patrick.net

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

Clearly, for example, when I claimed that there is no “right” to serve in the armed forces, my evidence from the law stating that very thing was not considered strong enough evidence to back up my fact

The whole “right” vs. “privilege” discussion is rubbish too. The issue isn’t whether you have a “right” to serve in the military. It’s whether you can arbitrary prohibit someone from serving solely because of their sex.

The description of something as a "right" is a loaded word, which can mean quite a bit in any debate and it should be used correctly. Describe it as a "right" and then you can accuse the other side of "denying rights." Such an accusation should be done correctly. Do you disagree?

Someone else claimed that there was a "right" to serve. All I did was simply clarify the fact on whether it was a "right" or not. (Note that I mentioned nothing about whether I think women should serve and how: my own opinion is somewhat in the middle of the two extremes expressed here). One can argue that it SHOULD be a right: that is a different matter. But to argue that it IS a right, is wrong.

Tenouncetrout says

I’d like it noted for the record, that 90% of the racial epitaphs I’ve seen of Obama to date.
Have come from Liberals on this board posting them.
News Flash, just because crap is on the internet, doesn’t mean everyone has seen it, or more importantly…
“Have to see it.”

dude .. .stop messing up their great attempt at race-baiting with facts!! yer harshin their buzz bro

Paralithodes says

The description of something as a “right” is a loaded word, which can mean quite a bit in any debate and it should be used correctly. Describe it as a “right” and then you can accuse the other side of “denying rights.” Such an accusation should be done correctly. Do you disagree?

I don't know--it depends on what your definition of a "right" is. What do you consider to be ones' "rights"?

Are the only Real Americans that love their country and able to see Marxists the white folks? I suppose it's like those glasses in "They Live" (great John Carpenter flick).

Interviews of Glenn Beck fans might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

tatupu70 says

The issue isn’t whether you have a “right” to serve in the military. It’s whether you can arbitrary prohibit someone from serving solely because of their sex.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

The description of something as a “right” is a loaded word, which can mean quite a bit in any debate and it should be used correctly. Describe it as a “right” and then you can accuse the other side of “denying rights.” Such an accusation should be done correctly. Do you disagree?

I don’t know–it depends on what your definition of a “right” is. What do you consider to be ones’ “rights”?

It has nothing to do with my definition. It has more to do with the philosophy of the founders and the idea of "natural rights." These were essentially inherent things that the government could not take away. This is what the Declaration of Independence was based on. That is why with one technical exception, all of the first 10 amendments are not written to grant people rights, but written as restrictions on the government from stepping on the rights that the people are assumed to already have. Certainly our country violated some of those very rights right from the beginning, and certainly there are debates about continued violations of natural rights today, based on changes in culture.

Unfortunately, I personally cannot articulate it much better than that, and it seems easier to define what a right is not (unless this is a board of professional historians and/or political scientists, I am an amateur like most of the rest of you). There may be an obligation or responsibility of society to provide health care, but there can not be a "natural right" to receive a product or service from someone else, because to assume so is to assume that someone else's rights can be violated by forcing them to provide it. There may be a natural right to free association, but there is no natural right to join any organization because that violates the former. There may be a right to keep and bear arms, but there is no right to be given an actual weapon. There may be a right to seek employment with the Federal government (whether civilian or military), but there is no natural right to have the Federal government provide you with a job.

As far as the military: All laws and regulations regarding the military are the developed by Congress, per its authority and responsibility in the Constitution. Congress determines who is eligible to join and who is not, and for what jobs. Military officers, in particular, take an oath that underlies the idea that it is a priviledge, not a right, to serve. As far as uniformed members, the laws "violate" numerous other existing social protection laws, such as the ADEA, the ADA, etc. And even in the civilian world (whether government or private sector), each of these laws, including any civil rights law, has exceptions: NONE are universal.

Troy confuses rights with obligations, responsibilities, or privledges. There may be a right to defend your country, but the people have no more "right" to serve in the armed forces as they have a "right" to be provided with any other Federal employment. Furthermore, every Supreme Court, whether conservative "activist" or liberal "activist" has recognized that "rights" can still have reasonable restrictions, e.g., the common example that you don't have a "right" to yell "Fire" in a theater, etc."

