For my Libertarian friends

JLocke wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JLocke wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: T doesn't seem to understand that saying "property owners can do what they want with their property" implies the scenario where "blacks have the right not to serve whites". Well, that's what's confusing me. He seems so certain that Rand Paul doesn't mean that. So one would assume Teo has some sort of proof pointing to that suspicion. Otherwise, doesn't the over-assumptive nature of his accusation seem a bit bigoted itself? Bigoted might be a bit strong, but I'm pretty sure it's an assumption of T's. You're right. It's an assumption. A rather not-so-crazy assumption since we all know what happened in the era pre-civil rights when people were allowed to segregate. It's just an assumption, correct. But one that anyone except libertarians who see a higher purpose in his words might make.  I rather not try to respond to JLocke because he will explode as always...  So you'd rather indirectly talk smack about me while once again generalizing all libertarians? Yeah, that makes me much more calm. What a cowardly way to behave.

UndercoverBoy wrote: JJLehto wrote: Communism really is the best system. Not quite authoritarian enough for me though. I mean people can still live in cities or do things besides farm! I'd like to empty out all towns larger than a thousand people, force em to live in self sufficient communes with no technology whatsoever. If only we had chips to implant in everyone so if they think slightly negative thoughts their heads explode. Utopia would be complete! At the end of the day, I really think it would be best for society if we all just had our AT fields destroyed, exploded into tang and had our souls merged into one being. Human Instrumentality FTW.

Well when you can get that done come tell me.
Of course I'll be secluded in my dictator lair...but if you can get past endless waves of security that shoot all that move...than yeah come tell me.

JLocke wrote:   Someone makes a general claim, then turns around and addresses me directly because he knows what he said would provoke me. I think I have the right to respond and do a bit of the same. You said I was being bigoted but said so in a post addressed to Pat. So you didn't "directly" tell me I'm a bigot, you just told Pat I'm a bigot. Sometimes I think all you do anymore in these topics is wait until I happen to say something you can pounce on, then gleefully do so. JLocke, check this thread. You JUST JOINED in the last 20 pages or so. I have been here talking nonsense (and sometime some little sense) almost from the beginning. I have never had you as my special target or something. In fact nobody does. You're just as irrelevant as we all are. If I picked apart every single word you ever posted, I'm pretty sure I could have some decent laughs out if it, also. Perhaps you honestly thought I was being hypocritical, though. If so, congratulations, you caught me. Now, nothing I say should be taken seriously.

Epignosis wrote: JLocke wrote: Epignosis wrote: JLocke wrote: Yes, I just generalized about liberals. But that seems to be all the rage at the moment, so . . .  JLocke wrote: But why is it that modern Christians often don't acknowledge that such an event ever took place? Hmm...yes it does.  I was among those 'modern Christians' of which I spoke for quite a long time, Robert.  Did you even read the particular post I was referring to? Nope.  I've taken up a new method that seems to work for a lot of people:  Taking things out of context.

He's grooming himself to run for politics a little more every day!

The T wrote:   Someone makes a general claim, then turns around and addresses me directly because he knows what he said would provoke me. I think I have the right to respond and do a bit of the same. You said I was being bigoted but said so in a post addressed to Pat. So you didn't "directly" tell me I'm a bigot, you just told Pat I'm a bigot.

The T wrote: Peace JLocke! Peace!

Edited by JLocke - November 01 2010 at 21:30

Well, as usual, you win. I'm not as smart as you are, and I'm not even going to try explaining anything more about where I'm coming from. I suppose it would be best for me to just shut up and let the big boys talk, but then that wouldn't be me, would it? Sure, I could try to argue that poking fun at bad spelling has nothing to do with attacking the person's character or outlook directly, but that really isn't the issue. The issue is that you are a bully to me quite often on and off this board, and If you think you're merely giving me a taste of my own medicine, then by all means, go for it. 

Perhaps I simply can't take criticism. If that is the case, then I'm at fault for that, and need to change. I'd like to think I do admit at being in the wrong whenever it is pointed out to me in a way that I can understand. But beyond that, all I can do is state how I honestly feel, or simply not post at all. Perhaps the latter would be the better option. It's better than feeling like an idiot every other time you and I converse.

Edited by JLocke - November 01 2010 at 21:52

JJLehto wrote: Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Epignosis wrote: Nope.  I've taken up a new method that seems to work for a lot of people:  Taking things out of context.  He's grooming himself to run for politics a little more every day! Grooming?  Me? Noooo... Rob, don't even try and pretend you're not planning a run in the future...

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JLocke wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: T doesn't seem to understand that saying "property owners can do what they want with their property" implies the scenario where "blacks have the right not to serve whites". Well, that's what's confusing me. He seems so certain that Rand Paul doesn't mean that. So one would assume Teo has some sort of proof pointing to that suspicion. Otherwise, doesn't the over-assumptive nature of his accusation seem a bit bigoted itself? Bigoted might be a bit strong, but I'm pretty sure it's an assumption of T's. You're right. It's an assumption. A rather not-so-crazy assumption since we all know what happened in the era pre-civil rights when people were allowed to segregate. It's just an assumption, correct. But one that anyone except libertarians who see a higher purpose in his words might make.  I rather not try to respond to JLocke because he will explode as always...  So you just ignored my post I see? People weren't allowed to segregate, they were forced to do so. A repeal of slavery/forced segregation laws were necessary. We didn't need to institute mandatory integration when we repealed segregation. I can see a point in there. Though I can't understand in this day and age someone defending something that, directly or indirectly, will generate segregation...

I'm late on this because I was doing econometrics homework. I don't really care that mister Locke edited my post and I think it's been blown out of proportion, but he did change my meaning. I was saying I trust one person more than another mainly because of the second person's questionable history which I feel undermines their credibility. Ad Hominem? Perhaps, but behaviour patterns do mean something, I think. In my famous generalizations I believe most Kentucky Libertarians to be decent, salt of the earth folk, whereas I believe most paid MoveOn.org employees to by slimy, dirty pool players.
Note that I said nothing about Rand Paul's opinion on the matter, since he didn't voice one in the article I posted. The two descriptions of the event were givenby the alleged attacker (whom I assume to be a Kentucky Libertarian due to hsi being at a Rand Paul rally and attempting to defend Rand) and the MoveOn.org employee.