By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Trump already promised violence if the GOP loses the house majority or the senate.
Also, It doesn't look like he'll be willing to step down in 2020 if he loses. His cult will flood the streets and do f*ck knows what.
That's what happens when people unite over a person rather than a country's interest in a democracy. They'd do anything to keep him in charge. Even defiling the constitution. That's how dictatorships are born. And that's how civil wars start.
I honestly don't think Trump will simply concede his "throne" to the Democrats. What would his supporters do? How will they find another person to worship like that?
Let's just say Trump serves 2 terms and his rule expires at 2024. Then what? No way in hell the GOP will just move on from this. They'll want him as president for life like the Kim family in North Korea. A 2nd civil war is on the way, which will affect the whole world which should obviously concern all of us. Dangerous, dangerous times.
Most people with political alignment consider themselves to be the Libertarians and the other folks to be the oppressive Authoritarians (the evil establishment) that want to destroy their peaceful, perfect way of living.
It's a joke really, because let's face it, whoever wins the elections will most likely be able to make up the rules, which will be Authoritarian towards the fellows who lost the elections (the poor alleged Libertarians)
Therefore, All these fancy terms mean f*ck all, Especially the term "Establishment"..it's more of a conspiracy theory than an actual political term.
“Oh no! My political party led by some rich dude lost the election! And the evil establishment led and funded by Soros (if you’re right wing)/ Putin (if you’re left wing) has taken over, applying Mussolini-like fascism on our peoples!”
lol..That’s the world we live in, nobody’s alike, And no matter how democratic a country is, at least half of citizens will be forced to live under “Authoritarian” circumstances from their perspective.
You can’t define people by a chart and few arrows. It’s all terms and hogwash as the American southerner would say. What matters the most is trying your best not to be a judgemental @rse, And to live and let live. Is that left wing Libertarianism? Maybe. But, Does wanting to apply few hate speech (snowflakish) laws count as left wing Authoritarianism? Well from the perspective of those "snowflaky" people, The fellows who like to call immigrants terrorists and N words, and burn effigies of the Greenfell tower are the nutty right wing Authoritarians who deserve to be stopped.
Conclusion: Let’s try to be a tiny bit less biased, wear the other guy’s shoes for a while and see things from their perspective before acting like the “know it all” c*nts many of us (including me at times by the way) are accostumised to do.
Great point. I’d forgotten about that, but I later changed to a schrodigender from a Proxvir you evil misgendering bastard. I am now a gender I can feel and yet not feel.
Now that I’m officially a minority I can have an opinion again.
I feel alone. You opened my eyes to the 57 different genders I never knew existed. I thought I might be gender-maverick for a while, but when I saw the definition of Proxvir, I knew I identified as that. I took comfort from the fact I wasn’t the only Proxvir on here, but good luck on your journey as a schrodigender. And not as a schrodigender. At the same time.
Having just returned from the states, I was amazed how popular he is amongst people I met. They weren’t gun swinging rednecks either more like bar staff, waiters, cab drivers, a few teachers and property developers...I was stunned. He’s knows what he is doing though, the middle America people, the ones who always get overlooked who have jobs but aren’t rich, he’s looking after them and there are millions of them. He will never be popular in the more cosmopolitan cities like san fransisco, New York, LA mind.
Er, what part of my post is incorrect?
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
Great point. I’d forgotten about that, but I later changed to a schrodigender from a Proxvir you evil misgendering bastard. I am now a gender I can feel and yet not feel.
Now that I’m officially a minority I can have an opinion again.
But always white which is odd as everything is skewed to help people of colour or summat.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
The difference in my opinion and yours Mo is that I believe that someone parading as a KKK member is an act of violence, and someone smacking them back is an act of retaliation. You believe that the violence starts with the person smacking them, as you see nothing intrinsically wrong with someone expressing white supremacy views in the first place.
Now given I have a spare couple of minutes, I’m happy to say why I have an issue with your overall position. You may not (actually will not) agree, but hopefully you will understand where I’m coming from and we can agree to disagree.