Troy, just curious, what is your stance on the 2nd and 10th amendments?

Vicente says

Are the only Real Americans that love their country and able to see Marxists the white folks? I suppose it’s like those glasses in “They Live” (great John Carpenter flick).
Interviews of Glenn Beck fans might help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

LOL... Anyone with three minutes can post links to numerous Tea Party protests that refute what you are showing here - or at least highlight that you are simply picking and choosing...

Given that most of the large anti-war rallies were actually organized by Marxists (International ANSWER, World Workers Party, etc.), and protesters actually carried signs with these organizations' - and others' - names on the bottom, along with plenty of other socialist or communist signs or propaganda, I guess that proves unequivocably that any accusation that protesters were all socialist/communist is true?

Paralithodes says

There may be an obligation or responsibility of society to provide health care, but there can not be a “natural right” to receive a product or service from someone else, because to assume so is to assume that someone else’s rights can be violated by forcing them to provide it.

Interesting post. I have to disagree with the above portion though. I don't think forcing a Dr. to provide healthcare violates his rights. Does forcing an autoworker to come in on Sat. violate his rights?

The idea is what rights the government can or cannot step on. If the government forced an auto worker to come in on Saturday at the proverbial point of a gun: Certainly - it would be involuntary servitude. What right would the government have to tell private citizens working for private companies when they must show up for work unrelated to the government?

On the other hand, if the autoworker worked specifically for the government, say in a government maintenance fleet, then it is a condition of employment: the employee could be disciplined or fired just like any civilian job...

Right--and if it was a condition of the Drs. employment that he must treat every patient, then it should be OK..

@Paralithodes

I am rarely inclined to agree with a conservative, even tangentially, but I'd agree here:

Health care provision by the government to its citizens isn't a "natural right".

A "natural right" is concept born out of some fictitious Neverwhere, summoned from the mind of some deep-thoughtist in order to gain some perspective in forming a timeline / family tree / conceptual map in regards to the origin of social and ethical norms - and it's somewhere in that family is the concept of rights, both "natural" and otherwise. The skeptic in me says that when thought experiments have to suffice to prove an issue, it's probably the case that no actual evidence could be found.

But let's continue to look at this special family of rights. I mean, really, are they useful, or just fancy-nancy name-tags? Well, natural rights had a point: throughout the course of the Enlightenment, the European intelligentsia found themselves needing to use the big and booming religious language in order to dodge ecclesiastical attacks that sought to snuff out the formative sparks of the cultural revolts against the reigning feudal authorities, since it was esentially religious language which bound them to the service of the feudal state.

More to the point, since religion isn't the core material of society anymore, the need to show the geneological relationship of rights to the divine in order to ground them (and claim them as rights endowed to us from on high) can be tossed out like so many articles of fast food waste and hastily-filled pharmacy receipts are thrown out of Rush's car window.

So, this entire conversation is moot.

Now if we want to call health care provision a "civil" right/duty...

fredMG says

A lot of the fear mongering you hear is because there is an audience for that. From personal experience I know several older white people that are actually afraid of Obama. They legitimately think he wants to destroy this country. I don’t think you can accurately quantify how much of that is because he is black. If Hillary had become president you would still hear Beck, Rush going on about how Liberals are trying to impose a socialist/communist state.
But lets be clear, Beck, Rush, Hannity, Olberman are in it for the money, fame, power. They do not give a shit about the “disadvantaged” or the “future of this great country” or “republican or democratic values” If tomorrow all the talk radio listeners dropped Rush/Hanity and listened to a new libertarian talk radio host what would you expect to hear from Rush the next day:
A.) Republican values are what makes this country great, I will never become a libertarian.
B.) I have always agreed with almost all of the libertarian values. It is really just minor differences of wording between the Republicans and Libertarians.

