You clearly don't know the history of how the blm forced ranchers out. It wasn't just grazing fees. Do some research. The feds never upheld their end of the bargain.
You ask me what I would do with my neighbor and you got my answer. We would work it out.
Comparing an abusive and omnipotent government to a neighbor is really dumb, it is apples and oranges. Ranchers have existed for centuries peacefully and actually are very friendly to one another.
This isn't about neighbors at all. Stop trying to use that comparison. Government is a disease, my neighbor isn't.
The small government people are usually the first to run to the government to get what they want.
Nah, the big gov't people are first by definition and design. But it is curious when the small gov't people go running to the gov't rather than take a more principled approach.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
The small government people are usually the first to run to the government to get what they want.
Nah, the big gov't people are first by definition and design. But it is curious when the small gov't people go running to the gov't rather than take a more principled approach.
Check how Libertarians feel about abortion. Many want it illegal. Talk to them individually. They're almost all white guys who internalize their success as all their own individual work. Their failings and struggles are then blamed on the government rather than looking inward. Then when it comes down to specific policy issues, they opt for government involvement if they benefit directly.
If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?
What has happened that you see as terrorism? You do know the difference between protests, riots, civil disobedience, and terrorism, right?
Terrorism is defined as using violence to achieve political gains.
I'd say it fits like a glove.
Smashing windows isn't violence. It's destruction of property. And if that definition in your head fits all scenarios where violence is used, then why aren't you decrying all the terrorist acts that keep on taking place against minorities? Violence for the sake of racism would seem to qualify under your definition, no? I mean, beating up a Muslim or something seems to be a political statement too, and there are dozens of such attacks a year in America. All of those "terrorists" really didn't seem to concern you.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The small government people are usually the first to run to the government to get what they want.
Nah, the big gov't people are first by definition and design. But it is curious when the small gov't people go running to the gov't rather than take a more principled approach.
Check how Libertarians feel about abortion. Many want it illegal. Talk to them individually. They're almost all white guys who internalize their success as all their own individual work. Their failings and struggles are then blamed on the government rather than looking inward. Then when it comes down to specific policy issues, they opt for government involvement if they benefit directly.
Total bullshit on the topic of abortion. And even if individually many are against abortion (and since we're just winging it here, most Libertarians I know aren't), they are also against government making that determination for the individual. Someone like Ron Paul may be morally and personally opposed to abortion, but he also wasn't going to mandate what a woman chooses to do with her body.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
The small government people are usually the first to run to the government to get what they want.
Nah, the big gov't people are first by definition and design. But it is curious when the small gov't people go running to the gov't rather than take a more principled approach.
Check how Libertarians feel about abortion. Many want it illegal. Talk to them individually. They're almost all white guys who internalize their success as all their own individual work. Their failings and struggles are then blamed on the government rather than looking inward. Then when it comes down to specific policy issues, they opt for government involvement if they benefit directly.
Total bullshit on the topic of abortion. And even if individually many are against abortion (and since we're just winging it here, most Libertarians I know aren't), they are also against government making that determination for the individual. Someone like Ron Paul may be morally and personally opposed to abortion, but he also wasn't going to mandate what a woman chooses to do with her body.
That's not what I recall about Ron Paul. I remember reading he wanted abortion illegal from his web page. Maybe unsung will chime in. It's just another example of libertarians wanting individualized government, not necessarily smaller.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
The small government people are usually the first to run to the government to get what they want.
Nah, the big gov't people are first by definition and design. But it is curious when the small gov't people go running to the gov't rather than take a more principled approach.
Check how Libertarians feel about abortion. Many want it illegal. Talk to them individually. They're almost all white guys who internalize their success as all their own individual work. Their failings and struggles are then blamed on the government rather than looking inward. Then when it comes down to specific policy issues, they opt for government involvement if they benefit directly.
Total bullshit on the topic of abortion. And even if individually many are against abortion (and since we're just winging it here, most Libertarians I know aren't), they are also against government making that determination for the individual. Someone like Ron Paul may be morally and personally opposed to abortion, but he also wasn't going to mandate what a woman chooses to do with her body.
That's not what I recall about Ron Paul. I remember reading he wanted abortion illegal from his web page. Maybe unsung will chime in. It's just another example of libertarians wanting individualized government, not necessarily smaller.
The stance was that in order to push for total liberty for all individuals you'd have to protect the most innocent of life to accomplish it.
