was adamantly opposed to abortion and supported prayer in public schools. The previous year Forbes had issued a statement saying he would no longer donate money to Princeton University due to its hiring of philosopher Peter Singer"
yea, let's protest an academic philosopher with moneyz! please get real.
On October 15 2007 22:57 MoltkeWarding wrote: As you may recall, about a week ago there was a CNBC hosted republican debate after which, like every other televised debate, there was an online poll on who the public believed the winner was.
A few moments after the poll went online, CNBC deleted the poll from their website and any trace of it. Why? Of the 7000 people who cast their ballots thus far, Ron Paul won 75 percent of the vote.
Ron Paul has been winning internet/Text messaging votes since the fox debate half a year ago. In case you have forgotten, here is Fox's attempt to downplay or explain away Paul's SMS poll win:
While Reuters places Paul at a meagre 3%, straw polls, online polls, political rallies and meetup groups would suggest that rather than the 2nd tier candidate which CNN or Fox News places him to be, Paul is a first tier candidate, and the only republican candidate whose support is mushrooming every week.
However, the television channels still pretend that this support does not exist and continue living in a Giuliani/Thompson/Romney world.
Here is CNBC's explaination on why it pulled the poll:
I hate conspiracy theories, but there does by all standards seems to be an attempt to stamp down Paul's candidacy. I still don't understand why.
Sure you do. He is likely not an Establishment player or is perceived to represent non-Establishment causes/values which amounts to the same thing. He did run on a Libertarian Party platform in the '80s afterall. What could be more threatening to the current prehistoric political system in Washington than someone who may actually believe democracy means the acceptance of a plurality of opinions (as opposed to just two - Democratic or Republican)?
There is little room for non-Establishment outsiders in the political economy of the United States. No conspiracy necessary. It is simply the nature of the game, in the same way that collusion is not necessary to have two supposedly different news organizations happening to do a story on the same event (to the exclusion of other equally worthwhile stories), or separate businesses all adopting substantially the same set of corporate strategies to maximize profits and increase shareholder value.
On October 16 2007 13:46 Vigilante wrote: Speaking of the democratic debates... check this out. Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran. Watch how the democrat audience and Hillary Clinton respond.
I'm pretty sure she was laughing at his riduculous answer to the original question. Its been a while since I took government but I am quite sure what he was saying is utterly retarded. How will Hilary and Obama force the senate to vote 40 days in a row. You cannot simply end the debates by voting. The vote is only possible when the debates are over. Unless the bill is suported by a supermajority which is required to end a filibuster, the debates will continue. And 40 days??? Why 40 days? Obviously his alluding to Lent. Tim points out the ubsurdity in his response and Gravel responds with "if it stops the killing YES!" Sensationalism. All his answers were quite stupid in this debate actually.
Its kind of surprising that all the comments on youtube and even here deals with Hilary's laugh. Yea its pretty creepy, but I was laughing my damn self at Gravel's response.
edit: Ohh mensrea is back. I always liked his intellegent posts.
On October 16 2007 14:09 oneofthem wrote: oh lawd.
steve forbes?
"In his 2000 campaign, Forbes professed his support for social conservatism along with his supply-side economics. Despite holding opposite positions in 1996, for the 2000 campaign, Forbes announced he was adamantly opposed to abortion and supported prayer in public schools. The previous year Forbes had issued a statement saying he would no longer donate money to Princeton University due to its hiring of philosopher Peter Singer"
yea, let's protest an academic philosopher with moneyz! please get real.
That was the most pathetic and unsubstantiated post I've ever seen. What opposite position? From my knowledge he always advocated low taxes and based his view on abortion from the libertarian perspective of the unborn child (that a child has the right to life without interference). And your second point was stupid - it's his money he can donate it however the heck he wants, what's your retarded problem?
Edit: I just realised you'd taken that straight from Wikipedia, so basically you don't even know what (if any) contradictory stances he took in 1996 and 2000. Sure he changed the relevant tax rates and home buying mortgage rates in line with economic conditions over four years (eg. the Asian economic crises which affected trade worldwide), but it is nowhere near taking an 'opposite' stance (implying a flip-flop in ideology). The referenced link doesn't even show that he supported any other tax position or abortion in 1996 - it simply links to his withdrawal of funding from Princeton because he is against abortion. I would very highly doubt that someone like him would have had any different economic or social position in 1996. It's ignorant idiots like you who lower the standard of political debate with your participation when you don't even know what you're talking about.
On October 16 2007 14:25 gameguard wrote: Its kind of surprising that all the comments on youtube and even here deals with Hilary's laugh. Yea its pretty creepy, but I was laughing my damn self at Gravel's response.
no kidding, she's 60 years old. media picks apart at any insignificant flaw in a person until 60 year old ladies can't even laugh on camera? there's such bigger fish to fry... the tabloid stands are that way folks get the fuck out of politics if this is what you want to focus on.
On October 16 2007 13:46 Vigilante wrote: Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran.
what? wasn't the bill just "calling for a detailed report on the role Iran plays in equipping and funding terrorists in Iraq."
On October 16 2007 14:09 oneofthem wrote: oh lawd.
steve forbes?
"In his 2000 campaign, Forbes professed his support for social conservatism along with his supply-side economics. Despite holding opposite positions in 1996, for the 2000 campaign, Forbes announced he was adamantly opposed to abortion and supported prayer in public schools. The previous year Forbes had issued a statement saying he would no longer donate money to Princeton University due to its hiring of philosopher Peter Singer"
yea, let's protest an academic philosopher with moneyz! please get real.
That was the most pathetic and unsubstantiated post I've ever seen. What opposite position? From my knowledge he always advocated low taxes and based his view on abortion from the libertarian perspective of the unborn child (that a child has the right to life without interference). And your second point was stupid - it's his money he can donate it however the heck he wants, what's your retarded problem?
Edit: I just realised you'd taken that straight from Wikipedia, so basically you don't even know what (if any) contradictory stances he took in 1996 and 2000. Sure he changed the relevant tax rates and home buying mortgage rates in line with economic conditions over four years (eg. the Asian economic crises which affected trade worldwide), but it is nowhere near taking an 'opposite' stance (implying a flip-flop in ideology). The referenced link doesn't even show that he supported any other tax position or abortion in 1996 - it simply links to his withdrawal of funding from Princeton because he is against abortion. I would very highly doubt that someone like him would have had any different economic or social position in 1996. It's ignorant idiots like you who lower the standard of political debate with your participation when you don't even know what you're talking about.
hahaha my retarded problem is that he is using his money for reactionary and unenlightened causes. further, my retarded problem is a commitment to progressive humanism and concern for the future development of the healthy human community. surely such retarded causes must be unworthy of your inspired sensibilities.
i am not interested in forbes, just the interesting event of someone holding him up to be a good political idol. if you want to talk about how being a starting partner of PNAC is a good thing, go ahead.