551. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #187599 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 10:50 am

mark65,







Who said it was all Israel's fault?

Let me guess.... it was all the Arabs' fault, right?

And who exactly is an Islam apologist?

552. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187596 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 10:46 am

Appleby,






Feel free to answer the questions that were put to you.


You are frustrated because we don't accept your "feelings" as a rational basis for dismissing homosexuals as parents. So can you provide some logical reasoning why you think they are unfit parents, which you have said already.


So get to the point or quit crying when people call you an irrational bigot, because that is precisely how you are behaving.

553. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187569 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 10:18 am

Appleboner,

I never said we shouldn't. I just said I think straight parent adoptions are preferable.

Why are they preferable? Feel free to insert evidence.


Also, "homophobe" denotes a legitimate and defineable "phobia". And due to your habit of indicting homosexuals for all sorts of evils without adducing evidence, one can assume you suffer from the affliction.

As for "homo" it is short for "homosexual" and much like "spic" is a derogatory shortening of the actual term. So you either know this and are trying to lie and pretend you don't use derogatory terms and you twist the meaning of other words, or you are too stupid to comprehend the basic usage of the English language. Right now I weight the likelyhood there at about 50-50.

554. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187565 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 10:13 am

mordacious,






I am a gay womanizing Jew loving anti-semite, Islamo-phobic Islamo-phile.

I don't really have time to go over all the accusations I receive. One of the above is true however. But I will simply eliminate the phobias and gay part and let the roullette ball come to rest where it may.

555. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #187560 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 10:08 am

Allanw,





Illicit arms deals you ask.... those are illicit... not legal. That is like indicting free market capitalism in the US because there is a bicycle thief in Los Angeles. There are always crooks, they cannot all be stopped..


Bear Stearns was bailed out precisely because its failure could have spread. Especially because the bank was fine, the balance sheet was solid, a culture of rumors drove a run on the bank.

Another point you could make against a free market, is where interests overlap. For instance can the government demand that a bank keep a certain amount of cash in liquid securities to cover demands for withdrawal. The consitution would not allow this, but what about people who have a right to retrieve their money. The government can often act as a mediator and assurer of contracts in the free market.

556. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187557 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 10:02 am

To:Appleby
CC: Mordacious1

And al-rawandi must be a homo.

Deny, deny, deny, counter-accuse.

I don't really care if someone says I am gay, but to use some derogatory short hand like "homo" is just sad. What is truly offensive is that there were so many ways to make a humorous reference, or subtle accusation, but he comes up with "A-hyuck, you're a homo". It is offensive to me as a person with a sense of humor.

I mean seriously man, what is your obsession with gays?

I never denied there's an adoption problem. I'm just not sure the ONLY solution is to permit gay adoptions.

Ok, why shouldn't we allow gays to adopt? Do they molest children at a higher rate? Abuse them? Neglect them?

In short do you have any data to support your views, or just your general feelings of self hate?

557. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187538 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 9:39 am

Elli,







I can't really stand bull fighting either, and my favorite online videos are when some drunken moron in Pamplona gets gored in the ass, or when the matador gets skewered.

I just like meat too much to avoid all hypocrisy!

Anyhow, I think my theory holds, Appleby experimented in college, scared himself and now is dedicated to anti-homosexual activities. He doth protest too much!

558. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #187536 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 9:34 am

Allan,






If there is evidence of predatory practices by the CDO crowd, they should be prosecuted. The only way a free market works is if those that actively attempt to defraud others are punished. It is that simple. A country (or economy) that does not respect the rule of law will fail. So when you say all these lenders were ass holes or whatever, I say "Okay". But these people should be dealt with in the courts and forced to redress any losses they caused due to dishonesty or illegal business practice.

I notice you didn't answer my defense contracts comments.

Also if the government bails people out, this isn't a free market either. Ron Paul made a good point in these hearings when he said that "Some say government interference is what CAUSES the business cycle." Let some people fall on their faces. Fuck these remora like brokers, is often my attitude.

I do advocate free markets, I really do. But there is never going to be a pure free market, just like D'Arcy's fantasy world of fuzzy rabbits and raimbows won't happen either. Both sides (Absolute free marketeers and absolute socialists) basically say the same useless thing:


"When things are perfect, then they will be perfect."


Beasically saying once all the factors in my theory are perfect, then everything will be great. Well wonderful, I have an equally useless theory...

"Once we find a way to cure all social deviancy by treatment at birth then there will be no more crime."


That is a wonderful sentiment, but is it a rational approach to crime fighting?

559. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187505 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 9:11 am

Elli,

well, actually we do, but I personally think certain forms of hunting is a form of unacceptable cruelty, as do many others.

I am going to have to make a brief digression. Hunting, in general, is far more humane. You take a wild animal, which has the chance to live its entire life in its natural environment, and you hunt it with a tool (let's say a rifle) that will kill it nearly instantaneously.

On the other hand you have a system of imprisoning formerly wild animals, in what can only be described as inhumane conditions (filthy pens, filthy food, and systematic execution methods). I find it the height of irony to say that hunting is inhumane while imprisoning animals is humane. I simply cannot fathom what kind of hypocrisy it takes (not you, but those who think hunting is inhumane yet eat meat daily) for someone to hold such obvioulsy ridiculous views.

How about fishing? None of these softies ever complain about tricking a fish into thinking it is eating food then jamming a hook through its jaw and dragging, attached to a virtually unbreakable line) it through the water until it is brought on board the boat, at which point it is either allowed to suffocate or is kept alive until it is disemboweled.


Now I agree that bestiality is about abuse of an animal which cannot give consent. And frankly mentioning that in the same breath as anti-homosexual propaganda says alot about appleby.

560. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187494 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 8:42 am

Appleby,






You need not be in support of homosexuality. Frankly I don't really give a damn what people support. But you certainly cannot deny them human rights, you cannot deny the fact that they are often competent members of society, far more qualified to raise a child than many dysfunctional heterosexuals.

So it doesn't really matter if you are for or against, but at least in a country where liberty is the law of the land, you have no right to deny them any rights.

If you want to spout of bigotry posing as an intellectual argument, go right ahead, I am more than happy to listen.

561. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #187485 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 8:22 am

AllanW,

How do you account for the activities of the mortgage industry in the States during 2006 and 2007 without warping the words 'regulated' and 'highly'? Or the homeopathic remedies industry to this day? Or the activities of defense firms in the Middle East? etc etc

Your premise: "Trading of CDO's got out of control, therefore the market is unregulated." That logic would make the most devout theologist blush. In a free(r) market, new securities will come to market, they will be traded and utilized until the consequences are discovered. Then there will be appropriate regulation of the securities. Sometimes things have to turn ugly until the appropriate regulation becomes obvious. But the Monday morning quarterbacking by the anti-capitalist crowd is really just annoying and doesn't help, or add even the slightest sliver of value to the debate.


Defense firms in the Middle East? Even worse than your logic in the mortgage market. Who grants contracts to these companies? The US government, it is called "Corporate welfare" and is anti-libertarian. For instance, no bid contracts given to Haliburton, this isn't free market, in a free market bids are considered and the lowest bidder wins. So you have actually made my point, that the US is a "highly regulated" market. So I appreciate that.



Mixed economy? I am not for that? Have I not debated FF on the very topic? You are desperate to pigeon hole me, granted that will make your task easier, but it doesn't make it true. I have fairly criticized both socialism and Capitalism. And it remains that an economy dominated (although maybe not exclusively) by Capitalist theory and enterprise always fairs better than the sociliast dominated society.


So the rest of your post follows your attempt at a pigeon hole, doesn't refer to me or my arguments, and can be dismissed.

562. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #187468 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 7:32 am

AllanW,






Not sure what I can say to that. As for my "Musings" perhaps you could evaluate those on their merits, more precisely the evidence. The facts rarely change, the weighting or interpretation often do. For instance my perception of Israel. The fact that it is a racist state doesn't change, the ire I feel towards that policy does change. So in that sense, my analysis of the facts doesn't change.


As for state ownership, that is what D'Arcy has said is necessary (although he couches this in terms of ownership by the people, but that is only acheived through a state). As for your interpretation of socialism, I will have to agree with Marx when he called this kind of thing "fake socialism".

If it weren't for pretty free markets in Scandanavia they couldn't fund their social programs. But if simply having a few social programs funded by the state makes you socialist, then I don't have a problem with that, because the country remains capitalist for all intents and purposes.


As for Fighting Falcon, don't lump me in there. His dogmatic capitalism is as blind as D'Arcy's absolutely ridiculous socialism. He ignores the fact that the government (to be libertarian) must defend against consolidation and abuse of power by any group.


As to my "binary" approach, that is far more relevant for interpretation. When I hear an opinion, I challenge it with evidence. People who are dogmatic (shockingly a large percentage of people here) they feel that I am being binary. simply because I am challenging them. This isn't so, I have provided some independent analysis on a number of subjects that are anything but binary. But just because I spread it around evenly doesn't mean that I am being binary.


