WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE

[ClimbingPanther]

dude, I said your views on private property were communist in nature... is that accurate or not? I didn't call YOU a dirty commie or anything. Name calling is your domain and I leave you to it.

[ClimbingPanther]

just to clarify, tvashy, what do you mean by "ask properly?"

 

is it this?

 

Do you ever just shut the fuck up?

Clear enough?

 

Fucking prick.

after all, that is your final solution here, isn't it? The elimination of Islam? The final zeelolution?

 

 

anyway, without any pesky labels or offensive words or anything else you might grasp at to avoid my intellectual brawn, what have you to say about the following idea?

"Private property is fundamental to the protections the Constitution gives to private citizens. Congress & the SCOTUS have painted a very different picture of personal freedom depending on who owns the land. Destroy private property and you have destroyed the Constitution."

[tvashtarkatena]

The 'c' word doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that you assume to know what my views on any subject are without asking. That's not a conversation, so I chose not to respond.

[tvashtarkatena]

And taking quotes out of context isn't helping you connect any better, either. They're not relevant to this particular exchange.

Edited February 14, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[archenemy]

taking quotes out of context

zone

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

[ClimbingPanther]

I didn't assume, you clearly stated your views on the subject of private property, and those views included a disdain for hardcore libertarian private property rights and involved federal regulation of private property. Obviously, we already have that to some extent, but it is frankly a dangerous precedent and an open door to the minimizing of personal liberty in other areas. It's the willingness to open that door that surprises me about you, given your alignment with the ACLU. When you give the feds that kind of power, it's only a good thing until the gov't is controlled by people who have a different ideology.

[tvashtarkatena]

You'd have a better discussion with someone else. You've incorrectly summarized my views on private property, which I never really shared in any detail, but in any case, private property issues don't interest me that much. I'm not your guy.

 

And from your statements, you obviously know very little about the ACLU.

 

As for any of my views, like most people's, they're complex and often dynamic.

 

Surprise.

Edited February 14, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[ClimbingPanther]

I'm starting to understand why the ACLU is so vehemently pro-Craig... When the commie government owns all our property and we have no more privacy, at least we'll have public restrooms!

[ClimbingPanther]

You've incorrectly summarized my views on private property

 

hmmm... I said:

"and those views included a disdain for hardcore libertarian private property rights"

I think I've made it pretty clear that I think personal liberty is important, but I don't hang with the organized "Libertarians" because none of the groups I've dealt with seem to have a realistic grasp of the real world. They have a private property worship that was probably appropriate for around the mid 1800s but which certainly does not work with a population approaching 7 billion.

 

"and involved federal regulation of private property"

Now, individual land use grossly affects the liberty of too many others to remain unregulated; a violation of libertarian principles. Those out there who are trying to live sustainably and improve the land their responsible for get my utmost respect and admiration. That could be a condo, mud hut, or any earnest run at a point inbetween.

maybe you incorrectly stated them in the first place?

 

oh well, this is neither here nor there. I just wanted to make the point that private property is super important and is more intertwined with the liberties the Constitution gives us than most people think.

[sexual_chocolate]

what are the specific constitutional references to private property rights?

[ClimbingPanther]

Here's some references to it:

 

Article the fifth [Amendment III]

 

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

 

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

 

Article the seventh [Amendment V]

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

 

 

Years of supreme court interpretation and congressional law have clarified an individual's liberties are not the same on private & public property, thus giving private property a high degree of importance pertaining to liberty.

[archenemy]

The sixth amendment has been getting reamed ever since the "war on drugs" got into full swing. Your home can been confiscated if they find a little plant growing in your yard. You do not need to be prosecuted. YOu are seperate from the issue. You land is actually found "guilty" of producing drugs, so it is seized. Is that straight up bullshit or what?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

yes, it is straight up bullshit.

[archenemy]

I don't even smoke pot and the fact that a little neighborhood pot gardener can have their home taken from them really makes me mad.

[Dechristo]

As found in The River War, first edition, Vol. II, 1899, by Sir Winston Churchill:

 

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

 

109 years ago.

[sobo]

As true today as it was when written.

Thanks for emphasizing the point, DeC.

[Hugh Conway]

imagine a half American said something stupid about Islam?

[lI1|1!]

As found in The River War, first edition, Vol. II, 1899, by Sir Winston Churchill:

 

"...were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall..."

 

 

psst, the earth is flat buddy...

[prole]

 

WTF is wrong with YOU people?

 

...Churchill was secretary of state at the war office when the Royal Air Force asked him for permission to use chemical weapons against "recalcitrant Arabs" as an experiment. Winston promptly consented (Yes, Churchill's gassing of Kurds pre-dated Hussein's by nearly 70 years).

 

"I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes," he explained, a policy he espoused yet again in July 1944 when he asked his chiefs of staff to consider using poison gas on the Germans "or any other method of warfare we have hitherto refrained from using." Unlike in 1919, his proposal was denied...not that history would not have forgiven him anyway.

 

In language later appropriated by the Israelis, Winston Churchill had this to say about the Palestinians in 1937: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

 

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."---Winston Churchill

---from Z 7/19/03

[archenemy]

Oh my gosh! We should immediately disregard everything the man said!

[Hugh Conway]

Oh my gosh! We should immediately disregard everything the man said!

 

So stupidly broad brushes aren't allowed in this thread?

[archenemy]

Yes. But only mine.

[selkirk]

Danes are evil.

 

It's good the someone is And they do seem to enjoy it so

[StevenSeagal]

So if Islam is at its very premise all that is being asserted here- inherently violent and bent on expansion and world conversion-and maybe it is- and so called "moderate" muslims are still considered to be part of the problem- then why are we only targeting the so-called extremists? I'm not hearing any real, proactive solutions being offered beyond continuing ambiguous wars against shadowy guys hiding in caves and bombed out houses in creepy middle eastern countries. It seems that if Islam as an entity is that big of a threat to our civilized, western society, then where are the calls for complete eradication of it? Why not ban it outright in this country for fear of what it could become? Why not round up all muslims in the US and either deport or imprison them? Why not use our military might to incinerate their countries and bring them to their knees? Why not place sanctions on any country that refuses to ban Islam and round up it's members and put them in one place where their potential threat can be neutralized? If it's that much of a threat, just targeting the militant wing of it is merely trimming the leaves from a diseased tree. You have to pull it up by the roots, don't you? You've all identified the disease, so what is the cure you advocate? Do you think that by simply killing terrorists en masse and occupying Islamic countries to fight them on their own soil that we will eventually scare and kowtow the muslim culture into moderating their religion or converting to Christianity?