By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - I #standwithrand to protest drone killings (TEXAS STRAIGHT TALK VIDEO)

Mazty on 10 March 2013
sc94597 said:
Mazty said:

Your reasoning for why the government may start killing US citizens on US soil is because you claim companies can make money from it even though you have absolutely no proof. Who has bought into political propoganda now?

It doesn't even matter. American law guarantees a legal proceeding, according to the 800 year old tradition of due process of law (guaranteed by the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the U.S constitution.) 

Ah liberalism. Ever questioned it?

What kind of person reading philosophy doesn't question the derivations? Certainly any philosopher questions his axioms in order to derive new principles. Regardless of whether or not I questioned it, it would take a revolution for me to change the very basic structure of my government. It would take a deconstruction of the American and state governments and a replacement to rid liberalism in the legal system. This is not something I have control over. 

You have a say in who your representative MIGHT be, working on the notion that hopefully everyone else agrees with you. Here we already have an elitist system that states the majority are better than the minority. Why could that not be refined further to include education? You are blinded to the system you are part of because you've bought into the propoganda that having a voice is more important than having an informed voice. 

You are saying certain groups of people should not have any say at all, despite paying taxes. I say that anybody who pays taxes should be given the right to vote on the representatives who control their money, otherwise it's tyranny and thievry. I don't believe in direct democracy. The U.S doesn't have a populist system (which you're describing.) The people transfer power to both the states and the federal government, as well as to a variety of three branches. And I didn't say having a voice is more important than having an informed voice. I said that all individuals have the right to a voice, and whether or not they're informed is a societal issue, not a state one.

 

And where exactly has that process of law been broken? It hasn't. You bought into some mad republicans nonsensical sensationlist rant.

So the answer is "if you can't change it, accept it", and yet didn't you say:

" Again, it's annoying to hear, you're not as bad as X or Y, hence don't worry about it. "

Huh...

What's the difference between voting for an independent and having no voice? The issue here is you think having a voice is important - it's not. When you are ill, do you ask a plumber what is wrong with you or a doctor? You already elect people to make decisions for you based on polices THEY are proposing, not polices you are proposing. Does it not only make sense to extend this and let the educated make a decision on how the country should be ran?

Tryanny:
Cruel and oppressive government or rule

Theft:
the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

You already let people decide what to do with your money, even if you didn't vote for them. Letting the educated decide who should be taking the money makes a lot more sense then saying a Harvord professor and a gutter-rat who spends his waking hours on crack equally know what is best for the country. 
"The right to vote" There you are again with propoganda. What the hell does that mean? 

 



Around the Network
sc94597 on 10 March 2013
Mazty said:
sc94597 said:
Mazty said:

Your reasoning for why the government may start killing US citizens on US soil is because you claim companies can make money from it even though you have absolutely no proof. Who has bought into political propoganda now?

It doesn't even matter. American law guarantees a legal proceeding, according to the 800 year old tradition of due process of law (guaranteed by the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the U.S constitution.) 

Ah liberalism. Ever questioned it?

What kind of person reading philosophy doesn't question the derivations? Certainly any philosopher questions his axioms in order to derive new principles. Regardless of whether or not I questioned it, it would take a revolution for me to change the very basic structure of my government. It would take a deconstruction of the American and state governments and a replacement to rid liberalism in the legal system. This is not something I have control over. 

You have a say in who your representative MIGHT be, working on the notion that hopefully everyone else agrees with you. Here we already have an elitist system that states the majority are better than the minority. Why could that not be refined further to include education? You are blinded to the system you are part of because you've bought into the propoganda that having a voice is more important than having an informed voice. 

You are saying certain groups of people should not have any say at all, despite paying taxes. I say that anybody who pays taxes should be given the right to vote on the representatives who control their money, otherwise it's tyranny and thievry. I don't believe in direct democracy. The U.S doesn't have a populist system (which you're describing.) The people transfer power to both the states and the federal government, as well as to a variety of three branches. And I didn't say having a voice is more important than having an informed voice. I said that all individuals have the right to a voice, and whether or not they're informed is a societal issue, not a state one.

 

And where exactly has that process of law been broken? It hasn't. You bought into some mad republicans nonsensical sensationlist rant.

