| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2005 04:48:47 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:nknSe.5146$pm2.885@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318a021$0$29901$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:T1%Re.2580$hv5.1818@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318553c$0$29919$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:kRTRe.2911$bi5.2900@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11hfmuphndg1110@corp.supernews.com...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96C4E6D084A68ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
news:11hfgq04edqgda3@corp.supernews.com:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:cgPRe.103817$Ep.35821@lakeread02...
What is happening in the Gulf Cost is a fucking disgrace.
Why are you calling nature a disgrace.
Hell junior, hurricanes happen, and have been for eons.
All the more inexcusable that we should not be
preparing for them.
But we have to the extent that we are capable of.
Garbage. Bush cut $40 million from New Orleans's budget that would
have specifically aided such an eventuality.
Why is the federal government giving money to New Orleans in the
first place?
Because it's under the sea level and needs special protection.
Your point? Why does the whole country have to subsidize the idiots who
voluntarily live in a danger zone?
Have you offered them somewhere else to live? As you regard the place
the were born as a "voluntary" residence?
So how does that make every taxpaying American financially responsible
according to the constitution?
.
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
24 Sep 2005 10:10:33 AM |
|
|
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:RGHYe.121022$Ep.93374@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2_tYe.2658$WV1.2491@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:3YkYe.120939$Ep.77830@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IXhYe.1678$WV1.596@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:KAbXe.120211$Ep.2827@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DeWWe.39770$k22.5698@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:XMHWe.120091$Ep.27828@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V5EWe.70936$2n6.7779@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:sQmWe.120025$Ep.87642@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LFVVe.28695$k22.8224@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:N0oVe.119737$Ep.27446@lakeread02...
"whome?" <whome@beets.crib.com> wrote in message
news:1126552545.e6cb9883b592a3af8b895b75d5c0753a@meganetnews2...
SteveL wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:54:02 -0400, whome?
<whome@beets.crib.com>
wrote:
SteveL wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:34:07 -0400, whome?
<whome@beets.crib.com>
wrote:
Free people take risks and accept them. I'd prefer freedom
to security any day.
I take it you are vehemently opposed to the Patriot Act then?
Vehemently, yes.
Good.
It is an act of treason to the citizenry, and should be
abolished.
Exactly. It's a shame so many Right Wingers fail to see that.
I'm not a right winger, but a libertarian. Lefties fail to
see that they are seldom the same thing. Righties call us
leftists for our opposition to consentual crimes laws.
I've tried to explain this to Kel, but he can only conceive of a
political left and political right. He hasn't quite evolved.
Who do you vote for in an election, Irie? I seriously am
interested.
I vote for third party candidates mostly.
Based on what though? The fact that they are neither Republican or
Democrat? That's hardly a sound political stance.
I place my vote in the most effective means possible. The system in
the US is such a joke it makes it impossible for people to vote
their conscious.
I have almost never voted
republican or democrat. Evolve Kel. Read something besides the
Karl Marx.
I've never read Marx, Erie.
Gee, no ones' used that in a while. Who was it that used it last.
Are you a "shapeshifter", Kel?
I have never read Marx and see no reason why if I had that I would
lie to you. I have read Chomsky and other leftist writers, but not
Marx.
No, I didn't think you were lying to me. The philosophy of the
writers you read are based upon Marx.
Firstly, sorry I've been absent for a few days. Work called me away.
No problem at all. Life happens beyond our debates . . .
I read comments recently by another writer who reminded me of your
attitude to the welfare state.
"Life never forgives weakness. Compassion for the weak is a betrayal of
nature". The quote was from Adolf Hitler.
I am sure it is. I am not saying you are not compassionate, I am saying
that your views lead to either fascism or communism. This is why your
views are only a step away from Hitler and Stalin.
I would argue that your lack of compassion for people in need of welfare
would put you far nearer to Hitler's views than I am.
How so? Even after half of what I earn is taken from me by the
government, I still give to charity and when disaster strikes, I give
more. It is forced compassion that I find one step from Hitlerism.
Okay, I take that back - we merely disagree about how society should respond
to a disaster. I think there should be a collective Federal response and you
don't.
I'm interested though in who you voted for in the last election?
I vote in a way that reflects my philosophies based upon the issues.
Up until last year, I had NEVER voted along Democrat or Republican
party lines in a presidential election. I voted for the candidate
that I felt reflected my point of view or wrote my own name on the
ballot.
Last year I voted for Bush because it is better to live under
socialist rule and alive, then dead. I support Bush as far as the
war, and because of that I voted for him. Apologist philosophies
such as yours and Kerry's will only result in dead Americans. The
race was too close and only issue (the war) was clearly defined
between the two candidates. No other issues exist when you are dead.
No surprise there then...
Please elaborate.
You claim to be independent, Irie. But your views on the welfare state
and economics in general belong to the right wing.
But the right in the US are socialist. Maybe not as socialist as you
would want them to be, but socialist no less.
I regard both Republicans and Democrats as mostly right wing. I merely
think the Democrats are the least bad of the bunch as they at least
attempt to have some social concerns.
What do either do that is "right wing", assuming by that you mean
non-socialist. I say that because in reality they are both socialist.
Neither of them could even be remotely considered socialist as neither calls
for the workers to control the means of production.
And they have both been right wing since Clinton came to power and invented
"the third way" which in my books is simply Republicanism with a small "r".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Irie" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
24 Sep 2005 10:35:24 AM |
|
|
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:J%dZe.2883$Am6.1045@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:RGHYe.121022$Ep.93374@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2_tYe.2658$WV1.2491@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:3YkYe.120939$Ep.77830@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IXhYe.1678$WV1.596@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:KAbXe.120211$Ep.2827@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DeWWe.39770$k22.5698@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:XMHWe.120091$Ep.27828@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V5EWe.70936$2n6.7779@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:sQmWe.120025$Ep.87642@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LFVVe.28695$k22.8224@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:N0oVe.119737$Ep.27446@lakeread02...
"whome?" <whome@beets.crib.com> wrote in message
news:1126552545.e6cb9883b592a3af8b895b75d5c0753a@meganetnews2...
SteveL wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:54:02 -0400, whome?