As for western economies. Those are anything but unregulated. They are highly regulated, America being the prime example. There is nothing remotely free about this market, sounds like you are the one being binary.

563. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187449 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 6:45 am

All,





I think Appleby is a case of someone who "experimented" in college, and wants to make doubly sure he didn't like it.

564. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #187444 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 6:32 am

AllanW,







Says the guy enjoying the benefits of a free market.


You know you are free to move to North Korea or Cuba to experience the untiring beneficence of the state.

In the meantime perhaps you could contribute some evidence, original analysis, or something otherwise insightful, but I am going to guess that is asking too much of the socialist crowd. They spend most of their time hurling unisghted ad hominems at a general scarecrow of capitalism, all the while claiming that any instance of socialism isn't really socialism. Sort of like "That's not real Catholicism/Judaism/Islam.


Well that is a tired act. Your post should have been inserted 9 pages ago.



epeeist,



Fair enough. I don't really care for vultures either.



bhima,




You mean those Scandanavian countries with thriving stock markets? Oh those capitalist countries, that happen to have free medical care for their citizens?

Just an FYI, socialism requires state ownership of industry. A stock market is the most obvious evidence of capitalism ever. It is the legal equivalent of an unsolicited confession.

Good try though.

565. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187432 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 6:17 am

Peace,

Then stop fucking your girlfriend in the ass, spazzing on her chest and wearing condoms.

This reminds me of the game show "Newlyweds" with Bob Eubanks, in the 1980's. So one of the couples gets asked a question and the answer is matched to an answer given ealier by the other spouse.

So for instance they will ask the woman, "When your husband is watching T.V. he wants you to bring him...???" She says "Remote" he holds up his pre-recorded answer "A Beer".


So the host asks the woman:

"Where is the strangest place you have wanted to make whoopie".

She says:

"In the ass Bob".


The guy holds up his sign: , it reads:

"In the car"


The host says:

"Uh ya, we were looking for a geographical location."

566. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #187418 by al-rawandi on June 2, 2008 at 6:00 am

Fanusi,

But you are right, it does not change my views one iota. Becaue the basic issue remains the same - whether to back Israel or to back the Palestinians. And as I said, back the Palestinians and sanction genocide. Back Israel and support it's survival.

Fair enough. I usually take the following approach to the issue:

"Israel has nuclear weapons. If there had to be a nuclear power in the Middle East, who would you wish it to be, Israel, Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, Iran?"


I would simply rather those who have experienced genocide have the power, than those who have a large % of their population clamoring for genocide right now. My problem with your position is that you refuse to criticize Israel, you can support a cause or a country and still criticize it. I support my country (US) but I still criticize when it is in the wrong.

I have trouble seeing how important the aquifers of the West Bank can be to Israel, given they only captured them during the Six Day War (it's interesting that the occupied territories, evil, aggressive Israel occupies are only the ones it seize after the Muslim Arabs declared war and got their butts kicked).

Actually Israel started the 1967 war. Like in 1956 Moshe Dayan banged the war drums heavily, seeing that a display of force could endear Israel to the US, and show that the Jewish state could be an asset. Largely the Israeli pre-war claism were bunk and bull shit.

For instance Israel claimed Syria was massing its army on its border with Israel, this wasn't true, only 11% of the Syrian army was on the border and this was a tactic used by Syria to drain Israeli coffers. If it moved its army around Israel would mobilize its reservists, and this would cost money, thus the Syrians could use this to effect Israel economically. Of course Abba Eban simply lied and claimed Israeli radar picked up a flight of Syrian air force planes in bound. This was totally false.

Another bunk claim was the Israeli claim that the Arabs had blockaded the Red Sea port of Israel, and this was economically devestating. Less than 1% of Israeli imports and exports flowed through this port, and was simply a false pretext in order to start the war.

Israel started the war largely to make a land grab. One can discuss why they wanted the land, but to say the Arabs started the war is a lie. Quite the opposite, the Israeli surprise air attack on Egypt coincided with the Egyptian vice president's trip to Washington D.C. to negotiate a settlement to the stand off. Israel realized that their window to justify a land grab as "self-defense" was closing and they attacked.

One can argue about whether this was acceptable or not. What I tend to think is that the hawk Dayan was pushing hard for the war, he was well respected and a brilliant tactician and military mind. Israel was trying to make strategic decisions in real time, and did what it thought best.

However, there is no question that water played into the equation, even during the 1967 war. And your question "Why would they want the water" is irrelevant, because the settlements sit on top of aquifers, so who cares why, but the Israelis do seek to control the water.

567. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186553 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 3:10 pm

FF,






I don't have time to go through that now. But I will ask if you answered epeeist when you he asked why you would trust a corporation more than a government. You said the "Government can steal my property" but you never answered the question in full.

568. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186548 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 3:05 pm

njwong,






Uh he may have said that, but I am not sure where. I know for a fact he said "amphibious fraud" in "The Age of Reason":


http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/AOR-Frame.html

http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/reason1.html


In fact searching the text, I see no instance of "impious" being used in "The Age of Reason".

569. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186518 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 1:31 pm

D'Arcy,





Don't fret I am here to set you straight.


Let me see.... Engels.... ok, here is what that says, once things are run perfectly, they will be run perfectly.


Of course the huge gap you keep falling into is that attempting to implement this system always fails. So when I say "look at North Korea" and you plug your ears and start shouting "they are capitalist pigs" you miss the point that countries like that are the result at the attempt at the ridiculous Utopia Engels describes. It doesn't lead to utopia it leads to dystopia.

When you understand attempts at socialism lead to death and misery, you will understand why we keep saying what we do. It isn't that we don't wish people well, we just get it that socialism has been attempted and has failed, because people simply cannot form a government that will do what it takes. No one here wants there to be poor people, no one... but no system has created more poor people, more famines, and more death than ATTEMPTS at socialism.



epeeist,



Come on, out with it, do you hate rich people? I know I hate some of them.... the ugly ones with hot girlfriends. I am just being honest.

570. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186516 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 1:24 pm

FightingFalcon,







Argument died at 1:13 PST, causes:

1) Demanding proof of alternate system instead of admitting flaws in own system. Smoke screen.

2) Summarizing my position dishonestly.

A brief memorial service will be held in the restroom before argument is flushed. Any bugle players in the crowd, we need someone to play taps.


Anyhow, I will humor you.

I don't think government regulation is the answer to everything, quite the opposite. So when you say:

But don't worry - continue to think that government regulation is the answer to all of our problems...

You are just flailing around now. Logic has left the building. I find it doubly humorous that when I say "where does that appear in the constitution" you call me "childish" then you proceed to post something like the above. I mean is the irony totally lost on you?


Now my theory is to create a free market. However any person who infringes on the liberty of another or seeks to implement some deceitful plan to trample the liberty of others should be punished. The point of my posts on Insider Trading, Market Manipulation and the like is to say these things should be punished. You have yet to say "Corporate greed is bad", despite the fact that it is a recurring theme and common salvo against your argument.

I would like to see most things privatized, in probationary fashion to see if it works, once it does (as it often will) the government can close those offices and the work force can move to the private sector.

Things that aren't acceptable... letting people die in the damn streets because they don't have money. A minimum safety net must be in place for those who through mental or physical defect cannot compete in the market.

You comically said that I should donate to some charity that takes care of poor people and the government should never be involved. I quite disagree with that. Moral compulsion is enforced by the government, for instance murder is prosecuted and any number of other things are enforced, I don't see why helping the few in society who are truly unable to compete is a bad thing, even from a standpoint of government administration of the system.

Did you also want to privatize defense?

571. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186470 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 10:23 am

Oh and finally:




You demand laws stop the crime in real time... my rejoinder?:


How do your laws stop muder in real time? Can't do it, those laws are a waste and shouldn't be enacted. How do you know murders are being committed? I guess lack of real time knowledge makes the laws superfluous.


You punish the crime. It shold be a crime to cheat people through dishonesty. Only libertarians think abusive lies should be legal.

I guess all we have left is speeding tickets.

572. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186469 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 10:18 am

Falcon,






The government has made these things ILLEGAL. There is not always something to be done in real time, but it can prosecute the offenders to deter future abuses. Insider trading does happen and has happened. It is the dishonesty that should be targeted.

First there are rules when executives (people defined unde the 1934 act as "Insiders", meaning knowledge of material facts about the company not known to the public) can sell their stock, so it isn't a free for all. This is a good rule.

Furthermore it isn't insider trading if the guy simply knows it and sells his stock, that is a different infraction, if it falls under "infraction" at all. Insider trading, in my example, means that the insider would pass the information to others (sometimes in exchange for a fee). This is what I outlined, but I see you have manipulated what I said and reposted some different scenario, observe my lack of shock.

