| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
<MikeyD> eh
<FreeTrade> I basically agree with the libertarians on the issue of personal liberty. As a general philosophy. I dont literally agree with everything they say though once I almost did.
<jhicks> MikeyD: this is why i would love to see a 100 year plan for population reduction.
<DeDannan> Lupine, I think Maxwell Smart had something like that
<MikeyD> the only morality the government should be concerned with is people respecting other peoples individual rights and liberties
<MikeyD> regardless if they agree with it
<FreeTrade> Jhicks, this country desperately needs population growth.
<MikeyD> ****, are you kidding me
<jhicks> FreeTrade: well, we need rapid advances in energy
<FreeTrade> The economy will falter in the next decade without substantial growth in the population.
<jhicks> besides petroleum
<MikeyD> im ready for us to lose a good 3rd of our population if it meant that it fixed the issues with the country
<jhicks> FreeTrade: there's too much competition for scarce resources
<jhicks> as technology stands today
<MikeyD> i just hope the 3rd we lose consists of zealots, socialists and communists
<Lupine> DeDannna: its $13995 [ if you can believe it ]
<FreeTrade> Of course, immigrants are a good way to get that popualation but before they get true citizehship, I want to make sure they understand the American history and the constitution which brought America into existance.
<CometBaby> you know I love the libertarian philosophy on individual rights but I just don't go for this "anything and everything goes" mindset. There is no right or wrong. Everything is subjective. If it feels good do it.
<DeDannan> Lupine, pretty pricey for a briefcase
<CometBaby> I don't buy into that
<FreeTrade> I dont want people from Norway bring Norwegian welfarism to our country.
<jhicks> FreeTrade: I'm worried about people with subservient cultures coming here too
<FreeTrade> bringing
<Lupine> DeD: the only reason why it is pricy is that it is a registered automatic "machine gun"..
<CometBaby> if you do .. fine .. but don't try to force that bull**** on me
<jhicks> The ones who don't mind authoritarianism
<FreeTrade> Yeah, I want to preserve the major culture of what is to be american, what it was when I grew up and the generation above me in the 50s understood.
<jhicks> yep
<jhicks> But the thing is
<DeDannan> Lupine, ah..well then every 007 wannabe should have one..
<MikeyD> if you cant buy into individual freedom then you have no business calling yourself american
<FreeTrade> more importantly the way it was understood by the enlightned leaders of history.
<jhicks> You don't get that with a huge wave of third-world immigrants.
<FreeTrade> before socialism was introduced into american government.
<MikeyD> for example, if you legalize drugs, or prostitution, does that mean everyone is suddenly going to rush out and do it?
<MikeyD> ofcorse not
<jhicks> quality > quantity
<CometBaby> MikeyD and that means you have to respect other people's right to believe what they want .. including a belief in God.
<FreeTrade> which was largely between 1940 and 1972
<CometBaby> which you don't
<MikeyD> aslong as your actions dont infringe on my right to life, liberty and property, then the same is given back
<MikeyD> im not debating on their right to believe in god
<FreeTrade> Comet I agree there, Toleration is not a one way street.
<MikeyD> try reading instead of ***uming
<Nemes> ouch
<Nemes> hehe
<MikeyD> i have issue with people using their belief in god to deprive them of their right to life, liberty or property
<FreeTrade> mikey, really you dont need to take that tone with comet, she is not the cause of any problems and she reads quite well.
<jhicks> MikeyD: you do realize it's already impossible to own real estate in the US?
<jhicks> you just rent it from the govt
<FreeTrade> jhicks, it always was in the most literal sense.
<jhicks> yeah :)
<rustyford> ohh good lord
<FreeTrade> But you can leverage real estate and make a lot of personal income from it.
<MikeyD> well yeah, thats due to them putting in parts of british common law which is why we have our current ED issues
<DeDannan> jhicks, its also impossible to live forever..here or anywhere..we only rent life...
<jhicks> Don't pay property taxes and see if the landlord doesnt evict you :)
<rustyford> wahhhwahhwahhhhh
<FreeTrade> How does common law effect ED issues ? In fact what is ED ?
<FreeTrade> I have to leave pretty damn soon
<DeDannan> reductionism is fun
<jhicks> yeah
<FreeTrade> Have an early appointment
<MikeyD> its necessary to a degree, but limitations on what they can take it for should have been more clear when they threw it in
<MikeyD> eniminent domain
<jhicks> i don't care for estate taxes either
<CometBaby> mikeyD the fact is .. you do not respect other people's right to believe in god .. and that is illustrated by the things you have been saying.
<CometBaby> [09:39] <+MikeyD> hopefully it wont be some christian zealot
<CometBaby> [09:41] <+MikeyD> it used to make no difference to me until people started using their religious thinking to trample on other people
<MikeyD> i know i didnt spell that correctly
<MikeyD> DUDE
<FreeTrade> ahh ok, Yeah I would quickly overturn the ruling just made before it is cemented as precedent.