<whome@beets.crib.com>
wrote:
SteveL wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:34:07 -0400, whome?
<whome@beets.crib.com>
wrote:
Free people take risks and accept them. I'd prefer
freedom to security any day.
I take it you are vehemently opposed to the Patriot Act
then?
Vehemently, yes.
Good.
It is an act of treason to the citizenry, and should be
abolished.
Exactly. It's a shame so many Right Wingers fail to see that.
I'm not a right winger, but a libertarian. Lefties fail to
see that they are seldom the same thing. Righties call us
leftists for our opposition to consentual crimes laws.
I've tried to explain this to Kel, but he can only conceive of
a political left and political right. He hasn't quite evolved.
Who do you vote for in an election, Irie? I seriously am
interested.
I vote for third party candidates mostly.
Based on what though? The fact that they are neither Republican or
Democrat? That's hardly a sound political stance.
I place my vote in the most effective means possible. The system
in the US is such a joke it makes it impossible for people to vote
their conscious.
I have almost never voted
republican or democrat. Evolve Kel. Read something besides the
Karl Marx.
I've never read Marx, Erie.
Gee, no ones' used that in a while. Who was it that used it last.
Are you a "shapeshifter", Kel?
I have never read Marx and see no reason why if I had that I would
lie to you. I have read Chomsky and other leftist writers, but not
Marx.
No, I didn't think you were lying to me. The philosophy of the
writers you read are based upon Marx.
Firstly, sorry I've been absent for a few days. Work called me away.
No problem at all. Life happens beyond our debates . . .
I read comments recently by another writer who reminded me of your
attitude to the welfare state.
"Life never forgives weakness. Compassion for the weak is a betrayal
of nature". The quote was from Adolf Hitler.
I am sure it is. I am not saying you are not compassionate, I am
saying that your views lead to either fascism or communism. This is
why your views are only a step away from Hitler and Stalin.
I would argue that your lack of compassion for people in need of welfare
would put you far nearer to Hitler's views than I am.
How so? Even after half of what I earn is taken from me by the
government, I still give to charity and when disaster strikes, I give
more. It is forced compassion that I find one step from Hitlerism.
Okay, I take that back - we merely disagree about how society should
respond to a disaster. I think there should be a collective Federal
response and you don't.
And you advocate the use of force and I do not.
I'm interested though in who you voted for in the last election?
I vote in a way that reflects my philosophies based upon the
issues. Up until last year, I had NEVER voted along Democrat or
Republican party lines in a presidential election. I voted for the
candidate that I felt reflected my point of view or wrote my own
name on the ballot.
Last year I voted for Bush because it is better to live under
socialist rule and alive, then dead. I support Bush as far as the
war, and because of that I voted for him. Apologist philosophies
such as yours and Kerry's will only result in dead Americans. The
race was too close and only issue (the war) was clearly defined
between the two candidates. No other issues exist when you are
dead.
No surprise there then...
Please elaborate.
You claim to be independent, Irie. But your views on the welfare state
and economics in general belong to the right wing.
But the right in the US are socialist. Maybe not as socialist as you
would want them to be, but socialist no less.
I regard both Republicans and Democrats as mostly right wing. I merely
think the Democrats are the least bad of the bunch as they at least
attempt to have some social concerns.
What do either do that is "right wing", assuming by that you mean
non-socialist. I say that because in reality they are both socialist.
Neither of them could even be remotely considered socialist as neither
calls for the workers to control the means of production.
And they have both been right wing since Clinton came to power and
invented "the third way" which in my books is simply Republicanism with a
small "r".
Maybe so. But Republicans (capital "R") are as much on the path to
socialism as Democrats (capital "D").
Irie
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
'Without law or compulsion, people would dwell in harmony' - Lao Tzu
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
25 Sep 2005 10:30:28 AM |
|
|
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:WmeZe.121248$Ep.27133@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:J%dZe.2883$Am6.1045@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
(Snip)
How so? Even after half of what I earn is taken from me by the
government, I still give to charity and when disaster strikes, I give
more. It is forced compassion that I find one step from Hitlerism.
Okay, I take that back - we merely disagree about how society should
respond to a disaster. I think there should be a collective Federal
response and you don't.
And you advocate the use of force and I do not.
I also believe in the collective, which you do not. But then I have no wish
to return to Dickensian values, you seem to wish to go back 150 years.
(Snip)
What do either do that is "right wing", assuming by that you mean
non-socialist. I say that because in reality they are both socialist.
Neither of them could even be remotely considered socialist as neither
calls for the workers to control the means of production.
And they have both been right wing since Clinton came to power and
invented "the third way" which in my books is simply Republicanism with a
small "r".
Maybe so. But Republicans (capital "R") are as much on the path to
socialism as Democrats (capital "D").
I disagree. I think both are engaged in rampant capitalism and
globalisation. One does it with concern for it's poorest citizens, the other
looking out for only the rights of the richest citizens. More often than
not, you seem to side with the latter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Irie" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
27 Sep 2005 05:34:09 PM |
|
|
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oozZe.5642$fl6.4421@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:WmeZe.121248$Ep.27133@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:J%dZe.2883$Am6.1045@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
(Snip)
How so? Even after half of what I earn is taken from me by the
government, I still give to charity and when disaster strikes, I give
more. It is forced compassion that I find one step from Hitlerism.
Okay, I take that back - we merely disagree about how society should
respond to a disaster. I think there should be a collective Federal
response and you don't.
And you advocate the use of force and I do not.
I also believe in the collective, which you do not.
I believe in a voluntary collective.
But then I have no wish to return to Dickensian values, you seem to wish
to go back 150 years.
No, just 70. The closest thing to a capitalist system existed in the first
150 years of US history. You, on the other hand, want to go back to the
more recent history, like Hitler and Stalin.
(Snip)
What do either do that is "right wing", assuming by that you mean
non-socialist. I say that because in reality they are both socialist.
Neither of them could even be remotely considered socialist as neither
calls for the workers to control the means of production.
And they have both been right wing since Clinton came to power and
invented "the third way" which in my books is simply Republicanism with
a small "r".
Maybe so. But Republicans (capital "R") are as much on the path to
socialism as Democrats (capital "D").