So the answer is "if you can't change it, accept it", and yet didn't you say:

" Again, it's annoying to hear, you're not as bad as X or Y, hence don't worry about it. "

Huh...

What's the difference between voting for an independent and having no voice? The issue here is you think having a voice is important - it's not. When you are ill, do you ask a plumber what is wrong with you or a doctor? You already elect people to make decisions for you based on polices THEY are proposing, not polices you are proposing. Does it not only make sense to extend this and let the educated make a decision on how the country should be ran?

Tryanny:
Cruel and oppressive government or rule

Theft:
the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

You already let people decide what to do with your money, even if you didn't vote for them. Letting the educated decide who should be taking the money makes a lot more sense then saying a Harvord professor and a gutter-rat who spends his waking hours on crack equally know what is best for the country. 
"The right to vote" There you are again with propoganda. What the hell does that mean? 

 


1. Except I can change that. Unless I fight a war or there is a huge movement to abolish the federal government, there is no way to rid liberalism from the American system. The correct procedure would be to amend the constitution. Also, killing Americans on U.S soil when they're not combatants is a violation of the fifth amendment (the one which guarantees due process of law.) You have yet to make an argument for why it is not. 

2. I am not going to educate you on liberal principles. I already told you this. Go read liberal literature if you want to know what "the right to vote" means. The same holds true for the reasoning behind taxes and "no taxation without representation." 

Also you seemingly agree with some of the Tea Party (republicans) on this matter.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/voting-rights-act-1965-ended-use-literacy-tests

He mused that, by not requiring a civic literacy test before voting, to his way of thinking that may have been the reason why a “committed, socialist ideologue” named Barack Hussein Obama was elected to the White House.

 



 



Mazty on 10 March 2013
sc94597 said:

1. Except I can change that. Unless I fight a war or there is a huge movement to abolish the federal government, there is no way to rid liberalism from the American system. The correct procedure would be to amend the constitution. Also, killing Americans on U.S soil when they're not combatants is a violation of the fifth amendment (the one which guarantees due process of law.) You have yet to make an argument for why it is not. 

2. I am not going to educate you on liberal principles. I already told you this. Go read liberal literature if you want to know what "the right to vote" means. The same holds true for the reasoning behind taxes and "no taxation without representation." 

Also you seemingly agree with some of the Tea Party (republicans) on this matter.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/voting-rights-act-1965-ended-use-literacy-tests

He mused that, by not requiring a civic literacy test before voting, to his way of thinking that may have been the reason why a “committed, socialist ideologue” named Barack Hussein Obama was elected to the White House.


Are you aware that no US citizen has been killed on US soil by the government when apprehention and trial is possible? There have been no drone strikes on US citizens on US soil....This isn't a case of whether it's a violation of the 5th or not; the question is what the hell do drone strikes and the 5th have to do with one another. 

So instead of refuting what I said you just bail from the argument altogether. Fact is an informed voice in an election can be just as dangerous as a corrupt one.



sc94597 on 10 March 2013
Mazty said:
sc94597 said:

1. Except I can change that. Unless I fight a war or there is a huge movement to abolish the federal government, there is no way to rid liberalism from the American system. The correct procedure would be to amend the constitution. Also, killing Americans on U.S soil when they're not combatants is a violation of the fifth amendment (the one which guarantees due process of law.) You have yet to make an argument for why it is not. 

2. I am not going to educate you on liberal principles. I already told you this. Go read liberal literature if you want to know what "the right to vote" means. The same holds true for the reasoning behind taxes and "no taxation without representation." 

Also you seemingly agree with some of the Tea Party (republicans) on this matter.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/voting-rights-act-1965-ended-use-literacy-tests

He mused that, by not requiring a civic literacy test before voting, to his way of thinking that may have been the reason why a “committed, socialist ideologue” named Barack Hussein Obama was elected to the White House.


Are you aware that no US citizen has been killed on US soil by the government when apprehention and trial is possible? There have been no drone strikes on US citizens on US soil....This isn't a case of whether it's a violation of the 5th or not; the question is what the hell do drone strikes and the 5th have to do with one another. 

So instead of refuting what I said you just bail from the argument altogether. Fact is an informed voice in an election can be just as dangerous as a corrupt one.

