| |
| |
| |
|
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
Comments:
<0> government largely reflects the behavior of its people. If the people are all strictly observant of a normative set of rules, then government will tend to be minimal. If not, then it'll be larger.
<1> I have always beleived the primary reason for government was national defense and federal justice.
<2> icmps: if people can't handle freedom. then the current system needs to remove freedom :)
<3> kobushi: the uber-mcdojo site http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm
<0> icmps; by having rules.
<4> Herzen bad URL for me
<0> that's right, freedom abused is freedom removed.
<0> welcome to historical truisms 101
<5> KoBushi, Sec, reposting
<2> icmps: we need a police state, otherwise people might get hurt with all their freedoms.. you know how ignorant people are - they need to be led and controlled by the smart and enlightened gentry in washington...
<6> Timur: That's only if the government was established and exists by means of absolutely direct democracy (and also limited in the populations size) .. not so in our case.
<4> Herzen hm nm must be on my end, no websites are working
<5> http://img372.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tattoo6jb.jpg
<5> Try that
<6> Our government by design is not representative of the majority of its citizens.
<1> And to not eavesdrop because of a ideological reason when we have a pragmatic imperative to do so, to my way of thinking is absurd.. Now dont take that as offense we all are expressin opinions here and we are not going to agree on everything, But that is my opinion.
<7> antifed: your sarcasm is wasted because that is exactly what they DO believe
<8> of course it isnt
<2> OcDoc: ahh.. ohwell..
<8> if it was, we wouldnt use the electoral college
<7> Free: for the umpteenth time, why can't they get wiretap permission to do that?
<0> governments are local, and the fed is merely a mostly hands-off higher level elaboration of that in most ways that are significant, except in cases that are obviously national, like security
<6> No, it really isnt.
<2> Timur: really? ever heard of the commerce clause?
<9> NK is 3rd largest millitary in world?
<0> yeah
<6> That might be true of the articles of confederation-- not so much with the constitution.
<2> Timur: yeah, the fed is real hands off.. take for instance.. the 'drug war' ..
<0> I wonder what people 'believe' who would say (revealingly) what OcDoc did
<0> the drug war is a necessary one, even if not well executed
<1> Antifed, if anyone implies a person like me wants a police state based on my 15 years of open communication on the internet and my 35 years of outspoken opinion I would take that as a great insult
<4> I have no problem with the wire tappings..
<3> OcDoc: why would going to a secret judge, of a secret court.. suddenly make a difference?
<0> but not having it would be stupid and worse
<4> I have a problem with the lack of oversight reguarding the taps
<10> w00t! Bears with their 3rd TD of the night!
<6> Timur: And I believe you are in a minority there, so how does that reflect the "wants of society" ?
<3> FISA courts buy no oversight
<7> Lupine: sigh
<10> Panthers 23-21 over the Bears
<2> FT: I was talking to Timur, not you :)
<0> icmps: I believe you're wrong. :)
<1> If people believe I want a police state then they have had wax in their ears for 35 years
<6> Timur: Most people do not support the drug war.
<7> Lupine: because it would eliminate one of the two greatest threats to a citizen/
<3> OcDoc: if you think a secret court, by secret judges buys any oversight, or ensures any liberties.. you are wrong.
<6> Just like most people neither voted, and even less so support, GWB today.
<0> the wants of society don't include having *more* drug users and dealers about
<2> FT: I recognize your libertarian leanings, even if you do have an authoritative strike when it comes to national security.
<6> (or gore clinton bush sr reagan ... and on and on)
<2> strike/streak
<1> Antifed I was a Libertarian when the ideology first really came into being and into a political party in the USA in the 70s or late 60s
<3> *IF* you want proper oversight, you #1 need to have it in open court #2 notify the person who the warrant is from.
<1> Whichever it was
<7> Lupine: you haven't been reading anything I've said ... did you read my example of a corrupt official with a personal vendetta against me?
<3> but secret warrants, from secret courts, with secrete judges = ensuring liberty? ack!
<1> By that I mean a believer in the philosophy
<1> not a member of a club
<0> good thing IRC isn't selective for the insane and inane. ;)
<6> FreeTrade: You followed Rothbard ? ;)
<3> OcDoc: corrupt official = secret judge, that is NOT elected, and is NOT known
<3> secret judges = ultimate illuminati
<1> Rothbard was not the father of the Liebrtarian movement
<1> But at your age you may not know that.
<10> antifed: bow, bitch! ;)
<7> Lupine: your chance of running into a judge who agreed to let him run a vendetta against me is vanishingly small
<4> outgoing email fails too grr
<3> oceod: you want to ensure liberty? get a warrant from a public judge, at a public court. and notify the person who the warrant is fore
<6> "Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was the dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism, and an exemplar of the Old Right." Heh.
<3> OcDoc: eh? $$$$$$$ buys it
<10> KoBushi: could be DNS servers ****ed up
<1> This government we have is amazing, The checkes and balances work well. Despite the inevitable failure of government to be the best it can be.
<10> KoBushi: happened to me earlier today
<3> we dont even know who these judges are.. so NO ONE can ensure they are not on the take
<7> Lupine: that's not the point
<2> IamKing: there is nothing you can do to me with a stick while bent over that the Federal government has not already done.
<10> KoBushi: had to switch to another ISP's DNS servers
<6> rofl
<6> FreeTrade: I disagree.