I disagree. I think both are engaged in rampant capitalism and
globalisation. One does it with concern for it's poorest citizens, the
other looking out for only the rights of the richest citizens.
You should pay better attention. Both Republicans and democrats want
welfare for everyone, corporate and social. This is because power over how
money is spent is the fastest and best way to gain more power.
Name one US law that has been eliminated in the history of our country that
was associated with corporate or social welfare. You can't, because it has
never happened. Seeing 99.9% of politicians have been from one the two main
parties in the US, how could this be? Would the Republicans who have both
houses and the Executive Branch of government today do as you claim in such
a situation (favor corporate welfare and not social welfare)? If their
history showed this, you'd be right. But you're not.
More often than not, you seem to side with the latter.
I care very much about people, particularly the poor. What I advocate is a
means for them to gain dignity and wealth. You advocate keeping the poor
people poor through dependency and the rich people rich by allowing them to
influence your big, bloated, arrogant government.
Irie
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
'Without law or compulsion, people would dwell in harmony' - Lao Tzu
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
22 Sep 2005 06:33:31 PM |
|
|
Irie wrote:
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2_tYe.2658$WV1.2491@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:3YkYe.120939$Ep.77830@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IXhYe.1678$WV1.596@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:KAbXe.120211$Ep.2827@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DeWWe.39770$k22.5698@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:XMHWe.120091$Ep.27828@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V5EWe.70936$2n6.7779@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:sQmWe.120025$Ep.87642@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LFVVe.28695$k22.8224@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:N0oVe.119737$Ep.27446@lakeread02...
"whome?" <whome@beets.crib.com> wrote in message
news:1126552545.e6cb9883b592a3af8b895b75d5c0753a@meganetnews2...
SteveL wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:54:02 -0400, whome?
<whome@beets.crib.com>
wrote:
SteveL wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:34:07 -0400, whome?
<whome@beets.crib.com>
wrote:
Free people take risks and accept them. I'd prefer freedom
to security any day.
I take it you are vehemently opposed to the Patriot Act then?
Vehemently, yes.
Good.
It is an act of treason to the citizenry, and should be
abolished.
Exactly. It's a shame so many Right Wingers fail to see that.
I'm not a right winger, but a libertarian. Lefties fail to see
that they are seldom the same thing. Righties call us leftists
for our opposition to consentual crimes laws.
I've tried to explain this to Kel, but he can only conceive of a
political left and political right. He hasn't quite evolved.
Who do you vote for in an election, Irie? I seriously am
interested.
I vote for third party candidates mostly.
Based on what though? The fact that they are neither Republican or
Democrat? That's hardly a sound political stance.
I place my vote in the most effective means possible. The system in
the US is such a joke it makes it impossible for people to vote their
conscious.
I have almost never voted
republican or democrat. Evolve Kel. Read something besides the
Karl Marx.
I've never read Marx, Erie.
Gee, no ones' used that in a while. Who was it that used it last.
Are you a "shapeshifter", Kel?
I have never read Marx and see no reason why if I had that I would lie
to you. I have read Chomsky and other leftist writers, but not Marx.
No, I didn't think you were lying to me. The philosophy of the writers
you read are based upon Marx.
Firstly, sorry I've been absent for a few days. Work called me away.
No problem at all. Life happens beyond our debates . . .
I read comments recently by another writer who reminded me of your
attitude to the welfare state.
"Life never forgives weakness. Compassion for the weak is a betrayal of
nature". The quote was from Adolf Hitler.
I am sure it is. I am not saying you are not compassionate, I am saying
that your views lead to either fascism or communism. This is why your
views are only a step away from Hitler and Stalin.
I would argue that your lack of compassion for people in need of welfare
would put you far nearer to Hitler's views than I am.
How so? Even after half of what I earn is taken from me by the government,
I still give to charity and when disaster strikes, I give more. It is
forced compassion that I find one step from Hitlerism.
I'm interested though in who you voted for in the last election?
I vote in a way that reflects my philosophies based upon the issues.
Up until last year, I had NEVER voted along Democrat or Republican
party lines in a presidential election. I voted for the candidate
that I felt reflected my point of view or wrote my own name on the
ballot.
Last year I voted for Bush because it is better to live under
socialist rule and alive, then dead. I support Bush as far as the
war, and because of that I voted for him. Apologist philosophies
such as yours and Kerry's will only result in dead Americans. The
race was too close and only issue (the war) was clearly defined
between the two candidates. No other issues exist when you are dead.
No surprise there then...
Please elaborate.
You claim to be independent, Irie. But your views on the welfare state
and economics in general belong to the right wing.
But the right in the US are socialist. Maybe not as socialist as you
would want them to be, but socialist no less.
I regard both Republicans and Democrats as mostly right wing. I merely
think the Democrats are the least bad of the bunch as they at least
attempt to have some social concerns.
What do either do that is "right wing", assuming by that you mean
non-socialist. I say that because in reality they are both socialist.
lol
Neither advocate the government ownership and control of the
means of production and distribution of goods and services,
so neither are socialist. Get a dictionary.
Irie
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
'Without law or compulsion, people would dwell in harmony' - Lao Tzu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Irie" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
24 Sep 2005 09:57:00 AM |
|
|
Hi Lamont,
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@TheShadow.com> wrote in message
news:JWIYe.13043$GQ4.10723@fed1read05...
Irie wrote:
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2_tYe.2658$WV1.2491@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:3YkYe.120939$Ep.77830@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IXhYe.1678$WV1.596@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:KAbXe.120211$Ep.2827@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DeWWe.39770$k22.5698@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:XMHWe.120091$Ep.27828@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V5EWe.70936$2n6.7779@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:sQmWe.120025$Ep.87642@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LFVVe.28695$k22.8224@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:N0oVe.119737$Ep.27446@lakeread02...
"whome?" <whome@beets.crib.com> wrote in message
news:1126552545.e6cb9883b592a3af8b895b75d5c0753a@meganetnews2...
SteveL wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:54:02 -0400, whome?
<whome@beets.crib.com>
wrote:
SteveL wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:34:07 -0400, whome?
<whome@beets.crib.com>
wrote:
Free people take risks and accept them. I'd prefer
freedom to security any day.
I take it you are vehemently opposed to the Patriot Act
then?
Vehemently, yes.
Good.
It is an act of treason to the citizenry, and should be
abolished.
Exactly. It's a shame so many Right Wingers fail to see that.
I'm not a right winger, but a libertarian. Lefties fail to
see that they are seldom the same thing. Righties call us
leftists for our opposition to consentual crimes laws.
I've tried to explain this to Kel, but he can only conceive of a
political left and political right. He hasn't quite evolved.
Who do you vote for in an election, Irie? I seriously am
interested.
I vote for third party candidates mostly.
Based on what though? The fact that they are neither Republican or
Democrat? That's hardly a sound political stance.
I place my vote in the most effective means possible. The system in
the US is such a joke it makes it impossible for people to vote
their conscious.
I have almost never voted
republican or democrat. Evolve Kel. Read something besides the
Karl Marx.
I've never read Marx, Erie.
Gee, no ones' used that in a while. Who was it that used it last.
Are you a "shapeshifter", Kel?
I have never read Marx and see no reason why if I had that I would
lie to you. I have read Chomsky and other leftist writers, but not
Marx.
No, I didn't think you were lying to me. The philosophy of the
writers you read are based upon Marx.
Firstly, sorry I've been absent for a few days. Work called me away.
No problem at all. Life happens beyond our debates . . .
I read comments recently by another writer who reminded me of your
attitude to the welfare state.
"Life never forgives weakness. Compassion for the weak is a betrayal of
nature". The quote was from Adolf Hitler.
I am sure it is. I am not saying you are not compassionate, I am saying
that your views lead to either fascism or communism. This is why your
views are only a step away from Hitler and Stalin.
I would argue that your lack of compassion for people in need of welfare
would put you far nearer to Hitler's views than I am.
How so? Even after half of what I earn is taken from me by the
government, I still give to charity and when disaster strikes, I give
more. It is forced compassion that I find one step from Hitlerism.
I'm interested though in who you voted for in the last election?
I vote in a way that reflects my philosophies based upon the issues.
Up until last year, I had NEVER voted along Democrat or Republican
party lines in a presidential election. I voted for the candidate
that I felt reflected my point of view or wrote my own name on the
ballot.
Last year I voted for Bush because it is better to live under
socialist rule and alive, then dead. I support Bush as far as the
war, and because of that I voted for him. Apologist philosophies
such as yours and Kerry's will only result in dead Americans. The
race was too close and only issue (the war) was clearly defined
between the two candidates. No other issues exist when you are dead.
No surprise there then...
Please elaborate.
You claim to be independent, Irie. But your views on the welfare state
and economics in general belong to the right wing.
But the right in the US are socialist. Maybe not as socialist as you
would want them to be, but socialist no less.
I regard both Republicans and Democrats as mostly right wing. I merely
think the Democrats are the least bad of the bunch as they at least
attempt to have some social concerns.
What do either do that is "right wing", assuming by that you mean
non-socialist. I say that because in reality they are both socialist.
lol
Neither advocate the government ownership and control of the means of
production and distribution of goods and services, so neither are
socialist. Get a dictionary.
Right. The FDA doesn't regulate and enforce laws of the food and industry,
the government does not give out farm subsidies and pay corporate welfare.
Open your eyes, Lamont. It is not complete socialism, but it is on the path
and getting close and closer every year. Because of people such as you who
choose not see it.
Irie
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
'Without law or compulsion, people would dwell in harmony' - Lao Tzu
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
12 Sep 2005 04:22:26 PM |
|
|
whome? <whome@beets.crib.com> writes:
SteveL wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:34:07 -0400, whome? <whome@beets.crib.com>
wrote:
Free people take risks and accept them. I'd prefer freedom to security
any day.
I take it you are vehemently opposed to the Patriot Act then?
Vehemently, yes. It is an act of treason to the citizenry, and should be
abolished.
This long-time lower-case libertarian agrees with you. I don't need a
backhanded American version of the old USSR's Section 58.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
06 Sep 2005 01:26:14 AM |
|
|
Kel wrote:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:431cbd3f$0$32195$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:nknSe.5146$pm2.885@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318a021$0$29901$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:T1%Re.2580$hv5.1818@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318553c$0$29919$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:kRTRe.2911$bi5.2900@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11hfmuphndg1110@corp.supernews.com...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96C4E6D084A68ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
news:11hfgq04edqgda3@corp.supernews.com:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:cgPRe.103817$Ep.35821@lakeread02...
What is happening in the Gulf Cost is a fucking disgrace.
Why are you calling nature a disgrace.
Hell junior, hurricanes happen, and have been for eons.
All the more inexcusable that we should not be
preparing for them.
But we have to the extent that we are capable of.
Garbage. Bush cut $40 million from New Orleans's budget that would
have specifically aided such an eventuality.
Why is the federal government giving money to New Orleans in the
first place?
Because it's under the sea level and needs special protection.
Your point? Why does the whole country have to subsidize the idiots who
voluntarily live in a danger zone?
Have you offered them somewhere else to live? As you regard the place
the were born as a "voluntary" residence?
So how does that make every taxpaying American financially responsible
according to the constitution?
It's not the constitution that should make you feel obliged to help, it's
your humanity. If you're a republican I'll understand that this concept will
be lost on you.
That's very bigoted of you. If you're a liberal, I'll understand that
is a very natural attitude of you. There, does that sound better? Why
are you such a bigot?
I know MANY republicans who are VERY generous and feel obliged to help
based on humanity. I also know MANY democrats who are the same way.
People are people, and more often than not, we help others when they
really need help. It's our nature and has nothing to do with what
political party you belong to.
However, since you wish to make a bigoted statement like that I would
hope you have some research to support your theory that republican's
don't want to help others based on humanity.
So, the floor is yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Irie" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
06 Sep 2005 05:55:14 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1125987974.124069.41640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Kel wrote:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:431cbd3f$0$32195$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:nknSe.5146$pm2.885@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318a021$0$29901$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:T1%Re.2580$hv5.1818@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318553c$0$29919$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:kRTRe.2911$bi5.2900@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11hfmuphndg1110@corp.supernews.com...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96C4E6D084A68ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
news:11hfgq04edqgda3@corp.supernews.com:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:cgPRe.103817$Ep.35821@lakeread02...
What is happening in the Gulf Cost is a fucking disgrace.
Why are you calling nature a disgrace.
Hell junior, hurricanes happen, and have been for eons.
All the more inexcusable that we should not be
preparing for them.
But we have to the extent that we are capable of.
Garbage. Bush cut $40 million from New Orleans's budget that would
have specifically aided such an eventuality.
Why is the federal government giving money to New Orleans in the
first place?
Because it's under the sea level and needs special protection.
Your point? Why does the whole country have to subsidize the idiots
who
voluntarily live in a danger zone?
Have you offered them somewhere else to live? As you regard the place
the were born as a "voluntary" residence?
So how does that make every taxpaying American financially responsible
according to the constitution?
It's not the constitution that should make you feel obliged to help, it's
your humanity. If you're a republican I'll understand that this concept
will
be lost on you.
That's very bigoted of you. If you're a liberal, I'll understand that
is a very natural attitude of you. There, does that sound better? Why
are you such a bigot?
I know MANY republicans who are VERY generous and feel obliged to help
based on humanity. I also know MANY democrats who are the same way.
People are people, and more often than not, we help others when they
really need help. It's our nature and has nothing to do with what
political party you belong to.
However, since you wish to make a bigoted statement like that I would
hope you have some research to support your theory that republican's
don't want to help others based on humanity.
So, the floor is yours.
Just wanted to add the point that compassion is not compassion when it is
compulsory.
Irie
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
'Without law or compulsion, people would dwell in harmony' - Lao Tzu
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
07 Sep 2005 02:54:55 PM |
|
|
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:g7pTe.118471$Ep.101054@lakeread02...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1125987974.124069.41640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Kel wrote:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:431cbd3f$0$32195$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:nknSe.5146$pm2.885@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318a021$0$29901$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:T1%Re.2580$hv5.1818@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318553c$0$29919$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:kRTRe.2911$bi5.2900@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11hfmuphndg1110@corp.supernews.com...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96C4E6D084A68ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
news:11hfgq04edqgda3@corp.supernews.com:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:cgPRe.103817$Ep.35821@lakeread02...
What is happening in the Gulf Cost is a fucking disgrace.
Why are you calling nature a disgrace.
Hell junior, hurricanes happen, and have been for eons.
All the more inexcusable that we should not be
preparing for them.
But we have to the extent that we are capable of.
Garbage. Bush cut $40 million from New Orleans's budget that
would
have specifically aided such an eventuality.
Why is the federal government giving money to New Orleans in the
first place?
Because it's under the sea level and needs special protection.
Your point? Why does the whole country have to subsidize the idiots
who
voluntarily live in a danger zone?
Have you offered them somewhere else to live? As you regard the place
the were born as a "voluntary" residence?
So how does that make every taxpaying American financially responsible
according to the constitution?
It's not the constitution that should make you feel obliged to help,
it's
your humanity. If you're a republican I'll understand that this concept
will
be lost on you.
That's very bigoted of you. If you're a liberal, I'll understand that
is a very natural attitude of you. There, does that sound better? Why
are you such a bigot?
I know MANY republicans who are VERY generous and feel obliged to help
based on humanity. I also know MANY democrats who are the same way.
People are people, and more often than not, we help others when they
really need help. It's our nature and has nothing to do with what
political party you belong to.
However, since you wish to make a bigoted statement like that I would
hope you have some research to support your theory that republican's
don't want to help others based on humanity.
So, the floor is yours.
Just wanted to add the point that compassion is not compassion when it is
compulsory.
Some times help should be based on the need of the receiver rather than the
compassion of the giver. Maybe we all need to realise that there IS such a
thing as society. Natural disaster could befall any of us. "Do unto others
as you would wish done to yourself". (I paraphrase, but you get the point.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Irie" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
08 Sep 2005 07:03:25 PM |
|
|
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jAHTe.22196$2n6.4416@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:g7pTe.118471$Ep.101054@lakeread02...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1125987974.124069.41640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Kel wrote:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:431cbd3f$0$32195$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:nknSe.5146$pm2.885@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318a021$0$29901$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:T1%Re.2580$hv5.1818@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318553c$0$29919$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:kRTRe.2911$bi5.2900@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11hfmuphndg1110@corp.supernews.com...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96C4E6D084A68ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
news:11hfgq04edqgda3@corp.supernews.com:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:cgPRe.103817$Ep.35821@lakeread02...
What is happening in the Gulf Cost is a fucking disgrace.
Why are you calling nature a disgrace.
Hell junior, hurricanes happen, and have been for eons.
All the more inexcusable that we should not be
preparing for them.
But we have to the extent that we are capable of.
Garbage. Bush cut $40 million from New Orleans's budget that
would
have specifically aided such an eventuality.
Why is the federal government giving money to New Orleans in the
first place?
Because it's under the sea level and needs special protection.
Your point? Why does the whole country have to subsidize the idiots
who
voluntarily live in a danger zone?
Have you offered them somewhere else to live? As you regard the
place
the were born as a "voluntary" residence?
So how does that make every taxpaying American financially
responsible
according to the constitution?
It's not the constitution that should make you feel obliged to help,
it's
your humanity. If you're a republican I'll understand that this concept
will
be lost on you.
That's very bigoted of you. If you're a liberal, I'll understand that
is a very natural attitude of you. There, does that sound better? Why
are you such a bigot?
I know MANY republicans who are VERY generous and feel obliged to help
based on humanity. I also know MANY democrats who are the same way.
People are people, and more often than not, we help others when they
really need help. It's our nature and has nothing to do with what
political party you belong to.
However, since you wish to make a bigoted statement like that I would
hope you have some research to support your theory that republican's
don't want to help others based on humanity.
So, the floor is yours.
Just wanted to add the point that compassion is not compassion when it is
compulsory.
Some times
Who decides when? The "philosopher king"?
help should be based on the need of the receiver rather than the
compassion of the giver.
So where does it end and who is to judge? Isn't it best judged by the
person for whom it is that has to give up their right to their property? I
need a car to get to work so I can be productive. I cannot be productive
without a car. I need it. So send me a check, Kel.
Maybe we all need to realise that there IS such a
thing as society.
Yes, there is. No kidding. Stop with you straw man argument.
Natural disaster could befall any of us. "Do unto others
as you would wish done to yourself". (I paraphrase, but you get the
point.)
Yes, exactly. But this does not work when it is forced.
Irie
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
'Without law or compulsion, people would dwell in harmony' - Lao Tzu
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
09 Sep 2005 05:46:46 AM |
|
|
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:gj4Ue.119062$Ep.36457@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jAHTe.22196$2n6.4416@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:g7pTe.118471$Ep.101054@lakeread02...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1125987974.124069.41640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Kel wrote:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:431cbd3f$0$32195$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:nknSe.5146$pm2.885@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318a021$0$29901$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:T1%Re.2580$hv5.1818@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4318553c$0$29919$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:kRTRe.2911$bi5.2900@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11hfmuphndg1110@corp.supernews.com...
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns96C4E6D084A68ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
news:11hfgq04edqgda3@corp.supernews.com:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:cgPRe.103817$Ep.35821@lakeread02...
What is happening in the Gulf Cost is a fucking disgrace.
Why are you calling nature a disgrace.
Hell junior, hurricanes happen, and have been for eons.
All the more inexcusable that we should not be
preparing for them.
But we have to the extent that we are capable of.
Garbage. Bush cut $40 million from New Orleans's budget that
would
have specifically aided such an eventuality.
Why is the federal government giving money to New Orleans in the
first place?
Because it's under the sea level and needs special protection.
Your point? Why does the whole country have to subsidize the
idiots
who
voluntarily live in a danger zone?
Have you offered them somewhere else to live? As you regard the
place
the were born as a "voluntary" residence?
So how does that make every taxpaying American financially
responsible
according to the constitution?
It's not the constitution that should make you feel obliged to help,
it's
your humanity. If you're a republican I'll understand that this
concept
will
be lost on you.
That's very bigoted of you. If you're a liberal, I'll understand that
is a very natural attitude of you. There, does that sound better? Why
are you such a bigot?
I know MANY republicans who are VERY generous and feel obliged to help
based on humanity. I also know MANY democrats who are the same way.
People are people, and more often than not, we help others when they
really need help. It's our nature and has nothing to do with what
political party you belong to.
However, since you wish to make a bigoted statement like that I would
hope you have some research to support your theory that republican's
don't want to help others based on humanity.
So, the floor is yours.
Just wanted to add the point that compassion is not compassion when it
is
compulsory.
Some times
Who decides when? The "philosopher king"?
help should be based on the need of the receiver rather than the
compassion of the giver.
So where does it end and who is to judge?
Well, in this case we are talking about a natural disaster. It s for the
government of the day to formulate a plan for these people and to implement
it.
Isn't it best judged by the
person for whom it is that has to give up their right to their property?
I need a car to get to work so I can be productive. I cannot be
productive without a car. I need it. So send me a check, Kel.
That's stupid as no-one is arguing that.
There IS such a
thing as society.
Yes, there is. No kidding. Stop with you straw man argument.
You're actually much nearer to Thatcher's way of thinking than you care to
admit.
Natural disaster could befall any of us. "Do unto others
as you would wish done to yourself". (I paraphrase, but you get the
point.)
Yes, exactly. But this does not work when it is forced.
Yes, it does. Governments all over the world do it all the time. Only in
"small goverment" America would you all insist on being consulted before
your own goverments helps your fellow citizens in a disaster with what you
see as "your" money.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "whome?" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
07 Sep 2005 03:27:55 PM |
|
|
Kel wrote:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:g7pTe.118471$Ep.101054@lakeread02...
Just wanted to add the point that compassion is not compassion when it is
compulsory.
Some times help should be based on the need of the receiver rather than the
compassion of the giver. Maybe we all need to realise that there IS such a
thing as society. Natural disaster could befall any of us. "Do unto others
as you would wish done to yourself". (I paraphrase, but you get the point.)
Yes, but forcing someone to be thy brother's keeper (at gunpoint, i.e.
taxation), is hardly the act of a free society is it? Freedom has a
price, that is responsibility. Many people don't want it and have never
had it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
08 Sep 2005 09:00:12 AM |
|
|
"whome?" <whome@beets.crib.com> wrote in message
news:1126124875.1788336879d2d41dc7ff5d9b73176278@meganetnews2...
Kel wrote:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:g7pTe.118471$Ep.101054@lakeread02...
Just wanted to add the point that compassion is not compassion when it is
compulsory.
Some times help should be based on the need of the receiver rather than
the
compassion of the giver. Maybe we all need to realise that there IS such
a
thing as society. Natural disaster could befall any of us. "Do unto
others
as you would wish done to yourself". (I paraphrase, but you get the
point.)
Yes, but forcing someone to be thy brother's keeper (at gunpoint, i.e.
taxation), is hardly the act of a free society is it?
Yes it is. Society is capable of having a social conscience.
Freedom has a
price, that is responsibility. Many people don't want it and have never
had it.
Natural disasters happen. No-one is responsible for them. So it is in all
our interests to act collectively to help people in such circumstances lest
we one day, through no fault of our own, find ourselves similary afflicted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Irie" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
08 Sep 2005 07:44:00 PM |
|
|
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MtXTe.7477$k22.3418@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"whome?" <whome@beets.crib.com> wrote in message
news:1126124875.1788336879d2d41dc7ff5d9b73176278@meganetnews2...
Kel wrote:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:g7pTe.118471$Ep.101054@lakeread02...
Just wanted to add the point that compassion is not compassion when it
is
compulsory.
Some times help should be based on the need of the receiver rather than
the
compassion of the giver. Maybe we all need to realise that there IS such
a
thing as society. Natural disaster could befall any of us. "Do unto
others
as you would wish done to yourself". (I paraphrase, but you get the
point.)
Yes, but forcing someone to be thy brother's keeper (at gunpoint, i.e.
taxation), is hardly the act of a free society is it?
Yes it is. Society is capable of having a social conscience.
No it does not.
Freedom has a
price, that is responsibility. Many people don't want it and have never
had it.
Natural disasters happen. No-one is responsible for them. So it is in all
our interests to act collectively to help people in such circumstances
lest we one day, through no fault of our own, find ourselves similary
afflicted.
Who are you to state what other peoples' interests are?
--
Irie
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
'Without law or compulsion, people would dwell in harmony' - Lao Tzu
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
09 Sep 2005 05:40:16 AM |
|
|
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:iV4Ue.119066$Ep.1654@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MtXTe.7477$k22.3418@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"whome?" <whome@beets.crib.com> wrote in message
news:1126124875.1788336879d2d41dc7ff5d9b73176278@meganetnews2...
Kel wrote:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:g7pTe.118471$Ep.101054@lakeread02...
Just wanted to add the point that compassion is not compassion when it
is
compulsory.
Some times help should be based on the need of the receiver rather than
the
compassion of the giver. Maybe we all need to realise that there IS
such a
thing as society. Natural disaster could befall any of us. "Do unto
others
as you would wish done to yourself". (I paraphrase, but you get the
point.)
Yes, but forcing someone to be thy brother's keeper (at gunpoint, i.e.
taxation), is hardly the act of a free society is it?
Yes it is. Society is capable of having a social conscience.
No it does not.
Why not? One of the earliest things a child learns and cries over is,
"That's not fair!" There is an inate sense of right and wrong in all of us.
Freedom has a
price, that is responsibility. Many people don't want it and have never
had it.
Natural disasters happen. No-one is responsible for them. So it is in all
our interests to act collectively to help people in such circumstances
lest we one day, through no fault of our own, find ourselves similary
afflicted.
Who are you to state what other peoples' interests are?
I am a person utilising my right to free speech, you got a problem with
that? And, as disaster could inflict any of us, I think it is in all of our
interests that we have a collective plan to aid people afflicted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Irie" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
12 Sep 2005 04:54:42 PM |
|
|
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kEdUe.14898$fb.12571@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:iV4Ue.119066$Ep.1654@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MtXTe.7477$k22.3418@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"whome?" <whome@beets.crib.com> wrote in message
news:1126124875.1788336879d2d41dc7ff5d9b73176278@meganetnews2...
Kel wrote:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:g7pTe.118471$Ep.101054@lakeread02...
Just wanted to add the point that compassion is not compassion when it
is
compulsory.
Some times help should be based on the need of the receiver rather
than the
compassion of the giver. Maybe we all need to realise that there IS
such a
thing as society. Natural disaster could befall any of us. "Do unto
others
as you would wish done to yourself". (I paraphrase, but you get the
point.)
Yes, but forcing someone to be thy brother's keeper (at gunpoint, i.e.
taxation), is hardly the act of a free society is it?
Yes it is. Society is capable of having a social conscience.
No it does not.
Why not? One of the earliest things a child learns and cries over is,
"That's not fair!" There is an inate sense of right and wrong in all of
us.
Because we are individuals with varying interests and concerns. Are values
may be quite similar, but our interests are not.
Freedom has a
price, that is responsibility. Many people don't want it and have
never had it.
Natural disasters happen. No-one is responsible for them. So it is in
all our interests to act collectively to help people in such
circumstances lest we one day, through no fault of our own, find
ourselves similary afflicted.
Who are you to state what other peoples' interests are?
I am a person utilising my right to free speech, you got a problem with
that?
No, of course not. I enjoy debating with you. How do you claim to have the
answer to what everyone's interests are?
And, as disaster could inflict any of us, I think it is in all of our
interests that we have a collective plan to aid people afflicted.
No, it is not. A single mother with five kids most likely has interest
above those of the people of New Orleans.Who are to say you speak for her?
Irie
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
'Without law or compulsion, people would dwell in harmony' - Lao Tzu
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
14 Sep 2005 08:46:36 AM |
|
|
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:wOmVe.119713$Ep.112667@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kEdUe.14898$fb.12571@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:iV4Ue.119066$Ep.1654@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MtXTe.7477$k22.3418@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"whome?" <whome@beets.crib.com> wrote in message
news:1126124875.1788336879d2d41dc7ff5d9b73176278@meganetnews2...
Kel wrote:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:g7pTe.118471$Ep.101054@lakeread02...
Just wanted to add the point that compassion is not compassion when
it is
compulsory.
Some times help should be based on the need of the receiver rather
than the
compassion of the giver. Maybe we all need to realise that there IS
such a
thing as society. Natural disaster could befall any of us. "Do unto
others
as you would wish done to yourself". (I paraphrase, but you get the
point.)
Yes, but forcing someone to be thy brother's keeper (at gunpoint, i.e.
taxation), is hardly the act of a free society is it?
Yes it is. Society is capable of having a social conscience.
No it does not.
Why not? One of the earliest things a child learns and cries over is,
"That's not fair!" There is an inate sense of right and wrong in all of
us.
Because we are individuals with varying interests and concerns. Are
values may be quite similar, but our interests are not.
Would you wish to be helped if natural disaster wiped out every single thing
you owned? Everything, your neighbourhood, your home, your job?
Freedom has a
price, that is responsibility. Many people don't want it and have
never had it.
Natural disasters happen. No-one is responsible for them. So it is in
all our interests to act collectively to help people in such
circumstances lest we one day, through no fault of our own, find
ourselves similary afflicted.
Who are you to state what other peoples' interests are?
I am a person utilising my right to free speech, you got a problem with
that?
No, of course not. I enjoy debating with you. How do you claim to have
the answer to what everyone's interests are?
I simply imagine how I think most people would feel if every single thing
they ever possessed was taken from them, including in some cases members of
their family. I think most people would expect some kind of help. Indeed,
the outrage over New Orleans would suggest that you occupy a minority
opinion.
And, as disaster could inflict any of us, I think it is in all of our
interests that we have a collective plan to aid people afflicted.
No, it is not. A single mother with five kids most likely has interest
above those of the people of New Orleans.Who are to say you speak for her?
Why do you always presume that to help one is to take from the other? It is
possible to do both.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Irie" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
18 Sep 2005 09:01:04 AM |
|
|
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0RVVe.28701$k22.15072@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:wOmVe.119713$Ep.112667@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kEdUe.14898$fb.12571@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:iV4Ue.119066$Ep.1654@lakeread02...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MtXTe.7477$k22.3418@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"whome?" <whome@beets.crib.com> wrote in message
news:1126124875.1788336879d2d41dc7ff5d9b73176278@meganetnews2...