I am paraphrasing. I'd have to go back and read his book Liberty Defined for the exact stance.
If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?
What has happened that you see as terrorism? You do know the difference between protests, riots, civil disobedience, and terrorism, right?
Terrorism is defined as using violence to achieve political gains.
I'd say it fits like a glove.
Smashing windows isn't violence. It's destruction of property. And if that definition in your head fits all scenarios where violence is used, then why aren't you decrying all the terrorist acts that keep on taking place against minorities? Violence for the sake of racism would seem to qualify under your definition, no? I mean, beating up a Muslim or something seems to be a political statement too, and there are dozens of such attacks a year in America. All of those "terrorists" really didn't seem to concern you.
Smashing windows isn't violence? C'mon, it isn't Mother Goose story hour.
If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?
What has happened that you see as terrorism? You do know the difference between protests, riots, civil disobedience, and terrorism, right?
Terrorism is defined as using violence to achieve political gains.
I'd say it fits like a glove.
Smashing windows isn't violence. It's destruction of property. And if that definition in your head fits all scenarios where violence is used, then why aren't you decrying all the terrorist acts that keep on taking place against minorities? Violence for the sake of racism would seem to qualify under your definition, no? I mean, beating up a Muslim or something seems to be a political statement too, and there are dozens of such attacks a year in America. All of those "terrorists" really didn't seem to concern you.
Smashing windows isn't violence? C'mon, it isn't Mother Goose story hour.
No, smashing windows isn't violence. It's destruction of property. If you think smashing windows is terrorism, then wow, there are a whole lot of teenaged terrorists running around in the 'burbs, committing terrorist attacks on elementary schools and the like. They are making a terrorist statement against the education system I think.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
open protest is a pillar of democracy. it's amazing how so many people are outraged over something our founding fathers wrote directly into the constitution. Further it was emphasized extremely in the public school system while i was growing. and i grew up in a conservative state during the 80's and 90's.
That said, violence is not cool but inevitable when you have such emotionally charged group.
That said, violence is not cool but inevitable when you have such emotionally charged group.
No it is not inevitable. Only Neanderthals act this way. Your statement not only approves of these savage and moronic protests it also enables their stupid minds to continue their "civil disobedience" that some other people on here seem to think is ok. Pearl Jam is pretty emotionally charged wouldn't you say? - violent too right? These protesters need to be locked up and be spoon-fed some manners.
Were there protests by violent, savage and stupid people when Obama or Clinton won?
Why would there have been (I mean, there were a few, but not like now)? When there is no reason for such protest, they don't happen. It's so odd that people are trying to act like Trump is business as usual, and all the dismay over his win is unjustified.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm not even going to google this before I ask Were there protests by violent, savage and stupid people when Obama or Clinton won?
Why would there have been (I mean, there were a few, but not like now)? When there is no reason for such protest, they don't happen. It's so odd that people are trying to act like Trump is business as usual, and all the dismay over his win is unjustified.
Do you have pics, links or articles showing these protests?
I'm not even going to google this before I ask Were there protests by violent, savage and stupid people when Obama or Clinton won?
Why would there have been (I mean, there were a few, but not like now)? When there is no reason for such protest, they don't happen. It's so odd that people are trying to act like Trump is business as usual, and all the dismay over his win is unjustified.
Do you have pics, links or articles showing these protests?
Not sure why it matters, since my point is that nobody had any good reason to flip out about Obama like they do with Trump, but....
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
What now?
You ask me what I would do with my neighbor and you got my answer. We would work it out.
Comparing an abusive and omnipotent government to a neighbor is really dumb, it is apples and oranges. Ranchers have existed for centuries peacefully and actually are very friendly to one another.
This isn't about neighbors at all. Stop trying to use that comparison. Government is a disease, my neighbor isn't.
I am paraphrasing. I'd have to go back and read his book Liberty Defined for the exact stance.
Were there protests by violent, savage and stupid people when Obama or Clinton won?
That said, violence is not cool but inevitable when you have such emotionally charged group.
Only Neanderthals act this way.
Your statement not only approves of these savage and moronic protests it also enables their stupid minds to continue their "civil disobedience" that some other people on here seem to think is ok.
Pearl Jam is pretty emotionally charged wouldn't you say? - violent too right?
These protesters need to be locked up and be spoon-fed some manners.
Thanks, I was only asking because these protests you spoke of weren't really highlighted in the media back then.