I said:

Let's say my friend works at Company "A" and tells me in secret that the company had a terrible quarter, while at the same time the company was saying that this quarter's guidance was "In line" (which companies do). So someone hears the company's positive note, and I sell him the stock, knowing for certain that poor earnings will drive the stock down. I have just cheated this person.

You manipulated and restated as follows:

A random employee at Company X knows that eventually the Qtr earnings/losses have to be made public and that the company will have a bad Qtr. So he sells his stock weeks prior to the announcement.

F in reading comprehension for you. You cannot see how you manipulated the example to make it look as if this were some harmless practice?

A worthy cause doesn't need lies my friend.

So regulation failed to stop the collapse of a few corporations and what we got in return was Sarbanes-Oxley, perhaps one of the worst laws ever passed by Congress that only hurts smaller businesses that can't get around it. Ask yourself if that is the type of economy that you wish to see take over in America.

False dichotomy... Current way or your way, those are the only choices, good to know there is no third way, that makes life simpler.



As for Enron, now General Ledger information has to be consolidated. Enron set up fake companies, passed them debt and took their profits. The reason this worked is due to seperate statements. Now with consolidation of statements this won't happen, as all assets and liabilities can be seen in one place.

573. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186460 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 10:04 am

Quine,





You are right. Thank you, I retract the comment.

574. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186456 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 9:59 am

FF,





Excellent a man who knows nothing about securities trading will pontificate. Let's start the shredder:


First you completely (and dishonestly) ignored what I said about "INSIDER TRADING", which is trading on non-public information. Let's say my friend works at Company "A" and tells me in secret that the company had a terrible quarter, while at the same time the company was saying that this quarter's guidance was "In line" (which companies do). So someone hears the company's positive note, and I sell him the stock, knowing for certain that poor earnings will drive the stock down. I have just cheated this person.

Firstly, short selling a stock does not artificially drive down its price. It's a legitimate transaction when you believe that the price of a stock will go down, rather than up. This happens all the time.

Actually it does, and it is why the SEC instituted the "Up tick" rule, which stated that one can only short a stock after the price had increased. What short selling entails is borrowing a security, selling it at a price, waiting for it to decline in price, buying it back at a lower price and returning it. Look at what happened to Bear Stearns, its balance sheet was fine, but people went crazy on shorting it and it created a wave of needless panic and destroyed a healthy bank. A large enough group can artificially place downward pressure on a stock.

As for hiding information - that would take some significant ignorance on the part of a shareholders board. If it became public that a company was withholding information, the company would most likely end up destroyed. Secondly, financial information is so widely available on Wall Street that you typically cannot hide your true performance. Investors are able to tell roughly how well (or poor) a company should perform in a given quarter based on the information available.

This is so patently ridiculous. Companies hide information all the time. FUCKING ENRON!

As for brokers getting together to trade stocks below thier value - how would government regulation stop this?

It does and it has. It is illegal to do this in the market and you can be fined, banned from the industry, or imprisoned for the practice. It is called "Market Manipulation", it creates an artificial "volume" on the trading. This can be used to drive prices up (as in the case of oil trading now potentially) or drive prices down. There is no way for anyone in the open market to know this information in real time, and is only discovered later.

Someone with massive amounts of money and investment savvy could probably get away with manipulating the market to his or her benefit. I fail to see how an inept bureaucracy that is constantly tripping all over itself would help.

Wait what entity could have a massive amount of money to manipulate the market... there is a name for this kind of thing..... a co....corp.....comp..... oh ya a large company with billions in assets. A Hedge Fund, a Private Equity group. Geeze man, off with the blinders already.

575. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186448 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 9:48 am

stephenray, kornyjorge,






Paine constantly used the term in reference to Christian belief. I think more precisely it meant that it arose from pagan mythology. He notes repeatedly that the ideas expressed in Christian theology are ancient myths reworked, nothing more.

Paine had quite a bit of venom for religion. I could post some other choice quotations this weekend if people would wish it.


Notable anti-Christian founding fathers:


Tom Paine
Tom Jefferson
Ethan Allen
George Washington
Ben Franklin
John Adams

the list goes on.

576. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186438 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 9:38 am

FightinFalcon,






But these monopolies are negotiated are they not? Between the government and the company setting up the services. You say this is acceptable, I say where does the constitution allow it? You dodge this.

I understand the principles behind natural monopolies just fine, you have yet to convince anyone here that such a circumstance as described above is a natural monopoly for sure. Accusing people of stupidity for not agreeing with you isn't really fair.


Now I want to ask you about the SEC, should there be laws against insider trading? How about getting a bunch of brokers together to trade stocks well below their value back and forth to drive the price of the stock down overall? What about hiding material information from shareholders? What about short selling to drive down (artificially) the price of a stock?