1. Are you aware what Rand Paul's filibuster was about? Did you read Eric Holder's letters? I'm sure you haven't. 

2. Your first argument is irrefutable without explaining classical liberal theory. The question "What the hell does that mean?" substantiates your unfamiliarity with classical liberalism. If I refuted your point, you would ask another question, and another. These derivations are found in literature. Hence I redirected you. Like you said, informed people need to work to find the information. 



Mazty on 10 March 2013
sc94597 said:
Mazty said:

Are you aware that no US citizen has been killed on US soil by the government when apprehention and trial is possible? There have been no drone strikes on US citizens on US soil....This isn't a case of whether it's a violation of the 5th or not; the question is what the hell do drone strikes and the 5th have to do with one another. 

So instead of refuting what I said you just bail from the argument altogether. Fact is an informed voice in an election can be just as dangerous as a corrupt one.

1. Are you aware what Rand Paul's filibuster was about? Did you read Eric Holder's letters? I'm sure you haven't. 

2. Your first argument is irrefutable without explaining classical liberal theory. The question "What the hell does that mean?" substantiates your unfamiliarity with classical liberalism. If I refuted your point, you would ask another question, and another. These derivations are found in literature. Hence I redirected you. Like you said, informed people need to work to find the information. 

That letter was blown out of proportion as it was clear that it'd be a last resort to prevent the loss of American lives, so in effect using drones to take out combatants. Other republicans summed up the guys utter bullshit up nicely (obviously just used it as a platform for a politcal career rather than actually dicussing something useful):

"Speaking in the Senate, McCain said Paul's filibuster had been a "distortion of the realities of the threats we face. It is not a mature discussion."

McCain was joined by South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, who put up a sign on the Senate floor with figures saying that al-Qaida had killed 2,958 US citizens in America, while drones had killed none. "To take this debate into the absurd is what I object to," Graham said."

By saying "wtf" I meant to highlight the lack of intrinsic truth in those sayings; they are no different to religious rhetoric accepted to be true through a lack of questioning.



Around the Network
snyps on 10 March 2013
Mazty said:
snyps said:
Mazty said:
snyps said:
Mazty said:
snyps said:
Mazty said:
snyps said:
Mazty said:
snyps said:

You have no concept of self government.  You would run when things got hard or better kneel.


Self government...because Somalia is doing just peachy...

It's a completely ludicrous idea that'd never work in the modern world.


I see I was right

Well please explain your argument because at the moment it is nothing more than a pathetic ad hominem as you've seemed to have forgotten that a key idea of democracy is self-governance, hence why your point seemed to make no sense. 


I have no intention to discuss the matter with someone who doesn't understand the merits of self government.



Something which is a key idea to democracy and therefore already embedded into the US government as a whole....What is your point? And to so quickly reject all other rules of government is nothing more than complete ignorance & arrogance on your behalf - there is no perfect form of government hence why you can't just act as if one is the best. 



Self government is more than a pretty word. It means self involvement. Knowing monetary policy, knowing what bills are being passed through congress. Participating in your party, running for elections. Not letting the "experts" do anything they choose. Btw. The only legitimate form of government is self government.




No dude you are making up your own definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-government

self-gov·ern·ment (slfgvrn-mnt)

n.
1. Political independence; autonomy.
2. Popular or representative government; democracy.
3. Self-control.

 

How is a benevolent dictator not "legitimate"? How is one government more "legitimate" than another? You seem to think you have the answers to something which is as ambigious as morality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Forms_of_government


I rest my case



Your case is that you think your view is superior to others whilst having taken no time to actually study what you are on about. 

I rest my case that because of attitudes like yours, democracy will never work well as it currently stands. Ignorance is the weakness of democracy and you are wholly ignorant by declaring one government better than another whilst giving no argument whatsoever. It is no different to the terrorists who declare the West as evil, or any other sort of extremist.


what because you are not worth my time?  is that the litmus test for learnedness?  I think you are just an attention seeker.  Some of us actually are involved in our party, in our elections, in our legislatures, in our monetary policy.  And yeah, we think less of you than you of us.



sc94597 on 10 March 2013
Mazty said:
sc94597 said:
Mazty said:

Are you aware that no US citizen has been killed on US soil by the government when apprehention and trial is possible? There have been no drone strikes on US citizens on US soil....This isn't a case of whether it's a violation of the 5th or not; the question is what the hell do drone strikes and the 5th have to do with one another. 

