Posted by tangplay on 6/7/2020 12:30:00 PM (view original):
You both are using non-sequiturs (also guitarguy ignored my question). The rioting and looting is completely irrelevant if the police are using tear gas on peaceful protesters. No one has a problem with stopping looting. The police aren't focused on the looters, though. The police are inciting violence against peaceful protesters. That's a fact. 99% of the protesters have been peaceful. No, I'm not exaggerating.

Also - controversial opinion alert - I don't give a **** about monuments. They are fair game.

Nothing is “fair game” that doesn’t belong to you. Defacing or destroying anything that belongs to someone else is wrong and immoral. It doesn’t matter if you agree with what that thing stands for or not. It’s not yours to destroy. It is a crime and people that do it should be prosecuted.

Also, I skipped your first part. I’m not sure that there is evidence that police are using tear gas on peaceful protests outside of a few rare, isolated incidents. Those isolated incidents are wrong and need to stop but people have a bad habit of taking isolated incidents and pretending they’re the norm.

People also have a bad habit of ignoring stuff that contradicts their viewpoint.

Fake News. The media is the enemy. "Major" media lies, etc.
It's all part of the propaganda campaign being waged by the nutbags who've overrun the Republican party.

They keep telling their sheep NOT to believe their own lying eyes.
And the sheep just keep baaaing away like nothings wrong...............while the Country tears itself apart right in front of their own lying eyes..........

and the con in the White House keeps claiming I'm your Law & order POTUS!
1968 all over again.

Trouble is, in 1968 the crook in the white house (No matter what you thought of him) actually did have a scruple or two and he did (ultimately) care for OUR COUNTRY more than he did retaining power at the Country's expense.

Today that is obviously just not so.
The clown/tonto we have today doesn't have 1% of Nixon's intellect, doesn't even recognize when HE is doing harm to the Country and NEVER EVER has the capacity to put what's best BEFORE his own NEED for power/control.
In short we elected a wannabe despot.

And when he does lose the election, which He will, you can bet there will be trouble. Big trouble. He'll likely claim foul and refuse to leave willingly!
Watch.

He hasn't caused as much damage as he will then...........our biggest National crisis is yet to come.............AFTER November of 2020.
When LAW must be used to remove someone who thinks HE is above the Law.

Posted by Guitarguy567 on 6/7/2020 12:33:00 PM (view original):
If conservatives defaced monuments dear to liberal hearts what would the media's reaction be?

Can you list these monuments?

Then list the defaced ones that are dear to your heart.

Posted by strikeout26 on 6/7/2020 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/7/2020 12:30:00 PM (view original):
You both are using non-sequiturs (also guitarguy ignored my question). The rioting and looting is completely irrelevant if the police are using tear gas on peaceful protesters. No one has a problem with stopping looting. The police aren't focused on the looters, though. The police are inciting violence against peaceful protesters. That's a fact. 99% of the protesters have been peaceful. No, I'm not exaggerating.

Also - controversial opinion alert - I don't give a **** about monuments. They are fair game.

Nothing is “fair game” that doesn’t belong to you. Defacing or destroying anything that belongs to someone else is wrong and immoral. It doesn’t matter if you agree with what that thing stands for or not. It’s not yours to destroy. It is a crime and people that do it should be prosecuted.

It doesn't "belong" to anyone. I don't care. Especially if the monument was put up by the KKK. Take it down.

Posted by strikeout26 on 6/7/2020 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Also, I skipped your first part. I’m not sure that there is evidence that police are using tear gas on peaceful protests outside of a few rare, isolated incidents. Those isolated incidents are wrong and need to stop but people have a bad habit of taking isolated incidents and pretending they’re the norm.

This is just wrong. It's happening in every major city, at every major protest. We don't have statistics on it, but we do have videos; dozens of them.

Can you please point me to an individual that owns monuments erected in the 1960's or before? Or does it belong to the community?

To be clear, I am not talking about Confederate monuments. I could give two ***** if those get defaced/taken down. I am talking about monuments in DC or those in London dedicated to Churchill and Lincoln that got defaced. Or most egregiously the monument in Massachusetts to the 54th regiment (an all black regiment). If you do not believe me, I will paste the article.

Sure. I'd like to see those articles. Personally, I wouldn't participate in defacing if it's not a racist monument. I also don't think people should go to jail or whatever for defacing them. Monuments belong to the people. Defacing monuments add to history.

To address your previous point, though; aren't these monuments ones that liberals do care about? Seems like you answered your own question.