These are all abusive and should all be regulated, and yet the constitution gives no explicit powers to the government to regulate this. What should happen?

577. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186429 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 9:23 am

FF,





You aren't being honest, Pacific Gas and Electric, here in the Bay Area they have the monopoly on, well... gas and electric. I wouldn't say California has a "small population" like you said. The government guarantees the monopoly.

Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that the government can guarantee a monopoly. Can you number the article or amendment so I can better look it up as well.

Thanks.

578. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186415 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 9:10 am

FF,





So in the case of utilities it is ok for the government to guarantee a monopoly... doesn't sound very free to me. Let's just call this argument of yours what it is...




epeeist,


PM for you.

579. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186414 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 9:08 am

Sent2null,






I had a similar thought but I kept it to myself. From a contract perspective, the man had every right to anull the marriage.

580. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186407 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 8:57 am

FF,






Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, and Dodge.



What I said was, companies could get together and decide to lower their wages collectively? You refuse to answer this, because you seem to be a lackey for corporate power. Centralization of abusive power is wrong, and should be defended against. Can you at least agree to this?

And it has happened, my scenario, if you have ever read Steinbeck you can see how he attempts to portray very real events with labor. Strike breakers, pinkerton agents, scabs etc... In a free market labor doesn't always get paid what it is worth, it has often been abused.

I feel a lot of Libertarians are actually corporate authoritarians in disguise.

581. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186403 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 8:52 am

Zoron,






I hope you and your family starve to death.


Thanks for the truly evil wishes. Ass clown.

582. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186396 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 8:44 am

FF,








Tax breaks, I shall elaborate. For instance, the dumb ass morons who thought up affirmative action, should have instead given tax breaks to people who agree to teach in primary and elementary schools in historically underpriveleged areas of the nation. That would return capital to people who were working hard to fix a historical inequality and would also help stimulate the areas economy because the teacher would live in the area and spend the extra money at local businesses.

And for your "No Monopolies" comment. How ridiculous... would you have a minimum wage in your free market, in such a case companies could get together and mutually decide to lower wages to cut their costs and raise their margins. This can happen (may have happened) and is an illegitimate centralization of power to abuse people and should be stopped.



epeeist,



I am saying that people shouldn't be abused by illegitimate centers of power. For instance, a government stealing their money to send to Israel. This is a perfect example we have a cabal of Zionist traitors and foreign agents lobbying my elected representatives to send MY HARD EARNED money to a foreign nation, one that doesn't do shit but make Arabs hate me. I deserve to be protected from this treasonous congealment of power, and I would gladly dispatch the traitors with my own hands, but it is the job of the government to do this. Instead they are getting rich while damaging their own country, and as such are traitors themselves.


Another example would be companies getting together and abusing workers for their own profit. This has happened (in the 20th Century) with apple pickers and strike breaking Pinkerton agents. People need to be protected from this form of abusive power. Simply saying "Go play nice" to the powerful people in America isn't going to cut it.

583. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186385 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 8:30 am

epeeist,



Here was my post to him about "Liberty"

We are doing all that now. Your money goes to foreign aid, to military adventures that don't help you at all. It goes to roads you may never drive on. Maybe YOU should donate to a fund YOU feel will repair the roads YOU use. We elect a government to get together, do a little research and allocate funds that would best beneift the society as a whole. I am not saying this actually happens like this, but I am saying that is the point.


In fact why have a military, why don't YOU get a gun and YOU can shoot whomever threatens YOU.


Fuck it, why pay for schools to educate kids who will grow up and you will never know. Why don't YOU donate to a fund that YOU feel will educate kids the way YOU want.


There we go.

584. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186383 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 8:29 am

Brian English,







Liberty so long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights. That is the liberty as it is understood by me.






epeeist,




I asked him the same question a while ago, I received no answer. It seems there is a bit of dogmatism at work here.

585. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186372 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 8:18 am

FightingFalcon,








And here we shall part ways. If an insurance company denies someone care to save money, that is wrong, and yes it does happen. Michael Moore, although a propagandist at times, does a good job pointing this out.


And you simply don't know what Libertarianism is... it is to ENSURE LIBERTY, which means protecting people from concentrations of power, public or private. If a company manages to manipulate a market through monopoly it is the duty of the government to protect the people. Private centers of power are as much a threat to liberty as public ones. The problem is that most American libertarians would just allow greed and conspiracy to run wild in the market, not understanding how detrimental this is to human society. Your suggestion is that power without consent is illegitimate, and I agree, but this goes for private groups as well as public. Anyone exerting control without consent is illegitimate. You are simply hypocritical and only apply this to a government, in which case you are no libertarian, only an intellectual pervert.


