Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit - Page 17

Radar · 05-28-2008, 11:06 AM

Any time the government takes money from those who have earned it by force or coercion (fear of going to jail) and gives it to those who have not earned it .... it's a textbook example of socialism.

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-28-2008, 12:49 PM

Really, UT? Then why the weird quality of radar's posts? Why his absence of a global libertarian vision? Why his reluctance for us to help remove political obstacles (almost the only kind that seem to have effect) to engendering prosperity worldwide? He ought to remember that prosperity is good for business, and that the business of America is business. His noncomprehension of the value of liberation from the oppressions of too much government, whenever foreign peoples are concerned, strikes me as, well, thoroughly bad. Too much government equals not enough business and not enough wealth or wellbeing. It is hardly unlibertarian to liberate those ground under tyranny's heel, and thus I consider it our responsibility as human beings. Radar definitely won't take this responsibility, leaving him vulnerable to accusations of inhumanity. I don't get hit with these any too often. Which of us, then, is the friendlier to the global body politic?

It does not follow that because he married foreign he's thought foreign policy through. He seems to me not merely uninterested, but actively against thinking about it -- have you noticed his insistence that America retreat within its own borders, becoming this continental cloister? It's all over his writing -- any excuse whatsoever to withdraw from the world, he makes it. There must be a reason for such consistency, and I don't think we can lay this one directly at narcissism's door.

That's never been how these United States have functioned, not long-term, and especially so once we became a world power around the turn of the twentieth century. Sure, many other nations put together don't spend but a fraction on the military we do -- they can afford to do that precisely because of what we spend on it, and what we get for that expenditure is power projection like nobody else can manage. What's more, a century of experience with us has shown us trustworthy; the good actors among nations don't need to arm up against the United States, and this fact is reflected in the size of their military establishments, particularly in their navies, which by comparison with the US Navy look more like the Coast Guard, and have similarly coastal missions and areas of operation.

American interests I believe are not separable from America in general, nor separable from the economy, for the reason that we're too interconnected with the rest of the world.

You will have to show proof, proof mind you, that the "common defense" clauses are limiting clauses. So far, you've only repeated your assertions, not proven them. I do not recall a "common or territorial defense only" anywhere in there, and I say you couldn't find one. I read them as: this is one purpose. It is tacit about others, but does not forbid them. The Constitution doesn't set forth how foreign policy will be conducted, it merely apportions who does what parts of the whole. Except in matters of funding, that is the Executive Branch. It takes the Legislative to ratify foreign aid.

I think, radar, that you're more interested in being radical than in getting it right, or practicing "the art of the possible." You look to an eccentric reading of the Constitution in an effort to pare down the size and scope of the Federal level of government, but I don't think the Constitution supports you in the endeavor -- you're trying to have trade without security, and that is unwise. Better, I think, to concentrate on paring down the Federal welfare-state departments.

I've been around the world with the Navy; I've crossed the longitude of Diego Garcia going both east and west. I've been close to war. I speak four languages myself, English, Spanish, French, and Russian, and can still order lunch in Turkish, and am looking into taking some German. Don't try getting haughty with me.

Radar · 05-28-2008, 01:31 PM

Libertarians are against the initiation of force against those who pose no threat to you. Those who are being oppressed do have a right to take up arms against those oppressing them. You do not, unless they have hired you as an agent. You also do not have the authority or right to use the U.S. Military to carry out your so-called "liberation".

Who are you to decide who is or isn't oppressed? Who are you to decide what kind of freedom others will have? You are nobody. You are nothing, but a war-mongering loser who hates libertarian principles. And yes, you are far more inhuman than I will ever be accused of being.

The U.S. Military has one and only one role. To provide a common defense for AMERICA. It's not to police the world. It's not to fill in security gaps. It's not to act as a peace keeper between other nations. It's not to enforce UN sanctions. It's not to practice nation building or humanitarian aid. It's not to "liberate" oppressed people. It's not to overthrow or to prop up leaders in other nations. It's not here to defend foreign interests of American investors. It's not here to protect the American economy. It's not here to secure sources of oil. It's not here to prevent other nations from developing nukes or other weapons. It's not here to start unprovoked wars. It's not here to do any kind of "pre-emptive" attacks.

