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

Forums - Politics - Welcome to the corporate dictatorship of America!

the2real4mafol on 30 January 2014
LiquorandGunFun said:
Good. I hate enviro-terrorists.

She may have annoyed them but i wouldn't go as far as saying that she was a terrorist... A word which has no real meaning anymore



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

Around the Network
badgenome on 30 January 2014
the2real4mafol said:

Fair enough but for me. It's 3 things. Law and order (which includes protecting rights), a welfare state (especially free healthcare and education) and conserving landmarks and the natural environment.

I know it's a bit off topic but i was just interested. 

The problem with the second bit as I see it is that conflicts with the first part (to give to someone you have to take from someone else) and it invariably corrupts a democratic system once politicians figure out they can buy voters and voters figure out they can be bought (which takes about two seconds).



theprof00 on 30 January 2014

what the frick is fracking



Kasz216 on 30 January 2014
the2real4mafol said:
thranx said:

Isnt that what the law is ther for? to help people protect their lands? I mean if its their land, and they dont want her there, what else can they do? I mean its their land isn't it? What are we supposed to have? Lawlessness? or are you only ok with your rights being protected and your beliefs, and what you feel for, but not for others? I am a little confused here. You want her rights protected, but dont seem to care for the other groups rights because you disagree with them and agree with her. She can have them banned from her property too if she wants.

What about the right to protest? I know in this case she was the only one which made it easier to prosecute but what if that town didn't want fracking near them. It just seems heavily one sided to those with money. I mean also the fracking company doesn't care what happens to that region once they get paid. 


People do have a right to protest.  On city property adjacent to what they are protesting.

Going on private land is tresspassing.

As for the dnagers of fracking... I'm guessing you are about as educated on fracking as you are GMOs.



Kasz216 on 30 January 2014
theprof00 said:
what the frick is fracking

Breaking rocks with water.



Around the Network
theprof00 on 30 January 2014
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
what the frick is fracking

Breaking rocks with water.

ok mister scientist, can you dumb it down a little bit with your magic science mumbojumbo



theprof00 on 30 January 2014
kowenicki said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
what the frick is fracking

Breaking rocks with water.

ok mister scientist, can you dumb it down a little bit with your magic science mumbojumbo

you honestly havent heard of fracking?

lol I'm just being silly



SamuelRSmith on 30 January 2014

What's the dealio here? Who owns the properties involved, and how did they acquire the properties?

If the fracking company owns all the land that the person is expelled from, that's fine... so long as it doesn't conflict with the contracts that the company signed with the leasers on its property.

If the fracking company DOESN'T own the land that the person is expelled from, that's not fine... unless the fracking company has convinced the other property owners to go along with the expulsion.

If the fracking company DOES own the land, but that land was acquired through eminent domain, or some other state-powered land grab, we hit a #blurredline because although it is the fracking company's property, they didn't acquire it through legitimate means.



SocialistSlayer on 30 January 2014
the2real4mafol said:
badgenome said:
the2real4mafol said:

What are the other legitimate functions of government according to you?

I think they all pretty much boil down to protecting rights.

Fair enough but for me. It's 3 things. Law and order (which includes protecting rights), a welfare state (especially free healthcare and education) and conserving landmarks and the natural environment.

I know it's a bit off topic but i was just interested.  

i dont think those words mean what you think they mean. those are contridictory views. you cant support protecting property rights while simultaniously supporting a welfare state, which requires the confiscation and redistrubtion of somebodies property.

your just full of contridictions and hypocracy today, arent you.



 

SlayerRondo on 30 January 2014
Leadified said:
SlayerRondo said:
She was violating the rights of the owners of the company as she was disrupting their business and they have every right to bar her from their property.


Should Sony or Microsoft ban me from the internet because I am "disrupting" their business by posting negative comments about them and their consoles? Even if this lady is crazy, in this case she was doing nothing illegal.

No they should not be able to ban you fron the internet because they don't own the internet. They should be allowed to ban you from their websites if you are posting negative comments about them. She may be doing nothing illegal but neither did the company in banning her from their property. 



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE