Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Killin' turrurusts, by Gawd!

Americans support drone warfare in Pakistan by a large majority, polls tell us, even if Pakistanis disapprove. I propose a different question.

Suppose that certain Americans located in America were alleged by Pakistan to be planning aggressive attacks within Pakistan. Would Pakistan be entitled to drop missiles from drones on these Americans in America?

Follow-up question for those who answer "yes". If Pakistan's drones killed and wounded many hundreds of innocent Americans while targeting its alleged enemies, would Pakistan be entitled to drop these missiles on America?

Follow-up question. If these anti-Pakistan groups in America used Pakistan's drone attacks on America to recruit more Americans into its anti-Pakistan group, would it be prudent for Pakistan to continue the missile strikes?

by Anonymousreply 4106/27/2013

As a follow up question-

Suppose that during the Stalin regime in the USSR, Eduard Snowdenski was an analyst who worked for a bureau under the NKVD (People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs). Suppose that he decided to reveal to the Russian people the extent of the NKVD domestic spying apparatus that peopled the Gulag, or Main Directorate for Corrective Labor Camps, with prisoners.

How should Snowdenski do this? Should he report through NKVD channels, or should he defect?

Do you regard Snowdenski as a traitor if he defects to America and reveals the extent of the Russian domestic spying program?

Is Snowdenski a hero?

What is your opinion of those in the Kremlin who demand Snowdenski's head?

If Snowdenski defected to America and the USSR charged him with espionage, would you consider the charge valid?

Should America extradite him to the USSR?

by Anonymousreply 106/22/2013

I love it when 3AM show up, the gays are coming back from the bars drunk, and begin to post like this one!

by Anonymousreply 206/22/2013

I hope that these two blatantly obvious hypotheticals, which anyone with an IQ over room temp would find indefensible, illustrate why libertarianism is the only political and moral framework for judging US/UN/NATO foreign policy.

Libertarians are the only ones who have a cohesive system for

-protecting the rights of minorities (gays, blacks, Jews, women, people who like the Kardashians)

-stopping the blatant theft by the big banks- like Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Chase, etc.- via the Federal Reserve.

-opposing the mass imprisonment of black men via drug laws.

-eliminating the dangerous and counterproductive laws, regulations and tax schemes that make health care so expensive (and it is going to get even worse under Obamacare)

-making marriage equality a reality by removing the role of government in sanctioning a religious and/or civil agreement.

-ending the "total war" system of the USGov that has military bases in almost every country on the planet.

-ending the "corporate welfare" that supports multi-billion dollar companies like Monsanto, GM, Boeing, ADM, Blackwater, IBM, Dow, GE, Exxon, Comcast, Wal-Mart, AT&T...the list is endless.

Our current system can be summed up by this quote-

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -Benito Mussolini

Only real liberals can see why embracing true freedom and ending the strangling grip of the corporate parasites that use the government to control us is the only path to a happier, healthier and wealthier future.

by Anonymousreply 306/22/2013

Nope, r2-

Just home from Cambodia and jet lagged as fuck.

FYI- if you ever get out of the USA then the Raffles in Siem Reap is the best value you'll find in SEAsia. The pool is one of the biggest I've seen.

by Anonymousreply 406/22/2013

Oh, and R2-

The reason I'm on a kick tonight is that the people of Cambodia are well versed in Austrian economic theory. The questions from the audience were detailed and showed an excellent grasp of the nuances of ABCT. Murray would've smiled.

Of course, after the mass murders our government helped engineer (and then covered up) and their experience with murderous socialist rule, they appreciate a coherent philosophy of freedom and self-rule more than spoiled sycophants like you.

by Anonymousreply 506/22/2013

.

by Anonymousreply 606/22/2013

So why do the Cambodians have such trouble with human rights?

by Anonymousreply 706/22/2013

R7- I think a lot of it stems from the remnants of French colonial law.

The government system brought forth by the French Revolution differed dramatically in character when compared to the American Revolution. In essence it boils down to "negative rights" vs "positive rights".

The US was based on Negative, aka you can do this unless the government specifically prohibits.

In France, it is you can't do this unless specifically authorized.

That is why the US grew so rapidly during the 19th and early 20th century, while France is quickly joining the third world.

by Anonymousreply 806/24/2013

R3 is our delusional libertarian troll?

Because jesus, what a load of rubbish.

Libertarianism is a fraud, a fantasy, a cult, and a failed ideology... only supported by privileged white males ignorant of their own level of privilege and what that even means.

Libertarians are so goddamned ignorant, self-involved, selfish, tedious, over-bearing, and obnoxious. I wish they'd go away, and take Ron & Rand Paul with them.

The fact that they worship Ayn Rand just proves how dangerously delusional and sociopathic they are.

Just. Go. Away.

by Anonymousreply 906/24/2013

R9-

The eloquence and beauty of your post has made me decide that Stalin, Mao and Hitler were right. How wrong of me to think that people should be able to think for themselves and pursue their own passions and dreams!

I can't wait to tell my Jewish, African and Mexican cousins that I now own them, and that I will- from the goodness of my heart- kill them with an overdose of Xanax instead of gassing them!

Even better, I can take their money and property without feeling guilty! SCORE!

I feel bad that I'm going to have to put my half-black, half-Jew cousin to death for being gay- he is a really good kid.

R9- is there anyone else I should target for the gas chambers? I think my neighbor is half-Cuban.

by Anonymousreply 1006/24/2013

Between the false-equivalencies, straw-man arguments, and all the other logical fallacies and distorted & flawed reasoning in your post, R10, I'm not sure exactly how to respond.

I can only sit here and shake my had and laugh a little at you, mostly out of pity for your obvious an untreated mental illness.

I mean, you claim to be responding to my post, but it's clear to every sane person that you're not at all. You've made up someone completely imaginary in your head (kind of the same way you make up your political ideology and its consequences in your head). It's the epitome of "delusional".

Thanks for the laugh I guess, but really, dude, seek treatment. Lithium, or some serious anti-psychotics to start, and a few years of had therapy couldn't hurt.

by Anonymousreply 1106/24/2013

R11

How about this-

When is it okay to steal?

When it is okay to kill?

When it is okay to defraud?

Answer those things.

by Anonymousreply 1206/24/2013

I wonder about our poor, pitiful libertarian troll. Something went terribly, terribly wrong in her life and she has never recovered from it.

by Anonymousreply 1306/24/2013

R13-

Good answer!

It will make more DL readers look up libertarians and Ron Paul.

Please tell us why you think fraud, murder and theft are good as long as it is done by the government.

by Anonymousreply 1406/24/2013

More delusional straw-man bullshit from the idiot libertarian troll at R14.

Good lord.

I bet he thinks asking a random guy "When did you stop beating your wife" is a valid question too.

What a mental pygmy.

by Anonymousreply 1506/24/2013

r14

Ron and Rand Paul both say that businesses should have the right to discriminate by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or any other basis they care to. Do you agree with them?

by Anonymousreply 1606/24/2013

The two biggest threats we face in the world today:

Brutal Global Corporatism and brutal,radical Islamists bent on Sharia rule.

by Anonymousreply 1706/24/2013

R15-

You're the Pygmy.

Tell us why murder, theft and fraud are okay as long as they have a government badge.

Please.

You can shut this thread by giving an example of when killing an innocent person, stealing from a person who earned their wealth, or committing fraud to entice someone to do something is "OK" by your moral system.

You can't? Really?

Is it because your socialist slash fascist system that rewards the big banks and multi billion dollar corporations is inherently evil?

If not, why?

by Anonymousreply 1806/24/2013

for 12 answer is when needed.

by Anonymousreply 1906/24/2013

R19-

Huh?

by Anonymousreply 2006/24/2013

Answer r16, OP. Thanks.

by Anonymousreply 2106/24/2013

[quote]When is it okay to steal?

It is okay to steal the ill-gotten gains of the rich to feed your poor starving children, R12.

[quote]When it is okay to kill?

When someone is attacking you. When someone is raping your child. When someone is trying to kill your loved ones. Lots of reasons, R12.

You sound quite simple minded, R12.

by Anonymousreply 2206/24/2013

R22-

If that person is a tax parasite - say a cop, or senator, or DMV employee OR is an employee of CitiBank, or GoldmanSucks, or works for Boeing, or BoozHam, or is a leader of a union- yes, stealing from them to feed your family is fine. They live off money stolen from us, so they deserve it.

Self defense- say when they try to steal from you because they have an official license to steal- yes, killing them does us all a good service.

by Anonymousreply 2306/24/2013

R16-

[quote]Ron and Rand Paul both say that businesses should have the right to discriminate by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or any other basis they care to. Do you agree with them?

Yes. If I only want to hire straight white Baptist men in their 20s with blue eyes and an IQ over 140 then I'm going to have to pay much more than a business that hires anyone qualified for the job. Unless these Aryan ideal men are far superior to my competition - the one that hires by discriminating against anyone who doesn't have the actual qualifications for the job (and disregards sex, ethnicity, etc.) then very soon I, and my perfect men, will be out of a job.

We all discriminate. It is inherent in nature. Ask a black executive if he discriminates against a "certain subculture" of young black men and if he's honest he will say yes.

In my business, I've discriminated- not based on sex or race- but on ineffable qualities. One of my favorite ex-employees is a black Muslim female who moved to the US as a teen, learned English (as well as her "native" french) and speaks english well enough to train large groups.

She married a white man because she found most American black men were beneath her, and got slapped with an EEOC claim a few years ago because of her disdain. When the EEOC investigators found out she was an immigrant female black Muslim (I told her she should have rolled in on a wheelchair with her secretary as her "wife" just to make it perfect- a disabled black Muslim lesbian!) they dropped the case.

So, yes R16- if I don't like the cut of your jib or the part in your hair I should be able to refuse to employ you. By creating a "second class citizen" system where people can claim they were denied a job (or fired) due to prejudice doesn't reduce prejudice- it exacerbates it!

Why should I hire a disabled black lesbian--- even if she is perfectly qualified for the job!--- if I have to worry that if I fire her I will face a potential lawsuit for "discrimination" and accusations of racism/sexism/homophobia. Such an accusation could cost me $500k in lost work, lawyer fees, lost clients, gossip.

I hope this helps, R16

by Anonymousreply 2406/24/2013

I will never understand the Libertarian mind. Reality really is not as bad (or preciously simplistic) as you people make it out to be.

Also, could you please invest in new hypotheticals? Does Ayn Rand say anything about novelty at all?

by Anonymousreply 2506/24/2013

R22-

In case you didn't get it, the foundation of Libertarianism is based on those 3 things---

Don't kill (unless as a last resort in self defense or defense of family or property)

Don't steal (and that includes the IRS)

Don't defraud people.

From those 3 axioms the entire corpus of libertarian thought can be extrapolated.

by Anonymousreply 2606/24/2013

R25-

Please explain why you don't understand freedom of contract.

Do you think Ed Snowden and Julian Assange are heroes or turrurusts?

Do you think invading and killing brown people is okay?

Do you believe putting 60 year old grandmas in jail because she grew weed to help her through chemo?

Do you think giving Citibank a trillion dollars in tax money is good?

Please, explain your hostility to liberty.

by Anonymousreply 2706/24/2013

Except Ron Paul wanted to outlaw abortion. Freedom for all except when they are females burdened with an unwanted pregnancy.

R24, would you like to invoke your right to turn away customers from your business? i.e. black customers? Anti-discrimination law applies to users of goods and services, not just people you hire.

by Anonymousreply 2806/25/2013

I'm black, R27. Guilt of any kind does not work on me. What happens to brown people is not of my doing, or any of my concern.

I don't care about either Snowden or Assange. Exposing 'secret' information that most people, certainly voters, aren't able to constructively use in any way seems a waste of time and effort. Everything always ends up appropriated and polarized by interest groups who see things differently and interpret them accordingly.

Don't smoke weed, don't care about it.

If Citibank provides a reasonable public service that requires that large an investment, sure.

You seem to have a problem with the way things are done, others clearly don't, because every election produces the same result. It is the will of the people. There you go.

by Anonymousreply 2906/25/2013

I think Snowden and Assange are famewhores who have ended up in the pockets of regimes who are more repressive than the ones they deplore. Both will end up regretting what they did, no matter what they say.

I do not think killing and invading brown people is OK. Our invasion of Iraq was a disgrace and hopefully we will avoid another such adventure. They are pretty good at killing each other, though -- Syria is a fine example. So is Algeria, a nation where 200,000 lives were lost in a recent civil war most Americans don't know much about. The Islamist killers in collusion with the government got amnesty. Pakistan is a place where Pakistanis have killed more people than Americans ever could.

I do not believe in putting grandmas in jail for personal consumption of weed. I do believe in imprisoning people who deal massive amounts of very strong weed. Until it is legal, dealing weed is against the law.

The banking scandal is too complex for me to get my head around, I admit it.

by Anonymousreply 3006/25/2013

r24

I meant discrimination against customers, not employees. Feel free to provide justification for this behavior.

by Anonymousreply 3106/26/2013

R29

You sound stupid.

"If Citibank provides a reasonable public service that requires that large an investment, sure."

Please explain this statement. You support your government stealing from you to prop up a private, for-profit company?

So, if I come to your house and take your clothes, TV, PC and furniture to give to someone as a "public service" you would be A-OK?

Please explain.

by Anonymousreply 3206/26/2013

[quote]You sound stupid.

ROFL.... Oh, the irony....

by Anonymousreply 3306/26/2013

R28-

If your local bodega decided to quit serving blacks, would you keep buying from them?

by Anonymousreply 3406/26/2013

What a surprise. The knuckle-head is back.

Knuckle head threw a fit and called bullshit on the claim Ron Paul does not support the right to privacy. Then, when the proof that this is true, that Paul does not believe we have a right for privacy, suddenly that became a good thing. Knuckle head also insisted Ron Paul supports gay marriage. Until someone posted a flyer from a Paul event where he goes on about marriage being ordained by God as being between only a man and a woman.

Knuckle head then cut and ran.

by Anonymousreply 3506/26/2013

Oh good, we hadn't heard from the Libertarian Idiot Troll(TM) for at least 45 minutes.

Here's a thought experiment: twenty random people are sitting in a room talking. How far is the average IQ of the room reduced if a Libertarian enters?

by Anonymousreply 3606/27/2013

R36 I would suspect we would be in negative digits.

You want a laugh? Check out OPs thread on Ron Paul and DOMA. He is throwing a fit because people are using Paul's own words and voting record to disprove the claim Paul supports gay marriage. Reality is not something OP recognizes.

by Anonymousreply 3706/27/2013

R36-

It goes up by 31.415926%

Do I win the pie?

by Anonymousreply 3806/27/2013

As expected, the Libertarian can't even get positive and negative numbers straight.

by Anonymousreply 3906/27/2013

r38

Are you ignoring my question?

by Anonymousreply 4006/27/2013

[quote]Are you ignoring my question?

This coming from the man who refuses to say if he thinks its okay for business to discriminate against customers because of their race.

by Anonymousreply 4106/27/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.