Historically there has been a great deal of discrimination, some overt, some covert, against people from different ethnic backgrounds, women, people who are gay, people from other religions and so on. I didn’t do it, you didn’t do it, both of us will agree it’s wrong and both of us will agree it happened.
The discrimination led to a situation where white, Christian, straight men held an advantageous position over anyone that wasn’t one of those things. It’s a matter of fact, and is evidenced by looking at the world around us. Thankfully, a line has been drawn, and we (by which I’m talking about Western society) largely agree that such discrimination was wrong and needs to stop. Laws surrounding this have been introduced - there isn’t a perfect system, as some people who implement and judge such laws don’t always agree with them, but it’s a massive amount better than it was. We both agree with that.
But, and this is where we separate in our views, the many generations of prejudice have left those groups that suffered that prejudice, through ethnicity, sexuality, religion, gender or whatever else, in an unfair position even now.
It’s like a relay race, if you like. One group have been free to run the first leg unrestricted, and the other groups have been forced to run the first leg with their legs tied together. Even though everyone is free to run the second, third and fourth legs unrestrained, those that were disadvanted for the first leg, can’t ever catch up. And that’s unfair.
White supremacy groups, or other extreme right wingers will say - f*ck them, keep their legs tied together, they don’t deserve equality because they are ‘less than us’. Some people who claim libertarian views and, as you do, claim that everyone is now running absolutely equally, say that any hindering of the leading group (given an unfair advantage previously) is wrong and oppressive. It’s not their fault others were hampered - that happened years ago and it was wrong. But they don’t mind still enjoying the benefits of it, and they are frequently encouraged to scream that they are being ‘oppressed’ if any one points out that their advantage still remains in place.
People like me, libtards, leftists or whatever (although actually I’m not), say - hang on a minute - those groups that were hindered before cant possibly catch up - that doesn’t seem very fair.
The issue is how on Earth it gets dealt with. I don’t agree with positive discrimination (as a woman, I don’t want anyone thinking I only got a job because I’m a woman, as an example), but I recognise the issue exists and that carrying on with the status quoted may still be unfair.
That doesn’t mean I’m racist, or sexist, or anything else. It just means I’m able to recognise that despite laws being changed, advantages still exist. I’m not sure what to do about it, but I don’t get worked up if the odd thing happens that means those previously disadvantaged are given a bit of help.
I didn’t argue for the TV position by the way. I said I was against positive discrimination. I simply said that there were still many areas that it happens the other way round, so I wasn’t going to get het up about such a small matter, given the wider picture.
Let's get the racial bit out of the way first. You have spoke up in favour of the work place representing the racial make up of the country. You've said things like there are only 12% minorities in X workplace and we have 14% in the country. So you want a situation where companies are only allowed to employ 3% black people at anytime...let's call it 'Lisa's Law' aka the 3% law. I'm not in favour of the 3% law it sounds pretty racists to me. I want business to be free to hire anyone they want regardless of skin colour.
And no, Lisa, libtards like you always want to be generous with other people white privilege. You want a kid who needs a £10 per hour job (which you dismiss as insignificant) to lose out because he's privileged while you keep your highly paid job. What have you done to give up your white privilege, Lisa?
And in our society we have a welfare state for people who are in difficult positions. We don't tie peoples legs together we say "sit on this cart and the rest of us will pull you around the track while we race". So if you want to do this historical justice nonsense let's get black people to pay back any welfare they've had and their ancestors have had from this society that they haven't benefited from and do it properly. Let's have an accounting. Let's say this is what you're owed. This is what you'll get. Agreed? yes? and after that you can shut the f*ck up. This nonsense creates a state that needs to micromanage society in such detail that it becomes tyrannical. Read history.
