Most of the so-called libertarian here are deeply dishonest. They've very coy about small government. They always whine about how there's too much more or less no matter what, yet whe presented with no goverment they claim that's not what it's all about.
the boundary appears to be "I've got mine and the government should be big enough to keep it mine, but other than that fuck you".
Well, I guess, after all you do seem to want to force burly, bearded dudes into women's bathrooms. That seems to be a republican thing for some reason though I can't for the life of me see why ayone would want that.
Why is it OK to force a company (a voluntary association of people)
Because the company isn't a mere voluntary association of people, it has limited liability protection. What you are therefore arguing is that companies should get both more protection and priviliges and be subject to no more rules to maintain those.
If you were talking about simple associations of people, then sure you'd have a point. But you're talking about companies so you really don't.
The implication here is citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions and must be forced into specific behaviors by the Almighty Hand Of Government,
That is a very silly and bombastic way of getting to the core of the problem. Of course with out the Alighty Hand Of Government, you'd be living in the libertarian paradise of the congo with without any nasty government interfering with you.
Also, I note you aren't really against regulation. You're happy for stuff you believe favours you, like having governments regulate into existence limited liability companies. But not, interestingly limiting what they can do when you personally don't like it.
This is not to say I'm in favour of this law, but I think your position is philosophically inchorerent.
Yes, all that poop on the streets, used syringes everywhere, crazy bums assaulting people at the BART station and living in the elevators, we'll deal with those later, we need to address the critical issues first.
I'm curious: I've only visited SF once (maybe 10 years ago) and I don't recall that. Do you live there? If it's that bad then why?
Wow the level of blind partisan tribalism is strong here.
OP: Other tribe is bad!!! Here's a link. ME: That link sayy your tribe is equally bad. You: NO! Your tribe is BAD!!! BAD! Your tribe BAAADDDD!!
Fascism is totalitarianism.
Read the link. I mean you won't because it's long and you're probably too dim and with too little attention span to actually process the substantial number of words. But you really ought to.
Also drop the fucking tribalism. You're part of the problem.
Sure, leave it to Democrats to further entrench the Fascism.
That's a kind of bullshit definition of fascism, though in fairnes, the link you posted points out how it's a much a Republican thing as democrat. Though given your blind, hyper-partisan zeal it's not really surprising you pick out th eother tribe.
Anyone interested in a better description of facism (not you, since youre impervious to anything that you don't believe is "rah rah republicans") should go here:
Well, you're part of the idiots who for decades has been shouting "racism!", "xenophobia!", "Islamophobia", "antisemitism!", "bigotry!", "hate-speech!" and so on like if that mattered a single fuck.
Yep, people should just shut up and not get uppity. The solution is to either seeth quietly or just let your soul be crushed rather than shout at people being arseholes.
The BBC gave more air-time to Remainers than it did to Brexiteers, and its editorial line was unashamedly anti-Brexit.
I doubt the former. And it also uncritically repeated the Brexiter's outright lies, like the 350 million per week. The Brexit camp knew it was a lie, the BBC new it was a lie, but in the interests of "neutrality" they simply repeated the lie because that was what the Brexit campaign had.
Just because you evidently disagreed with Nigel Farage
Ah yes, pointing out obvious, well known lies is now merely "disagreeing". Right-o.
Pro-EU supporters need another lesson in democracy, I think.
That'll be why the exit campaign seems a little tied up in campaign fraud. Is that the lesson? That it doesn't matter if you win legally or not, the only thing that counts is winning?
Because elites didn't get what they wanted in an election.
Jacob Reese-Mogg (Eaton then Oxford), owns an investment company (now HQ'd in Eurpoe post Article 51), worth about 50 million GBP. Not an elite.
Boris Johnson (Eton the Oxford), rich enough to consider a 250,000GPB salary as "chicken feed". Not an elite.
If you think the people running the Brexit shit-show are not elites then I have a bridge to sell you.
We must immediately go back to centralized control of media, so elites can regain control of the information everyone has.
Ah yes, like the Daily Torygraph. That pro-remain publication. Or the Daily Fail, that bastion of thruthiness. Or the sun that tiny irrelevance with the most readers.
You're deluded and paranoid. What you are saying is not reality it's some perverse fantasy.
The present situation is too democratic for them.
Not really. The referendum was only an advisory one but is being treated as binding. If it was a binding referendum then legally they'd have to rerun it now due to the campaign fraud. But it was only advisory so they don't.
The internet was fun as it protected and expected US freedoms. Freedom of the press. Freedom of speech. Freedom after speech. Remove that and social media becomes any other failed nations "internet". With extra censorship, reporting, bans.
The US constitution never guarateed the right to not have people say "piss off we don't want you in this private club any more". In fact the constitution protects that freedom.
Forcing internet forums to host people they don't want is strongly anti-freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the so-called libertarian here are deeply dishonest. They've very coy about small government. They always whine about how there's too much more or less no matter what, yet whe presented with no goverment they claim that's not what it's all about.
the boundary appears to be "I've got mine and the government should be big enough to keep it mine, but other than that fuck you".
Fuck that. I consider myself a republican
Well, I guess, after all you do seem to want to force burly, bearded dudes into women's bathrooms. That seems to be a republican thing for some reason though I can't for the life of me see why ayone would want that.
Takes all sorts I guess.
Well it's a hobby of the Republicans at the moment and they're the ones in power. They're not going to make a fairer system if it harms them.
I now await a reply along the lines of "what about something unrelated bad the Democrats did", as if one bad action somehow justifies another one.
It's mindlessly foolish to claim that someone wanting a welfare state wants a vast militarized police force merely because both are "mor government".
They're not even slightly the same
Define success.
Being very rich might be negatively correlated with empathy, sure. I define success as enjoying life, personally because otherwise what's the point?
Is lack of empathy correlated with better enjoyment of life?
Without reference to the regulation in question:
Why is it OK to force a company (a voluntary association of people)
Because the company isn't a mere voluntary association of people, it has limited liability protection. What you are therefore arguing is that companies should get both more protection and priviliges and be subject to no more rules to maintain those.
If you were talking about simple associations of people, then sure you'd have a point. But you're talking about companies so you really don't.
The implication here is citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions and must be forced into specific behaviors by the Almighty Hand Of Government,
That is a very silly and bombastic way of getting to the core of the problem. Of course with out the Alighty Hand Of Government, you'd be living in the libertarian paradise of the congo with without any nasty government interfering with you.
Also, I note you aren't really against regulation. You're happy for stuff you believe favours you, like having governments regulate into existence limited liability companies. But not, interestingly limiting what they can do when you personally don't like it.
This is not to say I'm in favour of this law, but I think your position is philosophically inchorerent.
Yes, all that poop on the streets, used syringes everywhere, crazy bums assaulting people at the BART station and living in the elevators, we'll deal with those later, we need to address the critical issues first.
I'm curious: I've only visited SF once (maybe 10 years ago) and I don't recall that. Do you live there? If it's that bad then why?
Wow the level of blind partisan tribalism is strong here.
OP: Other tribe is bad!!! Here's a link.
ME: That link sayy your tribe is equally bad.
You: NO! Your tribe is BAD!!! BAD! Your tribe BAAADDDD!!
Fascism is totalitarianism.
Read the link. I mean you won't because it's long and you're probably too dim and with too little attention span to actually process the substantial number of words. But you really ought to.
Also drop the fucking tribalism. You're part of the problem.
Sure, leave it to Democrats to further entrench the Fascism.
That's a kind of bullshit definition of fascism, though in fairnes, the link you posted points out how it's a much a Republican thing as democrat. Though given your blind, hyper-partisan zeal it's not really surprising you pick out th eother tribe.
Anyone interested in a better description of facism (not you, since youre impervious to anything that you don't believe is "rah rah republicans") should go here:
https://www.nybooks.com/articl...
This could REALLY blow up in their face.
Which is ironic if you think about it because that's precisely what a 3D printed gun is likely to do.
ba dum tschhh
(yes I know about metal printers)
So I troll the lost causes into even more incoherent impotent rage.
Well, you like to think you do at any rate. In reality, you're more like this guy:
http://lol.i.trollyou.com/
The beauty of the internet is that it allows readers to check multiple sources for any one subject/story,
The downside of the internet is that people can find a source confirming anything no matter how wrong.
legacy
n. something no longer fashionable which usually differes from the proposed alternative by actually working. (apologies to Stroustrup)
Probably shouldn't bother feeding an obvious troll, even one with a low ID.
It's kinda pathetic that you believe someone who disagrees with you is an "obvious troll".
You think criteria of being alive helps with fraud?
That's ALSO a problem with the system you prefer. UBI doesn't remove that particular avenue for fraud but it removes an awful lot of others.
The only fair counter would be to tell me that I'm wrong and do that based on evidence not just a wish and feelings and values you're holding.
Bullshit. You haven't made any concrete claims. All you've done is whine about people who call out racism etc.
The rest of your post is just rambling.
Posts on message boards don't have credibility. Never did, never will.
Your posts, sure. Just because you have no credibility doesn't mean no one else does, though.
Yes spin this to try to make me out to be the weirdo. fuck off with your nonsense
Then tell me why you want that burly bearded dude in the ladies toilets.
It's a simple question.
Well, you're part of the idiots who for decades has been shouting "racism!", "xenophobia!", "Islamophobia", "antisemitism!", "bigotry!", "hate-speech!" and so on like if that mattered a single fuck.
Yep, people should just shut up and not get uppity. The solution is to either seeth quietly or just let your soul be crushed rather than shout at people being arseholes.
The BBC gave more air-time to Remainers than it did to Brexiteers, and its editorial line was unashamedly anti-Brexit.
I doubt the former. And it also uncritically repeated the Brexiter's outright lies, like the 350 million per week. The Brexit camp knew it was a lie, the BBC new it was a lie, but in the interests of "neutrality" they simply repeated the lie because that was what the Brexit campaign had.
Just because you evidently disagreed with Nigel Farage
Ah yes, pointing out obvious, well known lies is now merely "disagreeing". Right-o.
Pro-EU supporters need another lesson in democracy, I think.
That'll be why the exit campaign seems a little tied up in campaign fraud. Is that the lesson? That it doesn't matter if you win legally or not, the only thing that counts is winning?
Is that "brexit democracy"?
Because elites didn't get what they wanted in an election.
Jacob Reese-Mogg (Eaton then Oxford), owns an investment company (now HQ'd in Eurpoe post Article 51), worth about 50 million GBP. Not an elite.
Boris Johnson (Eton the Oxford), rich enough to consider a 250,000GPB salary as "chicken feed". Not an elite.
If you think the people running the Brexit shit-show are not elites then I have a bridge to sell you.
We must immediately go back to centralized control of media, so elites can regain control of the information everyone has.
Ah yes, like the Daily Torygraph. That pro-remain publication. Or the Daily Fail, that bastion of thruthiness. Or the sun that tiny irrelevance with the most readers.
You're deluded and paranoid. What you are saying is not reality it's some perverse fantasy.
The present situation is too democratic for them.
Not really. The referendum was only an advisory one but is being treated as binding. If it was a binding referendum then legally they'd have to rerun it now due to the campaign fraud. But it was only advisory so they don't.
So yes, election fraud is "too democratic".
Why do you want the dude in that picture in womens bathrooms?
Either answer the question or you concede that your point is absurd.
Oh you're one of those bathroom morons.
By insisting that people stick to the bathroom of their birth gender, you're insisting this dude use women's bathrooms:
https://www.advocate.com/sites...
Why DO you want burly bearded men in women's bathrooms? Wanna go there yourself or something?
The internet was fun as it protected and expected US freedoms. Freedom of the press. Freedom of speech. Freedom after speech. Remove that and social media becomes any other failed nations "internet". With extra censorship, reporting, bans.
The US constitution never guarateed the right to not have people say "piss off we don't want you in this private club any more". In fact the constitution protects that freedom.
Forcing internet forums to host people they don't want is strongly anti-freedom.
Congrats on exposing that you don't know what a pacemaker does! ;)
The sad part is that it's function is it's name.
What precisely do you think a pacemaker does, and why d oyou think people have them?
I'm sure that is what you have been told.
Who cares what I've been told. All you have to do is observe and it's obvious from that.
But by virtually every real world indicator Trump is doing a good job.
Lolnope.