Posted by strikeout26 on 6/7/2020 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/7/2020 12:30:00 PM (view original):
You both are using non-sequiturs (also guitarguy ignored my question). The rioting and looting is completely irrelevant if the police are using tear gas on peaceful protesters. No one has a problem with stopping looting. The police aren't focused on the looters, though. The police are inciting violence against peaceful protesters. That's a fact. 99% of the protesters have been peaceful. No, I'm not exaggerating.

Also - controversial opinion alert - I don't give a **** about monuments. They are fair game.

Nothing is “fair game” that doesn’t belong to you. Defacing or destroying anything that belongs to someone else is wrong and immoral. It doesn’t matter if you agree with what that thing stands for or not. It’s not yours to destroy. It is a crime and people that do it should be prosecuted.

Yet another example of why I can't bring myself to unblock tang. What kind of person thinks it's ok to go around destroying public property? If we were ever dumb enough to allow it to non-racist statues, what's next? People tearing-down stop lights they don't like? Defacing schools when their "perfect" child gets an F? Maybe burning police stations after getting a ticket? Crazy, crazy, crazy, and very, very dangerous thinking - kind of like all the "geniuses" who want to defund police departments. Quite honestly, I'd love to see that happen in LA so the rest of the Country could see what the effects would be. Give the loud, mouthy Liberals of that City what they want, then step-back and wait for them to come crying.

Stop lights, schools, and police stations serve a public utility in a way that monuments don't. There is no slippery slope. Destroying a monument doesn't hurt anyone.

Posted by tangplay on 6/7/2020 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 6/7/2020 9:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/7/2020 2:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 6/7/2020 1:02:00 AM (view original):
Jo Jorgensen 2020! I’m with Jo! And her .79862% of the vote!

Testing your libertarian-ness.

Jorgensen supports CJR like ending civil forfeiture, ending the war on drugs, and elsewhere supports green energy, free trade, and straight up open borders. You sign off on all of that?

Yep to ending civil forfeiture. Yep to ending the war on drugs (although i'm not sure that I think all drugs should be legal). Obviously I support green energy and free trade. Although, like Jorgensen, I don't believe the government should subsidize green energy. I don't believe in government subsidies. And I would take the libertarian stance on open borders if it weren't for the welfare state. I believe that anyone that comes into the country should be a net gain.

You don't have to support everything about a candidate to support a candidate and especially when your options are Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I actually wish Justin Amash would have went through with his plan of running as the libertarian candidate.

Ok, props to you for being ideologically consistent. I would note that even with the welfare state, immigration is a net positive in the long run.

On a side note, I've become much less hostile towards libertarianism over the past couple of months. I agree with them more than I agree with the Republican party, and small government is more appealing to me than fascism. Gary Johnson and Republicans pretending to be libertarians had turned me off to the party.

I have another question for you: Who is more purely capitalist; Biden or Trump?

I am mostly in agreement with strikeout with a few minor revisions. Green energy is not a libertarian issue. Therefore, libertarianism can't support (or oppose) it. Open borders are fine, in theory. A staggering amount of intrusive government agencies/policies would need to be eliminated to get to the point where open immigration would not negatively impact the individual rights of the citizenry.

The Libertarian Party stopped being purely libertarian decades ago. The first time immigration was even mentioned in the party platform was 1978. Almost from the beginning, the party has increasingly moderated the original philosophy in a failed effort to appeal to a broader base. Jorgensen is libertarianesque, which is as polite as I can be.

Neither Trump nor Biden is a capitalist. Trump does not believe in a free market. He made his fortune with massive government assistance, not from a "free market," and is thus antithetical to philosophical capitalism. Biden does not believe in the private ownership of the means of production nor the free market. Neither is in any danger of ever being mistaken for a capitalist.

Posted by usf_bulls on 6/7/2020 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/7/2020 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 6/7/2020 9:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/7/2020 2:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 6/7/2020 1:02:00 AM (view original):
Jo Jorgensen 2020! I’m with Jo! And her .79862% of the vote!

Testing your libertarian-ness.

Jorgensen supports CJR like ending civil forfeiture, ending the war on drugs, and elsewhere supports green energy, free trade, and straight up open borders. You sign off on all of that?

Yep to ending civil forfeiture. Yep to ending the war on drugs (although i'm not sure that I think all drugs should be legal). Obviously I support green energy and free trade. Although, like Jorgensen, I don't believe the government should subsidize green energy. I don't believe in government subsidies. And I would take the libertarian stance on open borders if it weren't for the welfare state. I believe that anyone that comes into the country should be a net gain.

You don't have to support everything about a candidate to support a candidate and especially when your options are Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I actually wish Justin Amash would have went through with his plan of running as the libertarian candidate.

Ok, props to you for being ideologically consistent. I would note that even with the welfare state, immigration is a net positive in the long run.