Right, on to the next nonsense... I know that's why you believe it's OK to attack them. Your movement is a fascist movement. You need to justify your violence against your opposition so you came up with that nonsense. Someone not being violent is not someone being violent, Lisa. (Can I get my friend DJack to pay attention here. See what they do DJ...twist words to mean different things. Now not being violent is being violent)
If a right wing loon believes that Islam is a violent ideology then is it ok to hit someone carrying a Quran? Because reading a Quran is an act of violence. And yes, like Muslims, not all white supremacists are violent or in favour of violence. So this right wing loon has taken your argument and walked into a mosque and shot peaceful people in self defence...because their beliefs were an act of aggression. The only thing different between you and that right wing loon, Lisa, is that he actually used violence. But since you want to blur the line between violence and non violence then you are no different from him. And, yes, I see nothing wrong with someone holding white supremacy views even though I don't agree with them. I don't need those views to be beaten out of them. I can tolerate people holding views I don't agree with because, unlike you, I am not a bigot...
bigot /ˈbɪɡət/ noun noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
And I am very proud of this. Wake up, ffs. Someone get the smelling salts for Lisa.
Having just returned from the states, I was amazed how popular he is amongst people I met. They weren’t gun swinging rednecks either more like bar staff, waiters, cab drivers, a few teachers and property developers...I was stunned. He’s knows what he is doing though, the middle America people, the ones who always get overlooked who have jobs but aren’t rich, he’s looking after them and there are millions of them. He will never be popular in the more cosmopolitan cities like san fransisco, New York, LA mind.
Oh, Trump has a ton of supporters. If you spend time in the deep South or in Middle America, you are going to find large groups of people who think he's one of the greatest things to ever happen to this country. He recognized that there was a large group of Americans who identified as deeply conservative, and felt marginalized. Frustrated by a Democratic Party that is moving left, and ignored by more establishment Republicans who chose to compromise to get things done.
No matter what happens, he's always going to be able to easily pull a lot of votes. He once famously argued that he could shoot a guy in the middle of Times Square and still get elected. Now, go spend time in New York, LA, or any large metropolitan area, and you'll probably find loads who hate his guts and want him impeached.
Does that mean he'll easily win re-election? Not sure. He has lost a lot of ground with women and Suburban American lately. If he wants to win in 2020, he'll need to figure out how to get those groups back.
Most people with political alignment consider themselves to be the Libertarians and the other folks to be the oppressive Authoritarians (the evil establishment) that want to destroy their peaceful, perfect way of living.
It's a joke really, because let's face it, whoever wins the elections will most likely be able to make up the rules, which will be Authoritarian towards the fellows who lost the elections (the poor alleged Libertarians)
Therefore, All these fancy terms mean f*ck all, Especially the term "Establishment"..it's more of a conspiracy theory than an actual political term.
“Oh no! My political party led by some rich dude lost the election! And the evil establishment led and funded by Soros (if you’re right wing)/ Putin (if you’re left wing) has taken over, applying Mussolini-like fascism on our peoples!”
lol..That’s the world we live in, nobody’s alike, And no matter how democratic a country is, at least half of citizens will be forced to live under “Authoritarian” circumstances from their perspective.
You can’t define people by a chart and few arrows. It’s all terms and hogwash as the American southerner would say. What matters the most is trying your best not to be a judgemental @rse, And to live and let live. Is that left wing Libertarianism? Maybe. But, Does wanting to apply few hate speech (snowflakish) laws count as left wing Authoritarianism? Well from the perspective of those "snowflaky" people, The fellows who like to call immigrants terrorists and N words, and burn effigies of the Greenfell tower are the nutty right wing Authoritarians who deserve to be stopped.
Conclusion: Let’s try to be a tiny bit less biased, wear the other guy’s shoes for a while and see things from their perspective before acting like the “know it all” c*nts many of us (including me at times by the way) are accostumised to do.
You're just rambling now...and rambling shit as usual.
Remember what I said? when you don't understand things try to shut the f*ck up and listen. You're like a radio...you transmit but you don't receive. Now listen...
If you want the state to control something to make you safe then that is an authoritarian view. You want the authority to be in control. If you want the state to stay out of something and let the people be free (liberty) to do that thing, even if there is a risk, that would be a libertarian view. The amount of authoritarian vs libertarian views you hold will decide where you go on the 'up/down' part of that political compass.
Wanting strict gun laws or the government to ban guns is an authoritarian position Wanting the freedom to own guns is a libertarian position Progressives want gun control. They go with the authoritarian option.
Wanting the government to impose speech laws is an authoritarian position Wanting people free to say anything they want is a libertarian position Progressives want speech laws.
Wanting conservatives banned/stopped from speaking at universities by the authorities is authoritarian. Wanting conservatives to be free to speak at universities is a libertarian position Progressives want them to be stopped from speaking
Wanting the government to force a baker to bake a gay wedding cake is an authoritarian position Wanting a baker to be free to bake whatever he wants is a libertarian position Progressives want the state to force the baker to bake that cake.
Wanting the government to impose a minimum pay law is an authoritarian position Wanting people to be free to buy or sell their labour for whatever price they want is a libertarian position. Progressives want minimum pay laws.
Progressives nearly always chose the option of getting the authorities to intervene. I'm convinced that this generation of young progressives would vote to have government cameras in everyone's house if it was sold to them as move to help minorities. Progressive kids dress like punks but act like church going pearl clutchers who demand something be done about those offensive people. And the conservatives they protest and call fascists normally want a small government, freedom to own guns, freedom of speech etc. Wanting the state to control every part of society is fascism. As is dressing up in black and beating people with different views. The fascist are not the conservatives who want the state to be kept small. They're the progressives who want the state to be given more and more power over our daily lives.
I am not saying my opposition is authoritarian because they're my opposition. I'm saying they are because their beliefs are authoritarian...and that is why they're my opposition, because I choose to oppose them due to their authoritarian ways.
Now don't just go "that's your opinion like...everyone thinks that...something, something Mussolini" and pretend you know what you're talking about. Actually think about what I've said. And if you have a criticism be specific...you may just have a point and make me thing "Oh yeah...good point" unlikely...but you never know.
" President Trump warned evangelical leaders Monday night that Democrats “will overturn everything that we’ve done and they’ll do it quickly and violently” if Republicans lose control of Congress in the midterm elections."
“They will end everything immediately,” Mr. Trump said. “When you look at antifa,” he added, a term that describes militant leftist groups, “and you look at some of these groups, these are violent people.”
Your statement makes it sound like Trump was saying if he loses there will be violence from his side. Where what he's actually saying is that his opposition is violent. You may think this is an irresponsible thing for him to say but it's no different from all the anti-Trump people claiming he would run a fascist regime if he won. And it is definitely not him promising violence...it's him warning of violence. 'Promising' suggests he's in control of delivering the violence.
Oh, Trump has a ton of supporters. If you spend time in the deep South or in Middle America, you are going to find large groups of people who think he's one of the greatest things to ever happen to this country. He recognized that there was a large group of Americans who identified as deeply conservative, and felt marginalized. Frustrated by a Democratic Party that is moving left, and ignored by more establishment Republicans who chose to compromise to get things done.
No matter what happens, he's always going to be able to easily pull a lot of votes. He once famously argued that he could shoot a guy in the middle of Times Square and still get elected. Now, go spend time in New York, LA, or any large metropolitan area, and you'll probably find loads who hate his guts and want him impeached.
Does that mean he'll easily win re-election? Not sure. He has lost a lot of ground with women and Suburban American lately. If he wants to win in 2020, he'll need to figure out how to get those groups back.
". Now, go spend time in New York, LA, or any large metropolitan area, and you'll probably find loads who hate his guts and want him impeached. "
What they do contain are the loud liberal elitists who think their vote is more valuable than the rest of the country and hate and can not accept democracy when it goes against them.
Pretty much like London in the UK.
OUT AFLI SUCK IT UP REMOANER LOSERS
🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
You're just rambling now...and rambling shit as usual.