I totally agree, and regardless of race any democratic president would have faced the same rhetoric.

fredMG says

Paralithodes represents a lot of Rush listeners. They can only think simple and absolute terms of Good/BAD:
Liberals==”Elite Socialist and Communists” (BAD)
Conservatives==”Real Americans that stand by the Constitution” (GOOD)
It make thinking much easier for him because he doesn’t have to defend George Bush/Sarah Palin or any of the other completely incompetent Republicans. Because every criticism of republicans and be rebutted with “well at least George Bush wasn’t trying to turn us into Communist China”
the other side is full of people who don’t think for themselves either:
Just ask a hardcore Obama supporter to name an issue where they disagree with the president. You will get some blank looks and probably some comment about George Bush being the worst president ever.

Finally someone with common sense statements.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

I admit to being one of those evil conservatives: probably only get my news from Rush, probably barely got my HS degree, maybe even work a blue collar job, watch NASCAR, and have a red neck.

Wow–does someone have a chip on their shoulder or what? I don’t recall anyone here implying that…

Teddy Says: "I think NOMO did....paralides just leans arch-conservative along with RAYAMERICA and me....he just doesnt know how to bullet point the facts yet."

Tenouncetrout says

I’d like it noted for the record, that 90% of the racial epitaphs I’ve seen of Obama to date.
Have come from Liberals on this board posting them.
News Flash, just because crap is on the internet, doesn’t mean everyone has seen it, or more importantly…
“Have to see it.”

Your wrongh, we need to make those aware of these statements that are being made about our president. It wasnt acceptable for Bush and its not acceptable for President Obama.

Bap33 says

Tenouncetrout says

I’d like it noted for the record, that 90% of the racial epitaphs I’ve seen of Obama to date.
Have come from Liberals on this board posting them.
News Flash, just because crap is on the internet, doesn’t mean everyone has seen it, or more importantly…
“Have to see it.”

dude .. .stop messing up their great attempt at race-baiting with facts!! yer harshin their buzz bro

Teddy Says: ...just really who is the race baitor BAP33. Read your own words below and I quote:

1. BAP33 Says: “crack addicted single mother of 5 (each with a different daddy) that is a 6th generations-removed slave”

2. BAP33 Says: "I have no remorse for the losers of a war that were made slaves instead of killed in battle. That is where the black slave sellers of Africa got the slaves they sold to slave traders … they gathered them up like bounty. Another silly racist. Blacks made slaves out of blacks. Go get ‘em."

3. BAP33 Says: "So, with the debt being secured by the home, and without all of the free loans pumping money into the hands of landscapers named Pedro to come along and by the house from me for 150% more than I paid, I just don’t see me leveraging up. "

Those statement show you have no empathy towards BLACKS or MEXICANS. Your the race baitor...BILLY BOB

"

oh contre' ...
#1) RE #3: Mexican is not a race, and I did not mention Mexican. You did.
#2) RE #2: what say you? Care to argue fact? No, you do not because you are a race-baitor.
#3) Who is you to demand empathy from anyone towards anyone?

And now, you really must share how you know when a person is to be called "black'. How much "black" is required by you, and can I see the scale/ruler you use? Who picked the shade/DNA mix/features required to qualify to be deemed "black" by you? Mr. Baitor, we are ready for your response. Your answer will help you reflect on the past, and how #1 above already made you look like the silly race-baitor you are.

Are you that suprized that Lord Barry was even worse than expected? Neither are we.

Jrbows: prove it!

Bap33 says

oh contre’ …
#1) RE #3: Mexican is not a race, and I did not mention Mexican. You did.
#2) RE #2: what say you? Care to argue fact? No, you do not because you are a race-baitor.
#3) Who is you to demand empathy from anyone towards anyone?
And now, you really must share how you know when a person is to be called “black’. How much “black” is required by you, and can I see the scale/ruler you use? Who picked the shade/DNA mix/features required to qualify to be deemed “black” by you? Mr. Baitor, we are ready for your response. Your answer will help you reflect on the past, and how #1 above already made you look like the silly race-baitor you are.
Are you that suprized that Lord Barry was even worse than expected? Neither are we.

