Oh I forgot about the other "freedom" they love, the "freedom" to carpet bomb defenseless populations of people.

I wasn't aware that the Republican party had libertarian beliefs, that's news to me. Government intrusion in personal lives, increase in government spending, war with sovereign nations not out of self-defense, religion as a justification for passing law. These all go against the basic tenets of Libertarianism.
As for raising taxes on the poor: most flat tax and sales tax schemes involve tax rebates for those making under a certain income. Just because it's "unfair" that the rich make more money than the poor doesn't mean that it's the government's job to make it fair. The government's job is to safeguard the rights guaranteed by the constitution and provide for a national defense when warranted. They do have a role in maintaining that free markets stay free, but that role requires a massive overhaul that's free from corporate manipulation. We wouldn't be stuck in our crony-capitalistic corporatist state if it weren't for the government ensuring the survival and dominance of companies with the right connections. Firms should be judged by their merit as to their survival, not because of government boons and safety nets.

@tettletons chew
My post was not ad hominem, I did not attack anyone, not even a straw man arguement, unlike you. What I did say is that people like you have a great outlook on what humanity is capable of achieving, only problem is is that federal government is not the only problem. The libertarian views that you are purporting, reject the proposition that people need to be governed by a federal gorvernment, while lauding the corporations, which are in themselves governing bodies. There are many governments and individuals in politics today who vehemently oppose the ideals of individualism, that cannot be refuted. But restricting on individual freedom is not a right only held by the state, corporations can just as effectively inhibit an individuals ability to thrive. People in Africa are subject to unbelievable wage slavery. They are unable to go to school because they must earn every ounce of food they eat through manual labour, education that could help them thrive and unleash them from the bonds of wage slavery, destitution, and poverty. The lack government efficiency and influence causes these problems in undeveloped nations. So is government at fault? Yes. But it is just as much the fault of certain individuals as it is of governments. Until the time comes when laissez faire capitalism is able to thrive along side individual welfare, governance is the most feasible option.
And I do not use the environment as a scape goat. I simply said that people should value the enviorment and corporations, individuals, should do everything possible to protect the integrity of the environment always, not just when a government watches them like a hawk.

"I mean the Republican Party has a candidate who wants to completely annihilate the right of Muslims to worship in the US."

It's bad enough what Herman Cain believes, you don't need to make stuff up. He said that the local community should decide whether or not they would allow a mosque to be built in their town. That's wrong and unconstitutional, but it wouldn't "annihilate" the rights of Muslims to worship in America.

At any rate, this already happens on the sly. Could you imagine a Mormon temple being built in the Castro? Or a synagogue in the center of a Muslim neighborhood of Dearborn, Michigan?

I also find it odd that Putin33 specifically (and the left generally) always come to the defense of Islam and assume the best in it while always attacking Christianity or Judaism and assuming the worst. If you're anti-religion at least be consistent.

+1 invictus
But to be fair I think much of the left is just trying to point out that exact point to the right by showing how bad the other religions are, leveling the playing field, not allowing the right to use Islam as a scapegoat.

And yet here in these forums I was accused of being an anti-Muslim bigot via the hijab issue in France. Yes, let's be consistent. To my knowledge nobody is openly saying churches or synagogues shouldn't be built in x,y, and z places. But the right always has this persecution complex where whenever there's actual injustice, we have to manufacture false balance. So Christians in America are "oppressed" because people say "happy holidays", etc.

I do love how Invictus in one breath says how "bad" Cain's position is, and in the next he says "well this happens anyway". Nice outrage there, hoss.

It's bad anywhere. Happy? I was just pointing out that this line of thinking is a bit more widespread than you might think at first.

Anyway a casual look at google maps reveals there are several synagogues in the vicinity of downtown Dearborn. And there's a Lutheran church a half mile away from the heart of Castro. Guess your narrative of false equivalence fails, again.

I used Mormons because of the anti gay marriage controversy. A lot of Lutheran churches are fine with gay marriage. As for the synagogues, you might be right. My point was about specifically Muslim neighborhoods but fine, take the tally mark.

At any rate, I intended it all to be a metaphor. You're too wound up in not agreeing with me on anything to even appear to cede any point I make.

You're really full of yourself, Invictus. You troll threads I post in all the time to make snarky comment about North Korea. Cry me a river.