And when I talk about allocating of resources I am talking about tax rebates to people who are making sacrifices for the betterment of their nation.

586. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186365 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 8:11 am

elephant,






That is pretty good. Executive privelege is the name of the game.


"Fuck you, I am the Cesar... I mean president!"

587. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186341 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 7:34 am

Well well,







What about the Founding Fathers, do their opinions mean nothing, they did establish the fucking country after all.



Thomas Paine said that:


1) There is no evidence of divine authorship in the 10 Commandments.

and


2) Christianity is an "amphibious fraud".

588. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186331 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 6:58 am

Ian,





It was a passing comment on the quality of medicine in the US, and that this is known worldwide.


The riots in New York were due to a racist bunch of Jews who ran an ambulance service called Hatzollah. This ambulance serves Jews only, and refused to treat a small black boy who was run over by a Jewish man. The man was slightly injured and was taken by the ambulance while the critically injured black boy was left to die.

And of course the cabal of fucking morons came out of the wood work (sharpton et al.) to turn a tragedy into airtime for themselves. It basically summed up everything that is wrong in the US in about 2 weeks. Pretty efficient in its portrayal if you ask me.



P.S.


Brian English,



I am not offended. I don't really take this stuff personal, but I would say that it was non sequiter as it was tackling points I didn't make. I can't say I am upset, just confused.

589. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186327 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 6:46 am

Brian English,







What an obnoxious post. I forgive you because I like you, but don't act like I support Bush. For fuck's sake, what does a guy have to do to dodge the sweeping liberal brush.


Al says: "Free markets are good, liberty is good."
Some dude: "Tell that to Bush."


I mean WTF? Non sequiter to the nth power. No one here is saying Bush is handling the country well. No one group has been more anti-Libertarian than the Republicans. Reagan grew our government to enormous size. I have said it before and I will say it again, Barak Obama is closer a Libertarian than any other candidate.

590. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186325 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 6:42 am

CommonToad,





It is hard to watch people die. I hate it, I really do. I have long said that the only legitimate cause for military action, outside of absolute self defense, is humanitarian relief. But sometimes, people simply won't be compliant in letting you assist them.


Take Myanmar, these thugs in charge simply won't allow aid in. There are US warships of the coast, helicopters ready to fly. Within an hour of consent from the government, those helicopters would be airborne, loaded with aid for people. But no consent. Does the US invade, sideline the government and give direct aid? This is a violation of sovereignty, but it would be the humane thing to do.


The Iraqis are killing each other in front of our eyes RIGHT NOW, the only difference is Americans are getting killed too. Americans are bleeding to give Iraqis a government that they will just throw in our face. For a while I felt we should stay and help, but no longer. There is an Arabic term 'Asabiyya coined by Ibn Khaldun, it has to do with tightness or strength, and means that one group will solidify more support (a tribe in historical context) than others and will rise to power. There has to be a struggle, but it will happen, why is the US trying to manipulate the natural flow of Arab society?

591. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186322 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 6:34 am

irate,






Here are my issues.


In reading the founding fathers of the US, I am greatly impressed by their views and am generally in agreement. Liberty is paramount.

I feel as though FF has taken it a little far with his "Why don't YOU donate to a charity". The purpose of government in the free market is to make sure the market operates in a just fashion. The underlying principle in the US is the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". I am willing to allow the government to assist in the allocation of capital to a degree. That is precisely why the government exists, to manage the money of the citizens that is entrusted to them by the taxpayers.


I don't know that we need to nationalize healthcare. FF is right when he says the free market usually provides better solutions. In a competitive market health care providers must compete. But in the effort to cut cost, they cut care, and Michael Moore made a good point in his movie "Sicko", people are being murdered by medical insurance companies, and this is unacceptable.


I really don't know what we should do. The government's duty is to protect its citizens, from terrorists, natural disasters, rogue corporations, and yes.... death from preventable illness.

592. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186317 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 6:21 am

Elephant,









I happen to agree with SJK that the Iraq war was unjust. But I fail to see how this fact alone means it can provide no benefit, and no decent people could have supported it.