Defense means defending against an attack. Not against a possible attack by someone who might have a weapon some time in the future and who doesn't like us.

The stated purpose for our military is to provide a common DEFENSE for America. The 10th amendment limits the federal government from doing anything that isn't specifically enumerated (listed) in the Constitution. Using the military for non-defensive purposes is not listed. END OF STORY. You lose. Get over it.

You claim to speak English, but you can't seem to read it. You're virtually retarded. My reading of the Constitution isn't eccentric. It's in the exact context that the founders wrote it. If that seems eccentric to you, it's because you have no comprehension of the fact that it was written to limit the government. The founders didn't want us in a constant state of war or to act as the world's police or to liberate others. They wanted us to be the champion of our own freedom and the well-wisher of freedom to others.

The Constitution most certainly does say that the role and purpose of the military is to provide a common defense for America. It limits this role through the 10th amendment. Congress is given the limited ability to make war if and only if it is in the defense of America which means we were attacked first. The president has absolutely zero war making powers and is NOT the commander in chief until called upon to serve as such through a formal declaration of war. He has no legitimate authority to send a single soldier into battle for a single day.

You support wholesale murder in the name of your "vision" of freedom. You think it is up to you, or to the United States to determine how other governments will treat their citizens, or what kind of government they will have, as though democracy were the best form of government. You are no different than any other petty tyrant who tries to justify the use of force. I already know you are a in inhumane scumbag. Just don't pretend to be a libertarian. You aren't fit to stand in the shadow of a real libertarian.

Each and every single time you lie about the federal government having powers that are non-enumerated, I'll set you straight. Every time you try to support an unconstitutional use of the military to carry out illegal actions, I'll set you straight.

Sundae · 05-28-2008, 06:10 PM

By Radar's definition I agree that every country in the world is socialist. From the far left to the far right, from laissez faire to oppression, all Governments take money from those that have earned it and give it to those who haven't. Whether that means it goes to the rich or the poor, to starving children or to oligarchs is unimportant.

I bid this thread adieu, I'm off to the Cite Policeman's Third Ball.

TheMercenary · 05-28-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

By Radar's definition I agree that every country in the world is socialist. From the far left to the far right, from laissez faire to oppression, all Governments take money from those that have earned it and give it to those who haven't. Whether that means it goes to the rich or the poor, to starving children or to oligarchs is unimportant.

I bid this thread adieu, I'm off to the Cite Policeman's Third Ball.

Your policemen have three balls?!?!? is that a requirement for employment?

DanaC · 05-29-2008, 07:12 PM

Jeez Merc, that's a deeply shitty thing to say.

TheMercenary · 05-29-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

Jeez Merc, that's a deeply shitty thing to say.

DanaC · 05-29-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Given his extreme positions on a number of issues it really is not a very fucked up view on my part.

Except you weren't saying a shitty thing about Radar, you were saying a shitty thing about his wife. Neither you nor I know a damn thing about her views.

TheMercenary · 05-29-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

Except you weren't saying a shitty thing about Radar, you were saying a shitty thing about his wife. Neither you nor I know a damn thing about her views.

Point taken.

It doesn't change my veiws.

DanaC · 05-29-2008, 07:58 PM

lol

TheMercenary · 05-29-2008, 08:08 PM

vir est a baro

res fatur pro ipsum

Radar · 05-29-2008, 08:47 PM

Due to the response of others, I viewed this idiot's posts concerning my wife. Of course, once again he is talking out of his ass and his Latin, like his English, is poorly written.

res fatur pro ipsum - In legal circles this means "the law speaks for itself". I think this moron was trying to say "It speaks for itself" or "Is fatur pro ipsum"

Also, vir est a baro translates to "Man is a fool". I believe our resident dickhead was trying to say "Sit an fossor" which means "He is a fool" and of course he'd be describing himself.

The fact remains that nothing I've said about the Constitution or our government is false. Each and everything I've said about the strict limitation that our military be used solely for the defense of the United States of America, and then only when a formal declaration of war is made by Congress against another nation and that our military is Constitutionally prevented from ever taking part in "pre-emptive" military actions, is an indisputable fact and the absolute truth; not my opinion; but independently verifiable, unbiased, and undeniable truth. I'm also right about the federal government having zero authority over immigration.

As usual, he has nothing to back up his idiotic reading (assuming he actually reads) of the Constitution, or his outlandish and retarded claims that the American government has any authority outside of our own borders, that our military is here to "liberate" others or to police the world or fill in security gaps globally.

Since he has nothing to back up his stupidity and I've got facts, the Constitution, logic, reason, history, and common sense on my side he's got no choice but to make attacks against my wife.

How pathetic. What a fucking pussy.

TheMercenary · 05-29-2008, 09:03 PM

[quote=Radar;457974]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

bla, bla, blal,,, bla, bla, bla, I am a supporter of illegal actions against our country supporting the importation of illegal aliens, including my wife... I support breaking the laws and Constitution of the US to my personal gain regardless of the cost to the rest of the United States and to insure that I get what I want out of life regardless of what cost the rest of you sap sucking tax payers have to pay for me to produce spawn. I will make sure that you pay for me and my illegal alien kids to be supported by your tax dollars… NOW PAY UP LOSERS

I believe you.

TheMercenary · 05-29-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

My pussy hurts.... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

Figures.

{I will show him NO mercy}

Ibby · 05-30-2008, 02:48 AM

Uh, dude.. intentionally misquoting somebody ONLINE by simply MAKING UP bullshit for them to have said, then responding with inane comments possibly intended to be remotely witty... is juvenile to say the least. I know middle-schoolers who 'argue' better than you do.

This latest bout of merc's putrescence is only marginally less sickeningly bigoted and disgusting than...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You are bi confused fag who is totally dependant on someone else for your life, your food, the roof over your head, and your 16 years of jerking off to the thoughts of your mommies titties will never trump my years of worldly expericence.

Now wipe that cum off your lips teen slut.

05-28-2008, 11:06 AM	#1
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Any time the government takes money from those who have earned it by force or coercion (fear of going to jail) and gives it to those who have not earned it .... it's a textbook example of socialism. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

05-28-2008, 12:49 PM	#2
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Really, UT? Then why the weird quality of radar's posts? Why his absence of a global libertarian vision? Why his reluctance for us to help remove political obstacles (almost the only kind that seem to have effect) to engendering prosperity worldwide? He ought to remember that prosperity is good for business, and that the business of America is business. His noncomprehension of the value of liberation from the oppressions of too much government, whenever foreign peoples are concerned, strikes me as, well, thoroughly bad. Too much government equals not enough business and not enough wealth or wellbeing. It is hardly unlibertarian to liberate those ground under tyranny's heel, and thus I consider it our responsibility as human beings. Radar definitely won't take this responsibility, leaving him vulnerable to accusations of inhumanity. I don't get hit with these any too often. Which of us, then, is the friendlier to the global body politic? It does not follow that because he married foreign he's thought foreign policy through. He seems to me not merely uninterested, but actively against thinking about it -- have you noticed his insistence that America retreat within its own borders, becoming this continental cloister? It's all over his writing -- any excuse whatsoever to withdraw from the world, he makes it. There must be a reason for such consistency, and I don't think we can lay this one directly at narcissism's door. That's never been how these United States have functioned, not long-term, and especially so once we became a world power around the turn of the twentieth century. Sure, many other nations put together don't spend but a fraction on the military we do -- they can afford to do that precisely because of what we spend on it, and what we get for that expenditure is power projection like nobody else can manage. What's more, a century of experience with us has shown us trustworthy; the good actors among nations don't need to arm up against the United States, and this fact is reflected in the size of their military establishments, particularly in their navies, which by comparison with the US Navy look more like the Coast Guard, and have similarly coastal missions and areas of operation. American interests I believe are not separable from America in general, nor separable from the economy, for the reason that we're too interconnected with the rest of the world. You will have to show proof, proof mind you, that the "common defense" clauses are limiting clauses. So far, you've only repeated your assertions, not proven them. I do not recall a "common or territorial defense only" anywhere in there, and I say you couldn't find one. I read them as: this is one purpose. It is tacit about others, but does not forbid them. The Constitution doesn't set forth how foreign policy will be conducted, it merely apportions who does what parts of the whole. Except in matters of funding, that is the Executive Branch. It takes the Legislative to ratify foreign aid. I think, radar, that you're more interested in being radical than in getting it right, or practicing "the art of the possible." You look to an eccentric reading of the Constitution in an effort to pare down the size and scope of the Federal level of government, but I don't think the Constitution supports you in the endeavor -- you're trying to have trade without security, and that is unwise. Better, I think, to concentrate on paring down the Federal welfare-state departments. I've been around the world with the Navy; I've crossed the longitude of Diego Garcia going both east and west. I've been close to war. I speak four languages myself, English, Spanish, French, and Russian, and can still order lunch in Turkish, and am looking into taking some German. Don't try getting haughty with me. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

