1: Then she should move somewhere else since she started the situation 2: I agree she should be told where she is banned from 3: Yes the law is slow but I dont agree with the merits of her case so I dont think it will change now or later.

And Yes if I harass Microsoft staff and/or damage their property I could be banned from their property and I am fine with that.

free speech does not mean you are free to speak where ever you want, it means you are free to say what you want. You can support freedom of speech, and protection of property rights with out issue. Its not a choice between the two, like redistribution of wealth (socailism) and property rights are, as to have  one you must sacrifice the other.

ding ding ding, we have a winner.

You can't be seriously telling me fracking is a good thing? I mean the evidence against it is very clear. It is an environmentally damaging practice, it has been proven. But because there is the potential to make tons of profit from it, any risk from fracking is ignored. 

To be fair, i'm not against using gas as a fuel but there has to be another way without contaminating everyone's water supply. It's just not worth the risk. Water is increasingly valuable in this world. 

Why not improve renewable energy or safety in nuclear energy instead of devastating the planet for profit? 

Aren't politicians supposed to give voters what they want? In a democracy they are supposed to represent us, the voting public. 

The bigger problem is the 2 party system, especially when they are essentially the same thing. 

Anyway, while there are still people that are poor a welfare state is of total necessary. It's there to balance the field and give people essential services which everyone pays into. Only the state can do this, as they are the least likely to follow a profit motive above anything. Nothing wrong with making profits, but there is a problem when the system is cheated for greed like it is now. But yeah, i don't see how a welfare state can interfere with say property rights. No private property would be taken. But just remember not everyone is lucky enough to afford a house, so it's the state responsibility to give them houses or flats as the market won't help them. 

Yeah i can be contradictory sometimes but that just happens, I won't deny it. I'm still finding my political beliefs. This thread just proved to a complete fail that's all. No worry, i never take this place seriously anyway. 

Anyway, onto the welfare state. Property ain't necesarilly confiscated in a welfare state. A welfare state just redistributes wealth more evenly to do many things. Like social housing, universal healthcare and education among other things. Unless wealth is considered property itself now (which sounds odd to me), property rights aren't infinged in this case.

Maybe you were thinking about the nationalisation of key parts of the economy like banks, transport or energy. That would be against property rights i guess, but it depends on if the government created them in the first place or not.  

No. Politicians are supposed to run the government, and government is supposed to protect rights. You can't protect rights by violating rights, and by rewarding your supporters at the expense of everyone else you are violating rights.

They are always essentially the same thing in a two party system because both parties have to gravitate towards the center and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

You don't see how taking from someone who works very hard and giving to someone who doesn't work very hard, or at all, is a violation of property rights?

That politicians and apparatchiks are less likely to have a profit motive is laughable, unless you have a very narrow definition of profit that is limited only to money and does not include power and influence. Even then, the D.C. area is now the richest in the country. Which is darkly amusing because the supposed reason for the remorseless growth of government over the past 70+ years has been that they have to protect us from the scary rich, but the fact of the matter is they are the scary rich. The welfare state is just an excuse for the powerful to create a spoils system, and they will give all the rubes just enough to string them along. No welfare state has ever lifted a class of people out of poverty, and a welfare state can only be successful as long as there is wealth to redistribute. The social democratic states of Europe are not so different from those of the Third World, except that there has been more wealth to shift around. But I think the western world generally has reached a state of terminal decline, in no small part because of the welfare state teaching people that wealth redistribution is more moral than wealth creation. So we have reached the end of that road, and now all the wheels are coming off of all the wagons.

You absolutely CAN compare meat to fracking. Both are legitmate business practices (regardless if you condone fracking or not it is not illegal) and therefore deserving of the same protections under the law. So, Ms. Vera and her sick, twisted, vile activities can and should go elsewhere.

As for your assertion that constitutional rights be protected, so I am guessing that if you are rich you have essentially traded your constitutional rights for all that wealth? The idea that rich automatically = evil is one twisted world view IMHO.

Fracking has no more adverse health effects than any other risky industry. In fact out of most of the current ways we get our energy it is one of the more safe ways of extracting energy products and the technique has actually been in use since the 1940s. With disingenuos claims made by films like Gasland (remember that flamable tap water stunt which is a naturally occring phenomenon that happens even in the absence of fracking) make wild innacurate and blatantly false claims the hysteria is getting out of control and the loony wing of environmentalism won't be happy until we are back to the stone ages. Hell, even then they won't want us burning wood for heat and light as many places around the US are even considering wood burning bans for that very same reason.

1. What's the point in elections then? Might as well be a one party state like China then

2. No wonder, people don't generally bother with politics like they used to, especially in western countries. You make it sound like a con artists game. 

3. Obviously that want to make money but government surely would rip people off less than a private company as they are in theory supposed to be more accountable. At least in Bolivia, the government ain't full of greedy parasites. Look up Evo Morales. 

Also, i don't get the blame on the poor. It's the rich who avoid tax and get away with it. It's the rich who outsource decent industrial jobs to Asia currently. And yet the poor and vulnerable are blamed for everything despite having no influence in the system. It's laughable and yet people believe it.

The US welfare system doesn't compare to any European ones at all. Where's the universal health service or free university education? The US system is minimal. In Europe, it is far fairer and you get more value for more money. Also, how hasn't the welfare state moved people of poverty? Of course, you need decent jobs to help reduce poverty as well but welfare gives people a chance especially in times like this where there are clearly not enough jobs out there (of any kind). The trickle down effect seems like a myth in a developed economy.

Also, if you look into it. The social democratic countries in Europe are actually some of the most successful on the continent. Germany is a key example. Scandinavia is also good. 

You are right that the west is in decline but not because of welfare. Europe was declining before any welfare states came about, except Prussia which isn't even a country anymore. People just had enough of us invading other countries for our own nation's gain. 

IMO she deserves it. Natural Gas heats/powers our homes so resisting the creation of jobs ,the sustaining of our neighborhoods, and keeping our heating bills as low as possible....I don't get her point of view.

These are establishments owned by the company....so if she doesn't support their business, then the company has the right to deny her business.