I'm not going to "cede" to your bs false equivalence narrative because it's just that, bs. The right loves to pick on minorities and anytime anybody points that out you have to come up with some manufactured "reverse racism" charge to give yourself cover.

And I'm sure you'll find any myriad of excuses for why x or y church building doesn't qualify, because what you said wasn't intended to be a factual statement.

I wish you could realize how ridiculous you look right now.

To you I always look ridiculous. If only I gave a damn about what you and the rest of your little hate parade on this forum thinks.

Or we could stop with all the ad hominem arguments and all our problems would disappear

Who said your post was ad hominen Denis?
Here is a statement from your post " To think that we do not need governments"
That is the straw man.
You defining some named groups views is also a straw man.
I guess you are utterly ignorant of what a straw man is.
That explains your reply.

You also posted this revealing passage.
"yes there are people who defend freedom. Namely the governments in Scandinavia, and Switzerland, as well as other western European governments."

So now governments are human beings?
What an utterly ignorant statement.
If you wanted to say individuals in government, but you don't.
You posted it not me.
You also want to put a label on my views.
Another straw man.

So Denis why don't you propose what you think instead of constructing straw men you argue against.
In fact I find you about as coherent as a drunk.

"ad hominem" I so f*ing tired of liberals on this site saying. "Wahhhhh....,cry cry cry,....your argument against Liberalism as-a-whole isn't valid becuase I have a guilty conscience and I feel personally attacked by your valid fact-based argument...."


lol


Liberals. The Mongoloids of politics. They are cute and fun to be around....but you don't want to give them the car keys...

How do you "impose freedom."
That is a good one. I order you to be free.
Stromtrooper is quite out of his depth discussing something that he doesn't understand or want, freedom.

I also love the vague, bombastic statements like "people in Africa are subject to unbelievable wage slavery."

So "people in Africa" represents what? All men, women, adults, children, in all countries in all work.
Someone tell Gaddafi and Mubarek that they were wage slaves.
How do individuals type post such silliness?

Tettleton says he supports child prostitution. Without government evening the scales, poor children will invariably sell their bodies to survive. Do you support children as young as 5 prostituting themselves just to afford food and water because their parents are injured, dead, lazy or abandoned this child? I am very disappointed in you Tettleton for supporting such a disgusting trade.

Of course, child prostitution! It's the only logical choice of the poor!

^See, even he is agreeing with me.

"Liberals. The Mongoloids of politics. They are cute and fun to be around....but you don't want to give them the car keys... "

Add racist to the list of krellin's faults

@tettletons chew
Your last post was entirely ad hominem same goes for krellin. Attempting to insult someone is not a valid form of argument.
When I say governments, I mean the individuals within them, obviously. A government without individuals is just an idea. So a government is a group of human beings, or people. If you will stop pretending that you do not understand what is meant by governments, and actually attempt to refute my claim we could maybe get somewhere with this discussion.
As to your attack on my claim that individuals in africa are subject to wage slavery. You called in to broad. Well let me clear that up. Men, women, adults, and yes, children in africa ( yes they are on a continent) are subject to wage slavery. notice I did not say all the people in Africa are subject to wage slavery so Gaddafi and Mubarak are excluded. But to be more prescise, a man in the Sierra Leone who works at a diamond mine, sifts through sludge for the whole working day. He is payed less than a dollar a day, and when he finds a diamond he can then trade it with the company's diamond trader for a bonus, that bonus is in reality only a minuscule fraction of it's actual raw uncut worth, but he, having been unable to go to school and be educated since he has worked through his childhood, has no means of knowing this for not only does he know that his find is truly very valuable, he does not know basic math and does not understand how value is determined. This is a very real story, it happens everyday in places like the Sierra Leone I can refer you to a documentary, Blood Diamonds ( no not the movie with Leo Decaprio) it's made by Vanguard, and Current TV ( I warn you it's a liberal channel but the account is unbiased ). I can try find a link and post it.
As far as the straw man goes, maybe I was going to far, characterizing you falsely,and making false assumptions, like that you believe government should not exist was false. As far as me defining a groups views, that. Is not a straw man unless I attack you as part of a group which you are not a part of, but libertarian seems to be a fair description of your views. If you will please proceed and attempt to discredit my post while omitting the ad hominem arguments.