The problem I see in the anti-war crowd (and why I don't drink beer in these circles anymore) is that they are so dichotomouos, as dichotomous as BUsh was in his "with us or against us" speech. The simple view they have adopted is that "For the war bad, against the war good." Well I am sorry, but this isn't a very good measure of a human being. A very decent man, Steve Zara supported the war, simply because he believed the Iraqis could be given a better life once Saddam was removed. I didn't agree, but I certainly respected and valued Steve's thoughts on the matter, and they were influential on my thinking.


I just think that Iraqi forms of government are solely the concern of Iraqis. These people have a right to self determination, and that large contracts for Haliburton and Kellog Brown and Root should not be the driving force behind our policy here on out. Let the Iraqis slaughter one another to their hearts content. Let the Jihadists busy themselves fighting Shi'a militias. It really isn't our concern any longer.

593. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186307 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 5:55 am

Ian (SA)






I am not an FF apologist. I am quite certain I have my own opinions, and "everything is bigger and better in the US" is not one of them. It seems to me, that you (and Irate_atheist as well, shockingly) do not have the time or the inclination to really understand what I am saying, independent of what FF is saying.

People flock to the United States for any number of reasons, this should be noted. People who are seriously ill often come to the US (if they can afford the trip) for treatment. I am not contesting that other countries have great medical systems. I am just saying the US often is the cutting edge when it comes to treatment of disease.

I don't think the American medical system is perfect, nor do I think the free market is perfect, but I will tell you one thing... we aren't having pogroms against immigrants like South Africa is currently experiencing. The US isn't perfect, and I am more than happy to criticize it for its wrong doings and itse failures, but it does a great job compared to almost any country on the planet.

594. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186306 by al-rawandi on May 30, 2008 at 5:49 am

Jiten,






Often I find that your political analysis is wrapped up in some anti-Capitalist bent. If you compare India to its neighbors (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Myanmar) you will find that it is far ahead of its peers. When I said it was flourishing, that should be taken in the context of its neighborhood.





SJK,



I have enumerated the other options before, that I thought would be better than war. There is no question in my mind that the Bush administration fabricated evidence to begin a war with Iraq. And this war was a foregone conclusion with the arrival of that administration. It was a foolish idea and we have no business building other countries. But if we didn't invade Iraq we would have to watch the Saddam regime continue. I don't think that is too much to stomach as we daily watch nasty regimes operate day to day all over the world.


But I agree with the principle that a forceful response was necessary after 9-11. The perpetrators should be hunted down and killed.

595. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186092 by al-rawandi on May 29, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Ian,






I love it when someone writes something dismissive but can't seem to write down why. Makes my think they are dogmatic.

596. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186085 by al-rawandi on May 29, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Marx on Jews:

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

You are really starting to resemble a dogmatist, but I suppose that really is a prerequisite for accepting socialism.

597. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186084 by al-rawandi on May 29, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Q,






He doesn't answer questions. He just keeps repeating "Cuba and North Korea aren't socialist. Why? Because socialism is perfect and Cuba and North Korea are not perfect."

598. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186082 by al-rawandi on May 29, 2008 at 1:46 pm

FightingFalcon,





So what if the Taliban returns, then we can see the damn training camps on satellite photos. And we have a target for bombing and cruise missiles. Who cares if they make women wear bee keeper outfits, is that our problem? You can't honestly think it is after telling everyone health care for Americans isn't YOUR problem. Why is it MY problem to fix governments in the Middle East and Central and South Asia? If they want Shariah...go for it, that should effectively prevent them from gaining any serious technological advances. They will be banging stones together trying to make an iPod.

599. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186079 by al-rawandi on May 29, 2008 at 1:34 pm

D'Arcy,






It's over. On a theoretical level your state fails, miserably. You haven't even been able to answer simple questions about allocation of resources or how the state apparatus decides what to steal from its population and what to leave them.


Some sort of Capitalism- 1
Socialism- 0

600. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186078 by al-rawandi on May 29, 2008 at 1:31 pm

FightingFalcon,







Why do you care what government gets installed in Iraq. That is the concern of Iraqis not you. Same for Afghanistan. Let them fight it out, vote, hug, or whatever they want. If the fundamentalists come to power GREAT! Then we have a state to fight instead of some band of goat humpers up in a cave running around hiding amongst civilians. Once there is a state to fight, we can kick some serious ass.

Get some alternative fuels and tell the Middle East to fuck off. I am over having my tax money spent giving them governments they don't really want. We can leave a force in the region. A carrier battle group. 120 aircraft ready to level Baghdad once they declare a Caliphate, otherwise, get our military on other projects.


*EDIT* Self determination is the right of all people! Especially Iraqis and Afghans. They are people and they can find a way to run their own damn country.