Remember what I said? when you don't understand things try to shut the f*ck up and listen. You're like a radio...you transmit but you don't receive. Now listen...
If you want the state to control something to make you safe then that is an authoritarian view. You want the authority to be in control. If you want the state to stay out of something and let the people be free (liberty) to do that thing, even if there is a risk, that would be a libertarian view. The amount of authoritarian vs libertarian views you hold will decide where you go on the 'up/down' part of that political compass.
Wanting strict gun laws or the government to ban guns is an authoritarian position Wanting the freedom to own guns is a libertarian position Progressives want gun control. They go with the authoritarian option.
Wanting the government to impose speech laws is an authoritarian position Wanting people free to say anything they want is a libertarian position Progressives want speech laws.
Wanting conservatives banned/stopped from speaking at universities by the authorities is authoritarian. Wanting conservatives to be free to speak at universities is a libertarian position Progressives want them to be stopped from speaking
Wanting the government to force a baker to bake a gay wedding cake is an authoritarian position Wanting a baker to be free to bake whatever he wants is a libertarian position Progressives want the state to force the baker to bake that cake.
Wanting the government to impose a minimum pay law is an authoritarian position Wanting people to be free to buy or sell their labour for whatever price they want is a libertarian position. Progressives want minimum pay laws.
Progressives nearly always chose the option of getting the authorities to intervene. I'm convinced that this generation of young progressives would vote to have government cameras in everyone's house if it was sold to them as move to help minorities. Progressive kids dress like punks but act like church going pearl clutchers who demand something be done about those offensive people. And the conservatives they protest and call fascists normally want a small government, freedom to own guns, freedom of speech etc. Wanting the state to control every part of society is fascism. As is dressing up in black and beating people with different views. The fascist are not the conservatives who want the state to be kept small. They're the progressives who want the state to be given more and more power over our daily lives.
I am not saying my opposition is authoritarian because they're my opposition. I'm saying they are because their beliefs are authoritarian...and that is why they're my opposition, because I choose to oppose them due to their authoritarian ways.
Now don't just go "that's your opinion like...everyone thinks that...something, something Mussolini" and pretend you know what you're talking about. Actually think about what I've said. And if you have a criticism be specific...you may just have a point and make me thing "Oh yeah...good point" unlikely...but you never know.
[Post edited 8 Nov 2018 7:14]
First of all, let me clarify that I'm not taking sides here, verbal abuse and violence is coming from all sides.
Let's just say hypothetically that a left wing "mob" or an Islamist group had it in for you and started harassing you daily. Threaten you with violence (although no violent acts were carried which I assume will make it into a different issue)..messed around and stalked your children and family. Wherever you go, this mob follows you around and verbally harass you constantly. And do everything in their power (short of violence or stepping on your property) to make your life hell. And on top of that..preached to others to carry out violent attacks on you by proxy. Would you let them be because it's the "libertarian thing to do"? What if one of their people killed your loved one. Then the same group mocked you constantly and laughed in your face because your loved one suffered at their hand in the most gruesome way?
Also, wouldn't it be authoritarian to give the government any power at all? Let's just live in a lawless jungle while at it. It's very "libertarian."..who draws the line here Mo? You?
Another point, I'm not specifying a certain country or society here, but if over 50% of people in a country, think it's ok to be a rape children and to want to extend the liberty to people and have lesser government control over raping kids. Would that mean it's the "libertarian" choice? maybe. And that's why I don't care for your charts and arrows.
Also, generally, the right wing has much more authoritarian positions than the left (whataboutism bores me too I know)..
Who wants racial profiling? Who wants to ban places of worship for certain minorities? Who wants to limited rights to gays (obviously that's absolutely not a thing ALL right wing people advocate, just an example), Who wants to build walls, increase security, refuse citizenship applicants? You'd tell me that many of these people are right wing authoritarians. Ah ok.