Kel wrote:
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
news:g7pTe.118471$Ep.101054@lakeread02...
Just wanted to add the point that compassion is not compassion when
it is
compulsory.
Some times help should be based on the need of the receiver rather
than the
compassion of the giver. Maybe we all need to realise that there IS
such a
thing as society. Natural disaster could befall any of us. "Do unto
others
as you would wish done to yourself". (I paraphrase, but you get the
point.)
Yes, but forcing someone to be thy brother's keeper (at gunpoint,
i.e. taxation), is hardly the act of a free society is it?
Yes it is. Society is capable of having a social conscience.
No it does not.
Why not? One of the earliest things a child learns and cries over is,
"That's not fair!" There is an inate sense of right and wrong in all of
us.
Because we are individuals with varying interests and concerns. Are
values may be quite similar, but our interests are not.
Would you wish to be helped if natural disaster wiped out every single
thing you owned? Everything, your neighbourhood, your home, your job?
I've prepared. I have insurance. I would also be very grateful to anyone
who voluntarily offered to help. I would not defame or speak badly about
the single parent who could not contribute.
Freedom has a
price, that is responsibility. Many people don't want it and have
never had it.
Natural disasters happen. No-one is responsible for them. So it is in
all our interests to act collectively to help people in such
circumstances lest we one day, through no fault of our own, find
ourselves similary afflicted.
Who are you to state what other peoples' interests are?
I am a person utilising my right to free speech, you got a problem with
that?
No, of course not. I enjoy debating with you. How do you claim to have
the answer to what everyone's interests are?
I simply imagine how I think most people would feel if every single thing
they ever possessed was taken from them, including in some cases members
of their family. I think most people would expect some kind of help.
Indeed, the outrage over New Orleans would suggest that you occupy a
minority opinion.
I am not concerned about being popular, I am concerned about being right.
You cannot imagine how everyone feels and force that view on people in a
free country.
And, as disaster could inflict any of us, I think it is in all of our
interests that we have a collective plan to aid people afflicted.
No, it is not. A single mother with five kids most likely has interest
above those of the people of New Orleans.Who are to say you speak for
her?
Why do you always presume that to help one is to take from the other?
I am not presuming it, it is reality. The reality that you advocate.
It is possible to do both.
Both what? Force people to give up their property and still be free?
Irie
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
'Without law or compulsion, people would dwell in harmony' - Lao Tzu
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
18 Sep 2005 01:02:13 PM |
|
|
Irie <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote:
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
Yes, but forcing someone to be thy brother's keeper (at gunpoint,
i.e. taxation), is hardly the act of a free society is it?
Yes it is. Society is capable of having a social conscience.
No it does not.
Why not? One of the earliest things a child learns and cries over is,
"That's not fair!" There is an inate sense of right and wrong in all of
us.
Because we are individuals with varying interests and concerns. Are
values may be quite similar, but our interests are not.
Would you wish to be helped if natural disaster wiped out every single
thing you owned? Everything, your neighbourhood, your home, your job?
I've prepared. I have insurance.
Are you sure? Did you investigate the finances of the insurance
company? Did you depend upon society to make and enforce laws
ensuring that insurance companies were funded? And what if they
went bankrupt? Who then would you depend upon?
I would also be very grateful to anyone
who voluntarily offered to help. I would not defame or speak badly about
the single parent who could not contribute.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Irie" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
18 Sep 2005 02:38:35 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dgka35$hp2$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Irie <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote:
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
Yes, but forcing someone to be thy brother's keeper (at gunpoint,
i.e. taxation), is hardly the act of a free society is it?
Yes it is. Society is capable of having a social conscience.
No it does not.
Why not? One of the earliest things a child learns and cries over is,
"That's not fair!" There is an inate sense of right and wrong in all
of
us.
Because we are individuals with varying interests and concerns. Are
values may be quite similar, but our interests are not.
Would you wish to be helped if natural disaster wiped out every single
thing you owned? Everything, your neighbourhood, your home, your job?
I've prepared. I have insurance.
Are you sure?
Yes.
Did you investigate the finances of the insurance
company?
One of the best in the industry.
Did you depend upon society to make and enforce laws
ensuring that insurance companies were funded?
They do, and their history proves it.
And what if they
went bankrupt?
Then I'd get another.
Who then would you depend upon?
Hard work and probably the charity of those who can afford it.
I would also be very grateful to anyone
who voluntarily offered to help.
I would not defame or speak badly about
the single parent who could not contribute.
You would (defame or speak badly about the single parent who could not
contribute).
Irie
The heathen back there, pound the wall.
'Without law or compulsion, people would dwell in harmony' - Lao Tzu
--
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give
it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Okay, Time to Vent |
18 Sep 2005 03:32:03 PM |
|
|
Irie <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Irie <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote:
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
"Irie" <Irie@IrieEpistemology.com> wrote in message
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
Yes, but forcing someone to be thy brother's keeper (at gunpoint,
i.e. taxation), is hardly the act of a free society is it?
Yes it is. Society is capable of having a social conscience.
No it does not.
Why not? One of the earliest things a child learns and cries over is,
"That's not fair!" There is an inate sense of right and wrong in all
of
us.
Because we are individuals with varying interests and concerns. Are
values may be quite similar, but our interests are not.
Would you wish to be helped if natural disaster wiped out every single
thing you owned? Everything, your neighbourhood, your home, your job?
I've prepared. I have insurance.
Are you sure?
Yes.
Did you investigate the finances of the insurance
company?
One of the best in the industry.
Not what I asked.
Did you depend upon society to make and enforce laws
ensuring that insurance companies were funded?
They do, and their history proves it.
So you depend upon the laws and government of society.
And what if they
went bankrupt?
Then I'd get another.
After you'd lost everything you own?
Who then would you depend upon?
Hard work and probably the charity of those who can afford it.
Probably. Nobody is independant. Everybody depends upon government
and society. Some people are greedy and th | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