Anyone can defend it. There have been countless articles about it.

"How do individuals type post such silliness?"

I ask you the same question.

I have asked for a newspaper article that clearly states that raw milk DIDN'T cause an epidemic in Europe and still I am waiting for it. How can you tell me that raw milk is safe to drink? The freedom to sell raw milk will therefore inevitably cause an epidemic. This is true for all freedoms. They invariably cause outbreaks of disease .

If however, you can get me that SINGLE newspaper article that states that raw milk didn't cause an epidemic in Europe, then I might believe that freedoms don't cause disease. But anything else is unacceptable evidence, and can not disprove this theory.

Even though this is a silly troll thread that ShockTrooper started, I would like to inject a serious and relevant question at this juncture. What is meant by "freedom"? Freedom from what? On it's own, "freedom" is too nebulous and ill defined a concept to be of any real use. Now, I think there are people here who would define freedom as "having few or no responsibilities mandated by a government", and their alternative, their concept of freedom would be through the market, but then are you really free? I would argue no, I would say you've simply traded one form of coercion, (ie by the government) for another (market coercion). Even though he has me muted, I can already hear Tettleton's Chew saying that there is not and can never be such a thing as "market coercion". This is because Tettleton's Chew is from Saturn, and actually doesn't understand how the world works. At the end of the day, my so called "choice" about whether or not I participate in the market is kind of irrelevant. I need to get food and shelter and clothing from somewhere. We are forced, by the basic necessities of human life to participate in the market whether we like it or not. And even leaving these essentials aside, spending money is a key part of participating in society. People who don't spend money in the market, are all considered recluses, hermits or homeless people, all of whom are not people who participate in society, and not participating in society takes a psychological toll.

Essentially what I'm proposing is that total freedom from one thing, is tantamount to complete oppression by another. And that total, absolute freedom is something which does not exist.

@ Putin33

How is the right fond of "silly catch phrases"? What about "Make love not war" or "No war for oil"? Those are pretty silly.

A slogan like "Don't tread on me" has historical significance and real meaning.

@ dD_ShockTrooper

You jump to the conclusion that it is the governments' responsibility to even out any differences in society. I believe that is wrong. To give to someone, you have to take from someone else.

You cannot assume that every rich person out there stole from someone else or played around with stocks (and didn't contribute to society in the process). Likewise, you cannot assume that every poor person out there is the son/daughter of impoverished parents and never had a fair chance of attending college.

There are plenty of rich people out there who fought hard for every penny that they ever earned. There are plenty of poor people out there who were born into a stable middle-class household and got mixed up with drugs or alcohol and threw their own life down the can.

You can't assume that rich people are always advantaged and that poor people are always disadvantaged.

That's the great thing about freedom. Anyone can get rich in a free market. Anyone can fail in a free market.

"To give to someone, you have to take from someone else."

Inheritance is not "earned", so you're not "taking" anything.

I do wonder how the right can be so against "taking other people's money" when that is precisely what capitalism does. People are paid less than the value of their labor in order for capital to make profits.

"You can't assume that rich people are always advantaged and that poor people are always disadvantaged."

"That's the great thing about freedom. Anyone can get rich in a free market. Anyone can fail in a free market."

That's mythology. That's like saying because "anyone" can win the lottery, winning the lottery is probable so therefore the rigid class disparities are just.

"You cannot assume that every rich person out there stole from someone else or played around with stocks (and didn't contribute to society in the process). Likewise, you cannot assume that every poor person out there is the son/daughter of impoverished parents and never had a fair chance of attending college. "

Not every, but almost every. Just because you can list one or two exceptions doesn't mean that's not the general rule. The system needs a couple of exceptions in order to brainwash people into believing that their struggles are justified so they don't rise up against the system.

""Don't tread on me" has historical significance and real meaning. "

No, it's an empty phrase. "No war for oil" is concrete. It's opposing wars for resources. Don't tread on me is meaningless, as the right's definition of "freedom" = controlling women's bodies, silencing anti-war dissent, warrantless wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay, torture, opposing equal rights for minorities, opposing equal rights for gays, opposing equal rights for women, and demanding the poor and middle class pay taxes while corporations pay none.

Rightwing "freedom" is the freedom to starve, be unemployed, have no health insurance, and be discriminated against.