Stop speakin in CODE:

PEDRO = ?
MEXIFORNIA = ?
GARDNER = ?
crack addicted single mother of 5 (each with a different daddy) that is a 6th generations-removed slave = ?

If that isnt code coming from a redneck then I dont know what is, these are all terms that you have used to refer to people of various cultures. They hold very subtle hints of negative imagery and you always use them interjected into a bunch of arch-conservative rehtoric based on the calls of sending mexicans back to Mexico so that you can free your little piece of Europe in BAKERSFIELD of all immigrant workers. You have explicitly stated that you hate living around the "migrant workers' and "pedros" who hang on the corners in bakersfield.

We should never imply that Mexicans should go back to Mexico since this is really their land...invaded by Spanish conquistadors and USA manifest destiny thrillseekers hunting for gold.

...and the room goes silent.

Code? As in Morse Code? dah dit dah dit, dah dah dit dah

I'm a Ham (40 years licensed) and a former morse code interceptor. (don't ask or I'll have to shoot you....LOL)

…and the room goes silent.

Generally speaking, if there is one type of person a liberal such as yourself hates more than a white conservative, it is a black conservative ... All while claiming there is a conservative racist under every bed.

No... good liberals do not hate and skin color is and a non issue. Wake up to your true self and BE real.

rileybryan says

B.O. appealed to me because he was a Math major

wut? Poli Sci.

Instead he gave those that cheated financially a blank check

He what?

He promised to end the patriot act

Nope.

"As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision."

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/CounterterrorismFactSheet.pdf

He never said anything about giving billions to the banks during the election.

Having the entire financial system melt down into a puddle in his first six months would not have been a good way to get recovery going in his first or second terms. Assuming we still had a democracy in 2012.

The monetary support to banks has been through paying interest on reserves (starting in late 2008) and purchasing preferred stock -- not "giving" them money per se. The true gifts happened mostly in 2008 when AIG's counterparties were made whole with US funds.

by moving the whole thing to Afghanistan

I was against going in like we did in 2001, but I don't pretend to have an answer to the present problem other than not to kill people accidentally. It's progress that the command now publically shares this viewpoint, they really didn't under the previous admin.

Unlike you, as a left-libertarian I realize that the choice I make every four years isn't between butterscotch and chocolate, it's between some really bad actors and some usually OK ones that even get some things right occasionally, like Obama reversing the Fed enforcement of Federal marijuana laws that are counter to state law.

Paralithodes says

.....there is a conservative racist under every bed.

Not under mine, I just checked. Found that missing sock though.

Libertarianism is like communism. It all SOUNDS good on paper. When certain libertarian policies are enacted, the greed monkeys take over and parts of the economic system collapse. Most of our recent major financial calamities, including events like the Savings and Loan debacle, are strongly connected to deregulation. Allowing parts of our economic system to "run free" and "self-regulate" didn't turn out to be the utopia predicted by certain think tank academics and bloviating politicians. But there is no way in hell you will get any of them to say, "Oh, government regulation and enforcement of that regulation is needed in order for the system to be trustworthy and sustainable." People like Rush Limbaugh and Rush Hannity would prefer to create an alternative universe where liberals, big government, ACORN, the ACLU, Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi must somehow be completely responsible for our economy almost nose-diving into a credit-frozen depression. Unregulated free market capitalism was a 19th century nightmare. Regulated free market capitalism is the great 20th century compromise. Let's not go back to the 19th century.

Paralithodes says

…and the room goes silent.
Generally speaking, if there is one type of person a liberal such as yourself hates more than a white conservative, it is a black conservative … All while claiming there is a conservative racist under every bed.

Ummm...I am a conservative-progressive. The term liberal implies anything goes (homosexuality, thugism, drugs, abortion). I am progressive....meanng that I vote for socialist agendas that improve our quality of life. If you dont want to live in a society that is part socialist then try living in Mexico or any country on the continent of Africa, South America.

rileybryan says

4X says

rileybryan says

I say shame on Left-Wingers in denial for pulling the race card every chance they get. This guys policy sucks. period.

This guy is cleaning up your guys mess….LMAO. WTF you gonna say now, huh?