So instead of refuting what I said you just bail from the argument altogether. Fact is an informed voice in an election can be just as dangerous as a corrupt one.

1. Are you aware what Rand Paul's filibuster was about? Did you read Eric Holder's letters? I'm sure you haven't. 

2. Your first argument is irrefutable without explaining classical liberal theory. The question "What the hell does that mean?" substantiates your unfamiliarity with classical liberalism. If I refuted your point, you would ask another question, and another. These derivations are found in literature. Hence I redirected you. Like you said, informed people need to work to find the information. 

That letter was blown out of proportion as it was clear that it'd be a last resort to prevent the loss of American lives, so in effect using drones to take out combatants. Other republicans summed up the guys utter bullshit up nicely (obviously just used it as a platform for a politcal career rather than actually dicussing something useful):

 

"Speaking in the Senate, McCain said Paul's filibuster had been a "distortion of the realities of the threats we face. It is not a mature discussion."

McCain was joined by South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, who put up a sign on the Senate floor with figures saying that al-Qaida had killed 2,958 US citizens in America, while drones had killed none. "To take this debate into the absurd is what I object to," Graham said."

 

By saying "wtf" I meant to highlight the lack of intrinsic truth in those sayings; they are no different to religious rhetoric accepted to be true through a lack of questioning.

And other republicans support him.  It's funny though, because McCain is precisely the lobbyist politician I'm talking about. He earns money from these type of things. Rand Paul wanted an answer to what the president's administration thought he could do. He didn't get a clear answer in Holder's letter. He filibusters. He got a clear answer. That's all that happened. 

Also you're calling the product of the enlightenment era the same as religious rhetoric. lol You don't know European history either it seems. 



Mazty on 10 March 2013
snyps said:
Mazty said:

Your case is that you think your view is superior to others whilst having taken no time to actually study what you are on about. 

I rest my case that because of attitudes like yours, democracy will never work well as it currently stands. Ignorance is the weakness of democracy and you are wholly ignorant by declaring one government better than another whilst giving no argument whatsoever. It is no different to the terrorists who declare the West as evil, or any other sort of extremist.


what because you are not worth my time?  is that the litmus test for learnedness?  I think you are just an attention seeker.  Some of us actually are involved in our party, in our elections, in our legislatures, in our monetary policy.  And yeah, we think less of you than you of us.

Actually arrogance:

ar·ro·gant   (r-gnt)

adj.

1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.

 

You say I'm an attention seeker yet post a thread about the moronic rant by Rand. Ironic. As I said, ignorance and arrogance, something you convey, demonstrates exactly why democracy is flawed in the US.



Mazty on 10 March 2013
sc94597 said:
Mazty said:

That letter was blown out of proportion as it was clear that it'd be a last resort to prevent the loss of American lives, so in effect using drones to take out combatants. Other republicans summed up the guys utter bullshit up nicely (obviously just used it as a platform for a politcal career rather than actually dicussing something useful):

 

"Speaking in the Senate, McCain said Paul's filibuster had been a "distortion of the realities of the threats we face. It is not a mature discussion."

McCain was joined by South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, who put up a sign on the Senate floor with figures saying that al-Qaida had killed 2,958 US citizens in America, while drones had killed none. "To take this debate into the absurd is what I object to," Graham said."

 

By saying "wtf" I meant to highlight the lack of intrinsic truth in those sayings; they are no different to religious rhetoric accepted to be true through a lack of questioning.

And other republicans support him.  It's funny though, because McCain is precisely the lobbyist politician I'm talking about. He earns money from these type of things. Rand Paul wanted an answer to what the president's administration thought he could do. He didn't get a clear answer in Holder's letter. He filibusters. He got a clear answer. That's all that happened. 

Also you're calling the product of the enlightenment era the same as religious rhetoric. lol You don't know European history either it seems. 

Other Republicans also deny science. They are politicians, not demi-gods.

How the fuck does McCain make money from violating the 5th? Rand was just being asinine & pedantic. 

There you are again "Omg u cant question itz like well troo!". You argue against propoganda and yet your political beliefs clearly are a result of pure propoganda rather than a well-rounded knowledge of political systems etc.



sc94597 on 10 March 2013

Only in Airstrip One is the Age of Reason the Age of Faith lol.