But it's also starting to look like true libertarians don't really exist in large numbers whether they're fiscally right or left.
What they do contain are the loud liberal elitists who think their vote is more valuable than the rest of the country and hate and can not accept democracy when it goes against them.
Pretty much like London in the UK.
I often think of the Hunger Games when I think of this divide between the liberal capitals and the rest of the population.
In the capitol you have these...
Now who do they remind you of? All gender queer and pink hair. Shallow bastards who look down on the people from the mining/ farming communities as uneducated. Life is good for them, they immerse themselves in reality tv, buy into state propaganda and worry about what colour to dye their hair next.
Then you have these God damn red necks...
Who say they want guns to hunt but we can't let them have that because of gun violence. They should shut the f*ck up and stop voting in line with their interests.
Disclaimer: Anyone who wants to reply to this as if I'm making a serious point can f*ck off. If you want to reply with a witty quip that debunks my bullshit, feel free.
First of all, let me clarify that I'm not taking sides here, verbal abuse and violence is coming from all sides.
Let's just say hypothetically that a left wing "mob" or an Islamist group had it in for you and started harassing you daily. Threaten you with violence (although no violent acts were carried which I assume will make it into a different issue)..messed around and stalked your children and family. Wherever you go, this mob follows you around and verbally harass you constantly. And do everything in their power (short of violence or stepping on your property) to make your life hell. And on top of that..preached to others to carry out violent attacks on you by proxy. Would you let them be because it's the "libertarian thing to do"? What if one of their people killed your loved one. Then the same group mocked you constantly and laughed in your face because your loved one suffered at their hand in the most gruesome way?
Also, wouldn't it be authoritarian to give the government any power at all? Let's just live in a lawless jungle while at it. It's very "libertarian."..who draws the line here Mo? You?
Another point, I'm not specifying a certain country or society here, but if over 50% of people in a country, think it's ok to be a rape children and to want to extend the liberty to people and have lesser government control over raping kids. Would that mean it's the "libertarian" choice? maybe. And that's why I don't care for your charts and arrows.
Also, generally, the right wing has much more authoritarian positions than the left (whataboutism bores me too I know)..
Who wants racial profiling? Who wants to ban places of worship for certain minorities? Who wants to limited rights to gays (obviously that's absolutely not a thing ALL right wing people advocate, just an example), Who wants to build walls, increase security, refuse citizenship applicants? You'd tell me that many of these people are right wing authoritarians. Ah ok.
But it's also starting to look like true libertarians don't really exist in large numbers whether they're fiscally right or left.
F*cking hell. Hold my hand, son. Lets walk through this.
We have laws against harassment. You can't harass people. Having white supremacist ideas is not harassing people.
Free speech does not cover calls for violence. You can't direct people to be violent. Being offensive is not the same.
If someone killed my loved ones that's murder. Not allowed.
If someone laughed at my loved ones dying I wouldn't like it...but they are free to do it.
If the government had no power that would be the position of an anarchist, not a libertarian. Libertarian positions tend to be that the state is there to protect your property rights and the borders. Libertarian laws tend to say the government may not infringe on you. They're there to give basic protection, Authoritarian laws tend to give the state more power. An authoritarian state focuses on the government keeping the people under control. A libertarian government focuses on protecting the freedom of the people.
The libertarian choice would not be to let people rape. The protection of property rights includes your body and your life. The state is there to punish people who infringe on those rights. That is why it's there. And no, feelings are not covered. Freedom of speech and thought trump peoples feelings and offence. If a Christian was offended by a gay person saying he's gay or loves cock he can not get him arrested. But he can walk away.
Once again this is not about right vs left. this is about those who want the state to control behaviour. If someone is against that and left wing I stand with them in opposition to you. If someone's is right wing and authoritarian I also stand in opposition to them
Libertarians do exist in large numbers...it's just that people like you have been told that they're Nazis and fascist because their views threaten state control.