I say that you are indeed a bigot.
Because I say I’m not pro-bama, you assume I am something I am not.
Truth is, I’m a Libertarian, and I am completely unrepresented at a national level. I love freedom, whether I find it revolting or not. I support the right to an abortion, the right to own a firearm, and free speech (like saying “bomb” in an airport), and I support everybodys right to do pretty much whatever they want, as long as it isn’t harming others. I believe the rights that are CLEARLY worded in the constitution have been debated and manipulated to a point of no return.
Barack Obama was an enigma. Generally I vote third party because I don’t respect either party enough to represent my interests. However, B.O. appealed to me because he was a Math major, and promised fiscal responisiblity. Instead he gave those that cheated financially a blank check. He promised to end the patriot act, but instead signed on it to keep it going. The man I saw during the election has become the shill that I hoped he was not.
I shouldn’t have to tell you how much I loathe banks. For this jerk to propose fiscal responsiblity by writing those jerks a blank check… its like punching me in the balls 100 times, then the face 100 times, and then taking my wallet and shitting in my car. He never said anything about giving billions to the banks during the election.
Then he fulfills his promise to wind down the war in Iraq, by moving the whole thing to Afghanistan. ARRRGH. Watch Rambo 3, this is a terrible idea.
From my point of view, this man lied to me to get in office, and now currently represents 100% the corrupt powers that are truly in control of this country. And so will the next president, despite poilitical affiliation, because the office of president is bought and paid for.

This post is not directed toward you...I clearly stated that Limbaugh and his supporters are speaking in code. If you feel that you have used code aimed at our president then this includes you too. I can agree that I was dissappointed with all of the bailouts, after his rhetoric on working against the Washington machine. However, how else would we prevent the total collapse of another industry if not by investing in that industry.

This is not the first time a bailout has been given. Where was all your anger when these bailouts were given?

1930s - Great Depression
1979 - Chrysler Corporation
1984 - Continental Illinois[3]
1990 - Japan, from the United States of America.
1991 - Executive Life Insurance Company, by states assessing other insurers
1998 - Long-Term Capital Management, by banks and investment houses, not government (see LTCM page).
2003 - Parmalat
2008 - The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.
2008 - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
2008 - The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. bailed out by the federal government and Berkshire Hathaway
2008 - Morgan Stanley bailed out by The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ
2008-2009 - American International Group, Inc. multiple times
2008 - Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008[16

Troy says

rileybryan says

B.O. appealed to me because he was a Math major

wut? Poli Sci.
Instead he gave those that cheated financially a blank check
He what?
He promised to end the patriot act
Nope.
“As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.”
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/CounterterrorismFactSheet.pdf
He never said anything about giving billions to the banks during the election.
Having the entire financial system melt down into a puddle in his first six months would not have been a good way to get recovery going in his first or second terms. Assuming we still had a democracy in 2012.
The monetary support to banks has been through paying interest on reserves (starting in late 2008) and purchasing preferred stock — not “giving” them money per se. The true gifts happened mostly in 2008 when AIG’s counterparties were made whole with US funds.
by moving the whole thing to Afghanistan
I was against going in like we did in 2001, but I don’t pretend to have an answer to the present problem other than not to kill people accidentally. It’s progress that the command now publically shares this viewpoint, they really didn’t under the previous admin.
Unlike you, as a left-libertarian I realize that the choice I make every four years isn’t between butterscotch and chocolate, it’s between some really bad actors and some usually OK ones that even get some things right occasionally, like Obama reversing the Fed enforcement of Federal marijuana laws that are counter to state law.

Exactly, he should have just ignored conventional wisdom and the successes/failures of the 15 other bailouts prior.

I am finding the responses to this post interesting because those who are angered by it seem to be adminiting guilt to using code when referrring to the president. Others read it and know that it doesnt apply to them. You can tell who the arch-conservatives are because the respond with name calling.