<1> I realized at some point in life that things were much more complicated than simply putting it into a box.
<3> IN FACT: i would wager that these judges are *specifically secret* so they can take $$$ in return for rubber stamping warrants
<10> antifed: so you are a "frequent flyer", huh? ;)
<4> IamKing hum, well **** it; I'll just chat until tomorrow then :)
<11> Lupine, so how exactly is one supposed to bribe a judge one can't know the identity of?
<7> Lupine: the point is that it is a step that he must hurdle in order to oppress me
<6> The constitution was thrown out the window as early as the 1790s with the alien and sedition acts.
<6> It's not as great as its made out to be.. as far as limited the size and scope of government.
<2> icmps: I like to think of it's death around the time of Lincoln..
<7> Lupine: no system is perfect but having a third party look at the evidence he has against me before letting him go ahead is a reasonable step
<3> ocdoc: *signh* I guess you can not understand this violation of your rights.. you think secret judges and secret courts are who are defending yoru rights.. that is so absurd, that is so niave
<2> its.. typo
<1> The libertarian in me says that teh girl who is dying of leukemia should bot be guranteed health care.. The Human being in me says she must have healthcare at any cost.
<1> Having said that I am against socialized medicine.
<3> third party? this is a _SECRET GOVN"T COURT_.. with judges who are not pubically known.. there is NO oversight
<7> Lupine: I do NOT think that and I haven't said so
<6> antifed: Well, the idea of states rights died around then, for sure.
<1> But wait, I just espoused a socialist use of power
<11> hehe, so you are only for socialized medicine for poor folks?
<2> icmps: yep..
<3> for all *WE* know, these judges are directing intelligence against millions of americans
<1> Yes I did because she could afford it and you and I can afford it so we should be compelled to pay for out services.
<3> do _YOU_ know what is going on in this secret court? why WOULD govn't setup a secret court?
<1> Antifed, What do you do.
<3> I think the FISA court is a far far greater threat than the white house.
<7> LUpine: it does not protect me against a generally corrupt government ... it protects me against a single corrupt official with a personl grudge
<3> at least we KNOW who the presidente is.
<2> I honestly see a geniune backlash movement in the republican party with those people who demand less government, less spending, less regulation.. etc
<11> I can't wait until we have the new cable channel "Secret Court TV"
<0> sounds like people who are misfits and don't have and can't handle power hate power. nothing surprising about that, I guess..
<3> OcDoc: eh? there is more than one secret judge who can be a corrupt official
<11> it'll just show a test pattern all day long
<4> !ping
<0> easier to talk about guns, trucks and BBQ
<2> What I am unsure of if it will manifest into a growing third party, or just change the republican party back to their 1994 values..
<0> later
<3> I mean, jesus.. a SECRET JUDGE... with unlimited power to issue "warrants" as *HE* pleases.
<3> there is NO oversight of that court. NONE
<1> You have a girl on the foot of a hospital steps, she has leaukemia, she needs health care and has no money. And noone privately has offered immediately to take care of her, what do you do ?
<7> antifed: it won't work ... the republicans were elected BECAUSE of that
<1> Antifed:
<1> You have a girl on the foot of a hospital steps, she has leaukemia, she needs health care and has no money. And noone privately has offered immediately to take care of her, what do you do ?
<1> Leukemia that is
<12> I do not think a doctor can refuse her treatment
<1> luekemia
<1> ackd
<7> Janet: why not?
<2> FT: the hospital is a business, a business can do what it likes with its clients.
<1> Janet, I am asking Antifed.
<12> HOWEVER.. ST Jude Hospital takes kids at no coat to the family
<5> * This morning the Liberal Party said Stephen Harper's proposal to include property rights in the constitution could be used to strike down laws child labour laws. We don't know about you, but we've noticed Harper has never explicity come out against using eight year old boys in the coal mines of Nova Scotia. Do think that's just an oversight?
<6> I really despise that analogy.
<1> Antifed, it can refuse the girl
<5> Hahhahaha
<12> OcDoc.. isn't that in the oath you take
<1> and order the guards to not permit her inside ?
<2> FT: unless government forces the hospital to do otherwise, likely with an unfunded mandate...
<6> NOTHING justifies delegating a non-existent right to steal from someone else for an end that is "good"
<6> Absolutely nothing.
<2> FT: I consider forcing any business to provide free services w/o compensation -- criminal.
<1> Thats the difference between my early libertarian though and in the meantime my becomnig a human being.
<6> But regardless, it's unrealistic, too.
<7> Janet: I didn't take any oath
<3> OcDoc: well, you seem to put your hopes into a secret club of uber-judges.. who we dont' even know who they are, where they meet.. or what they do. I'll pick a publically elected official over a secret court anyday. You are a FOOL to trust a court so secret, so tailored made for rights violations
<2> FT: either the tax payer is going to foot her bill, or the hospital will take a loss.. one or othe other.
<1> Antrifed, you are an ideologue.. Utopian. you lend no weight to human comp***ion.
<1> Shame on you, except I used to be just like you.
<6> "What if someone is at a hospital and nobody offers to help them???" That's the same **** I'd expect from a liberal.
<1> So there is hope for you :)
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#windows
#windowsxp
#freebsd
#delphi
#beginner
#politics
utorrent saturates network
confusionism vs. daoism
+ssh +name or service not know
#microsoft
|
|