Freedom (liberty) is not easy. It's also dangerous. Ask the lion in the wild. It's a constant struggle for food, territory and sometimes an antelope might call you the 'N-word' The lion in the zoo has an authority provide everything for him. To keep him safe and in his best condition...but his soul is crushed because he ain't free.
Once again I'm not saying there should be no laws...that's anarchy. There is a balance but a libertarian will only give up freedoms if absolutely necessary. If you believe in speech laws to protect people from words they don't like then that is as authoritarian as you can get, I'm afraid.
For me, part of the reason Trump was because the Democrats were too busy preening, thinking Trump had no chance.
Cheering themselves for following first Black President with first Female President ignoring the fact Hilary is a woeful self-serving politician willing to put up with her husband's numerous indiscretions for the sake of her own political career - and never mind the scandals.
Thinking the election was an automatic win whilst putting up a hopeless candidate hated by the public was a pretty deluded act.
You can't pretend to care about political scandals if Hilary upsets you and trump doesn't. Her scandals pale into insignificance when compared with Trump.
Don't know whether to laugh or cry at Mo's hilarious false dichotomy of everything he agrees being in the name of "liberty" and everything he disagrees with being some form of authoritarianism. Not to mention the complete and utter contradictions:
"Libertarians believe the state should protect you and your property."
"Gun control is an authoritarian position."
Given Mo's well documented views on race, is it any surprise that he lives in such a binary world?
Don't know whether to laugh or cry at Mo's hilarious false dichotomy of everything he agrees being in the name of "liberty" and everything he disagrees with being some form of authoritarianism. Not to mention the complete and utter contradictions:
"Libertarians believe the state should protect you and your property."
"Gun control is an authoritarian position."
Given Mo's well documented views on race, is it any surprise that he lives in such a binary world?
I don't believe that gun ownership is a matter of liberty or authority. Soon we'll be debating whether "bring your gun to school day" should be a monthly or a seasonal occasion.
Other than that, Mo does make some valid points when it comes to certain debates. I understand what he means and why. But he probably hasn't had much contact with the world to form more inclusive opinions.
He's kind of a bigot and a racist, but doesn't want to limit the rights of people he dislikes. Therefore classifying him as a rare, non-hypocritical right libertarian isn't exact to the dot, but close enough.
Don't know whether to laugh or cry at Mo's hilarious false dichotomy of everything he agrees being in the name of "liberty" and everything he disagrees with being some form of authoritarianism. Not to mention the complete and utter contradictions:
"Libertarians believe the state should protect you and your property."
"Gun control is an authoritarian position."
Given Mo's well documented views on race, is it any surprise that he lives in such a binary world?
No, Drizz, not every position a libertarian holds is a libertarian position...but over all their positions are mostly libertarian. Like a right wing person may have a view or two that is left wing.
Now listen up, dunce.
You are free to own a gun...you are not free to use that gun to hurt people or steal their property. The state is allowing you the freedom of gun ownership but protecting other peoples property rights at the same time. Do you understand?
Libertarians believe the state is there to protect your property RIGHTS. Not to protect your property. To prosecute anyone who infringes on those rights. They don't have to post someone outside your house to keep you safe.
Don't know whether to laugh or cry at Mo's hilarious false dichotomy of everything he agrees being in the name of "liberty" and everything he disagrees with being some form of authoritarianism. Not to mention the complete and utter contradictions:
"Libertarians believe the state should protect you and your property."
"Gun control is an authoritarian position."
Given Mo's well documented views on race, is it any surprise that he lives in such a binary world?
You really are a dolt.
The state stopping you from killing people with a gun is the same as with a knife. They're stopping the crime of murder. Same with robbery. They are not stopping Gun and knife.
Gun control is in the sense of stopping people owning guns. You can own a gun but not use it to commit the crime of murder. The owning of a gun, to a libertarian government, is not a crime.
No, Drizz, not every position a libertarian holds is a libertarian position...but over all their positions are mostly libertarian. Like a right wing person may have a view or two that is left wing.