LMAO

rileybryan says

wow. I really don’t know how to explain the math major thing. I read that online, I assumed it was true, I never double checked it, and I used it as a large basis of my voting decision. Now I like him even less.
He gave those that cheated a blank check- By this I mean those that took high risk loans and sold them as AAA quality investments, shedding the risk onto unsuspecting folks who were looking for a safe investment. aka BANKS. This is legalized fraud.
He may have said “revisit” the patriot act, but people were upset by the warrentless wiretaps and the democrats were definitely playing the anti-patriot act card. I expected anti-patriot act behavior. I got a third somebody breathing on the other end of my cellphone.
And yes, the dems are on the right side of MJ reform, they need to legalize & tax this ASAP.

yep...i was really peeved that he was given out 8K tax credits and bailouts but somehow he had to slow the recession. Not sure how....but it seems to be the only way to go about.

rileybryan says

He gave those that cheated a blank check- By this I mean those that took high risk loans and sold them as AAA quality investments, shedding the risk onto unsuspecting folks who were looking for a safe investment. aka BANKS. This is legalized fraud.

And--just for the record, most of the bailouts were passed under Bush.

4X says

Paralithodes says

…and the room goes silent.

Generally speaking, if there is one type of person a liberal such as yourself hates more than a white conservative, it is a black conservative … All while claiming there is a conservative racist under every bed.

Ummm…I am a conservative-progressive. The term liberal implies anything goes (homosexuality, thugism, drugs, abortion). I am progressive….meanng that I vote for socialist agendas that improve our quality of life. If you dont want to live in a society that is part socialist then try living in Mexico or any country on the continent of Africa, South America.

Is that like a capitalist-communist?

Like Venezuela? How is all that working out?

Paralithodes says

Is that like a capitalist-communist?
Like Venezuela? How is all that working out?

or is it China?

Kevin says

The most telling thing about how people feel about Obama is that they always refer to him as “Mr. Obama”, rarely “President Obama”. Previous presidents were always “President xxx” or “Mr. President”. It’s subtle, but effective.

This was a very common complaint from the right when GWB was very frequently and cmmonly referred to as "Mr. Bush." It may or may not be a valid concern, but it is nothing new.

tatupu70 says

rileybryan says

He gave those that cheated a blank check- By this I mean those that took high risk loans and sold them as AAA quality investments, shedding the risk onto unsuspecting folks who were looking for a safe investment. aka BANKS. This is legalized fraud.

And–just for the record, most of the bailouts were passed under Bush.

True. Generally speaking conservatives were against it. Its pretty obvious that Bush was no fiscal conservative. Few believed that McCain would have been one either.

.

Paralithodes says

4X says

Paralithodes says

…and the room goes silent.

Generally speaking, if there is one type of person a liberal such as yourself hates more than a white conservative, it is a black conservative … All while claiming there is a conservative racist under every bed.

Ummm…I am a conservative-progressive. The term liberal implies anything goes (homosexuality, thugism, drugs, abortion). I am progressive….meanng that I vote for socialist agendas that improve our quality of life. If you dont want to live in a society that is part socialist then try living in Mexico or any country on the continent of Africa, South America.

Is that like a capitalist-communist?
Like Venezuela? How is all that working out?

no, its someone who is ok with socialism yet wants conservative fiscal policy...umm, like TEDDY ROOSEVELT. You should read up on American history before making political commentary like such.

Paralithodes says

Kevin says

The most telling thing about how people feel about Obama is that they always refer to him as “Mr. Obama”, rarely “President Obama”. Previous presidents were always “President xxx” or “Mr. President”. It’s subtle, but effective.

This was a very common complaint from the right when GWB was very frequently and cmmonly referred to as “Mr. Bush.” It may or may not be a valid concern, but it is nothing new.

Mostly it is nothing.

Paralithodes says

tatupu70 says

rileybryan says

He gave those that cheated a blank check- By this I mean those that took high risk loans and sold them as AAA quality investments, shedding the risk onto unsuspecting folks who were looking for a safe investment. aka BANKS. This is legalized fraud.

And–just for the record, most of the bailouts were passed under Bush.

True. Generally speaking conservatives were against it. Its pretty obvious that Bush was no fiscal conservative. Few believed that McCain would have been one either.

That is because both parties now share the same values: PROTECT BIG BUSINESS