<MikeyD> once again
<CometBaby> spelling isn't important
<MikeyD> and pay close attention
<trompe> "them putting in parts of british common law"? ... american common law was british common law at the date of settlement
<CometBaby> people should be more interested in what you say
<MikeyD> i have no issue with peoples belief in god
<MikeyD> i believe in god
<CometBaby> MikeyD .. yes you do
<rustyford> Freetrade they are p***ing a law through house and senate that will limit eminent domain
<MikeyD> the difference is i keep it to myself and dont seek to control others with what i believe
<MikeyD> you obviously do
<CometBaby> if it didn't bother you then you would not rail against them so hard
<jhicks> rustyford: yay!
<rustyford> this is just more whining over nothing
<FreeTrade> Mikey, Hopefully it wont by any kind of zealot. Some of my atheist brothers and sisters are as zealous as Pat Robertson.
<FreeTrade> Rusty, thats good. the congress needs to straighten it out if the court doesnt.
<FreeTrade> though I think the court should revisit that question.
<MikeyD> therefore, you see nothing wrong with using religion in government to seek to limit, deprive, or all out take away peoples right to life, liberty or property
<jhicks> that's their job
<CometBaby> I couldn't stand to be around anyone who was pushing religion.
<FreeTrade> Thats an example of a non conservative court, the imminent domain issue.
<CometBaby> that would alienate me quickly
<MikeyD> thats the issue, not religious believe
<MikeyD> belief
<jhicks> hrm, did gonzalez take the smocks off the statues
<jhicks> ?
<rustyford> the new law will be that no one can take your property unless its strictly for the "public good"
<FreeTrade> In fact every conservative on the court including Oconner who is a conservative. voted against it.
<rustyford> like putting a road through or something
<MikeyD> FT: and i will state, just as with any faith or nonfaith
<MikeyD> it has no place in government and should be defeated at every turn when it presents itself
<jhicks> rustyford: i hope they define "public good" accurately :)
<Nemes> you no this topic is kinda interesting really - from an englishmans point of view i mean. Coming from were I am located your 1st amendment kinda makes my eyebrows raise slighlty - especially when americans take issue with england having muslim preachers located in our country and preaching shall we say - not very pleasant rhetoric.
<FreeTrade> This is why we need a conservative court. O'conner was conservative more along the libertarian line when it came to personal liberty.
<FreeTrade> I need to run, later folks.
<trompe> rustyford: why would a government exercise its authority of eminent domain for anything other than the public good? when has it happened recently?
<MikeyD> ft: agreed
<jhicks> trompe: in New Jersety
<Nemes> because your 1st amendment basicaly lets anyone in your country spout what-ever insulting tripe they so choose to
<jhicks> er, New Jersey
<Nemes> kinda makes my eyebrows raise
<MikeyD> dude, its not us having issues with muslims
<MikeyD> its muslims having issues with everyone who isnt muslims
<DeDannan> Nemes, well..we do have laws against libel and slander..
<MikeyD> and not all muslims care bout what nonmuslims are doing
<trompe> jhicks: what's happening in New Jersey?
<jhicks> trompe: There have been issues already with developers running long-term homeowners off of desirable locations
<MikeyD> however, just as with christians, when muslims seek to impose their will upon others, thats where the issues lay
<FreeTrade> You can not libel a person in a way which causes him damage unless hes a politician and to a shorter bar, a Celebrity.
<US-Male> ahhh Miers was a fakeout
<MikeyD> brb
<FreeTrade> Yeah I am leaving, but I was closing **** down when I read that ;)
<US-Male> next one will be the real nominee
<FreeTrade> Later.
<DeDannan> and to cite an apocryphal quote of a former SC Justice, Olive Wendell Holmes "Freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre..."
<jhicks> trompe: why should someone who has a house paid for where their children were raised be forced out because some crooked developer and city council lust after their property?
<DeDannan> Oliver, even
<Nemes> DeDannan, case in point for you, recently america asked us to be more forcefull with the islamic preachers located here, and we did, we got rid of plenty of them.. but MEANWHILE in your country, idiots like fred felps and the goons at the wespra baptists church can spout all the crap and hatred they like in the states - without fear of any reprocusions.
<rustyford> trompe, go look it up instead of being a moron
<trompe> jhicks: governments can justify that with 'public good' arguments anyway
<Nemes> you no?
<Nemes> it doesnt sit right with me does that
<jhicks> trompe: leaves too much room for corruption
<Nemes> not at all.
<DeDannan> Nemes, sorry..never heard of them..them must not be spouting too much around here :)
<RustyFord> here is a hint trompe , I think the case is in M***achussettes where someones house is being taken because some developer wants to put in a mall
<trompe> jhicks: if the appropriation is required to be on just terms, then how much room for corruption can it leave?
<jhicks> trompe: the problem is, it isn't that way now
<RustyFord> it was argued because the mall will bring in more taxes than the homeowner, that it was A-ok to take the homeowners house
<jhicks> exactly
<Lupine> Nemes: Well, as much as I detest Roberts/Sharpton/Jesse Jackson.. they havn't been rallying up suicide bombers
<RustyFord> the supreme court agreed
<trompe> RustyFord: yes, no ****... but what is the problem if they receive compensation?
<jhicks> security in one's possesions
<jhicks> trompe: what about sentimental value?
<trompe> if it brings in more tax revenue, then the decision could be justified on public interest grounds
<Lupine> IMHO: if someone is forced to "sell", they should get the "As developed" worth.
Return to politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
football
rewards-alterac.html
|
|