Now listen up, dunce.
You are free to own a gun...you are not free to use that gun to hurt people or steal their property. The state is allowing you the freedom of gun ownership but protecting other peoples property rights at the same time. Do you understand?
Libertarians believe the state is there to protect your property RIGHTS. Not to protect your property. To prosecute anyone who infringes on those rights. They don't have to post someone outside your house to keep you safe.
Now run away again, you big dosser.
Mo you're a fan of taking a philosophy or an idea and extrapolating it to an absurd degree so I think you'll like this one
The state stopping you from killing people with a gun is the same as with a knife. They're stopping the crime of murder. Same with robbery. They are not stopping Gun and knife.
Gun control is in the sense of stopping people owning guns. You can own a gun but not use it to commit the crime of murder. The owning of a gun, to a libertarian government, is not a crime.
Your version of a libertarian government seems fun.
I'll call it, whoever stacked the most guns from daddy's arsenal in their toy box gets the top bed.
The McDonald's line too slow? psst..My M 15 can pop all of you motherf*ckers before you've said Glock G 29.
Let's arm everyone to protect everyone's personal freedom. After all, who needs actual police, we're all f*cking Rambo over here.
Exchange my insurance company number? f*ck that, let's exchange bullets instead.
Mo you're a fan of taking a philosophy or an idea and extrapolating it to an absurd degree so I think you'll like this one
What's your point, Ace? I never said you shouldn't have a licence to own a gun or a car. I didn't even say I believed in gun ownership. My point is that is a libertarian position.
I was trying to show Omar what the difference between libertarian vs authoritarian is because he thinks people being nasty to minorities is authoritarianism. It's simply the choice between freedom or having the authority control something to protect people. I didn't say every time the libertarian choice is the correct one or what I believe. I'm trying to show Omar that progressives mostly choose authoritarian choices, which give the state more power and this makes progressives authoritarians.
I don't believe that gun ownership is a matter of liberty or authority. Soon we'll be debating whether "bring your gun to school day" should be a monthly or a seasonal occasion.
Other than that, Mo does make some valid points when it comes to certain debates. I understand what he means and why. But he probably hasn't had much contact with the world to form more inclusive opinions.
He's kind of a bigot and a racist, but doesn't want to limit the rights of people he dislikes. Therefore classifying him as a rare, non-hypocritical right libertarian isn't exact to the dot, but close enough.
You're the bigot, Omar, you believe that 'non inclusive' ideas, which you don't agree with, should not be tolerated and the state should prosecute those people..
bigot /ˈbɪɡət/ noun noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
And me and MLK want all people to have the same rules regardless of their race. While you and the people who wrote the Jim Crowe laws want different rules for different races...but me and MLK are the racists? OK, Champ.
Your version of a libertarian government seems fun.
I'll call it, whoever stacked the most guns from daddy's arsenal in their toy box gets the top bed.
The McDonald's line too slow? psst..My M 15 can pop all of you motherf*ckers before you've said Glock G 29.
Let's arm everyone to protect everyone's personal freedom. After all, who needs actual police, we're all f*cking Rambo over here.
Exchange my insurance company number? f*ck that, let's exchange bullets instead.
A bit Dystopian I'd say.
You want a government that gets to tell people what they can and can't say and you think that's not dystopian.
And if you listened...remember what we said about listening? you'd have heard me say that the government (police) is there to protect peoples freedom. What you described is something your mind made up rather than what I said...because you don't listen.
What's your point, Ace? I never said you shouldn't have a licence to own a gun or a car. I didn't even say I believed in gun ownership. My point is that is a libertarian position.
I was trying to show Omar what the difference between libertarian vs authoritarian is because he thinks people being nasty to minorities is authoritarianism. It's simply the choice between freedom or having the authority control something to protect people. I didn't say every time the libertarian choice is the correct one or what I believe. I'm trying to show Omar that progressives mostly choose authoritarian choices, which give the state more power and this makes progressives authoritarians.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.