On a side note, I've become much less hostile towards libertarianism over the past couple of months. I agree with them more than I agree with the Republican party, and small government is more appealing to me than fascism. Gary Johnson and Republicans pretending to be libertarians had turned me off to the party.

I have another question for you: Who is more purely capitalist; Biden or Trump?

I am mostly in agreement with strikeout with a few minor revisions. Green energy is not a libertarian issue. Therefore, libertarianism can't support (or oppose) it. Open borders are fine, in theory. A staggering amount of intrusive government agencies/policies would need to be eliminated to get to the point where open immigration would not negatively impact the individual rights of the citizenry.

The Libertarian Party stopped being purely libertarian decades ago. The first time immigration was even mentioned in the party platform was 1978. Almost from the beginning, the party has increasingly moderated the original philosophy in a failed effort to appeal to a broader base. Jorgensen is libertarianesque, which is as polite as I can be.

Neither Trump nor Biden is a capitalist. Trump does not believe in a free market. He made his fortune with massive government assistance, not from a "free market," and is thus antithetical to philosophical capitalism. Biden does not believe in the private ownership of the means of production nor the free market. Neither is in any danger of ever being mistaken for a capitalist.

Is that your “professional” opinion?

Posted by rsp777 on 6/7/2020 7:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 6/7/2020 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/7/2020 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 6/7/2020 9:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/7/2020 2:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 6/7/2020 1:02:00 AM (view original):
Jo Jorgensen 2020! I’m with Jo! And her .79862% of the vote!

Testing your libertarian-ness.

Jorgensen supports CJR like ending civil forfeiture, ending the war on drugs, and elsewhere supports green energy, free trade, and straight up open borders. You sign off on all of that?

Yep to ending civil forfeiture. Yep to ending the war on drugs (although i'm not sure that I think all drugs should be legal). Obviously I support green energy and free trade. Although, like Jorgensen, I don't believe the government should subsidize green energy. I don't believe in government subsidies. And I would take the libertarian stance on open borders if it weren't for the welfare state. I believe that anyone that comes into the country should be a net gain.

You don't have to support everything about a candidate to support a candidate and especially when your options are Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I actually wish Justin Amash would have went through with his plan of running as the libertarian candidate.

Ok, props to you for being ideologically consistent. I would note that even with the welfare state, immigration is a net positive in the long run.

On a side note, I've become much less hostile towards libertarianism over the past couple of months. I agree with them more than I agree with the Republican party, and small government is more appealing to me than fascism. Gary Johnson and Republicans pretending to be libertarians had turned me off to the party.

I have another question for you: Who is more purely capitalist; Biden or Trump?

I am mostly in agreement with strikeout with a few minor revisions. Green energy is not a libertarian issue. Therefore, libertarianism can't support (or oppose) it. Open borders are fine, in theory. A staggering amount of intrusive government agencies/policies would need to be eliminated to get to the point where open immigration would not negatively impact the individual rights of the citizenry.

The Libertarian Party stopped being purely libertarian decades ago. The first time immigration was even mentioned in the party platform was 1978. Almost from the beginning, the party has increasingly moderated the original philosophy in a failed effort to appeal to a broader base. Jorgensen is libertarianesque, which is as polite as I can be.

Neither Trump nor Biden is a capitalist. Trump does not believe in a free market. He made his fortune with massive government assistance, not from a "free market," and is thus antithetical to philosophical capitalism. Biden does not believe in the private ownership of the means of production nor the free market. Neither is in any danger of ever being mistaken for a capitalist.

Is that your “professional” opinion?

That is my opinion. Any problems, le monsieur?

Posted by strikeout26 on 6/7/2020 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/7/2020 12:30:00 PM (view original):
You both are using non-sequiturs (also guitarguy ignored my question). The rioting and looting is completely irrelevant if the police are using tear gas on peaceful protesters. No one has a problem with stopping looting. The police aren't focused on the looters, though. The police are inciting violence against peaceful protesters. That's a fact. 99% of the protesters have been peaceful. No, I'm not exaggerating.

Also - controversial opinion alert - I don't give a **** about monuments. They are fair game.

Nothing is “fair game” that doesn’t belong to you. Defacing or destroying anything that belongs to someone else is wrong and immoral. It doesn’t matter if you agree with what that thing stands for or not. It’s not yours to destroy. It is a crime and people that do it should be prosecuted.

I agree with you here, strikeout. It doesn't matter who it does belong to, if it doesn't belong to you, it is wrong to damage/deface it. You may have the best intentions but what you are doing is still against the law. When everybody starts deciding it is okay if they break the law, we'are heading towards chaos.