05-28-2008, 01:31 PM	#3
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Libertarians are against the initiation of force against those who pose no threat to you. Those who are being oppressed do have a right to take up arms against those oppressing them. You do not, unless they have hired you as an agent. You also do not have the authority or right to use the U.S. Military to carry out your so-called "liberation". Who are you to decide who is or isn't oppressed? Who are you to decide what kind of freedom others will have? You are nobody. You are nothing, but a war-mongering loser who hates libertarian principles. And yes, you are far more inhuman than I will ever be accused of being. The U.S. Military has one and only one role. To provide a common defense for AMERICA. It's not to police the world. It's not to fill in security gaps. It's not to act as a peace keeper between other nations. It's not to enforce UN sanctions. It's not to practice nation building or humanitarian aid. It's not to "liberate" oppressed people. It's not to overthrow or to prop up leaders in other nations. It's not here to defend foreign interests of American investors. It's not here to protect the American economy. It's not here to secure sources of oil. It's not here to prevent other nations from developing nukes or other weapons. It's not here to start unprovoked wars. It's not here to do any kind of "pre-emptive" attacks. Defense means defending against an attack. Not against a possible attack by someone who might have a weapon some time in the future and who doesn't like us. The stated purpose for our military is to provide a common DEFENSE for America. The 10th amendment limits the federal government from doing anything that isn't specifically enumerated (listed) in the Constitution. Using the military for non-defensive purposes is not listed. END OF STORY. You lose. Get over it. You claim to speak English, but you can't seem to read it. You're virtually retarded. My reading of the Constitution isn't eccentric. It's in the exact context that the founders wrote it. If that seems eccentric to you, it's because you have no comprehension of the fact that it was written to limit the government. The founders didn't want us in a constant state of war or to act as the world's police or to liberate others. They wanted us to be the champion of our own freedom and the well-wisher of freedom to others. The Constitution most certainly does say that the role and purpose of the military is to provide a common defense for America. It limits this role through the 10th amendment. Congress is given the limited ability to make war if and only if it is in the defense of America which means we were attacked first. The president has absolutely zero war making powers and is NOT the commander in chief until called upon to serve as such through a formal declaration of war. He has no legitimate authority to send a single soldier into battle for a single day. You support wholesale murder in the name of your "vision" of freedom. You think it is up to you, or to the United States to determine how other governments will treat their citizens, or what kind of government they will have, as though democracy were the best form of government. You are no different than any other petty tyrant who tries to justify the use of force. I already know you are a in inhumane scumbag. Just don't pretend to be a libertarian. You aren't fit to stand in the shadow of a real libertarian. Each and every single time you lie about the federal government having powers that are non-enumerated, I'll set you straight. Every time you try to support an unconstitutional use of the military to carry out illegal actions, I'll set you straight. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

05-28-2008, 06:10 PM	#4
Sundae polaroid of perfection Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 24,185	By Radar's definition I agree that every country in the world is socialist. From the far left to the far right, from laissez faire to oppression, all Governments take money from those that have earned it and give it to those who haven't. Whether that means it goes to the rich or the poor, to starving children or to oligarchs is unimportant. I bid this thread adieu, I'm off to the Cite Policeman's Third Ball. __________________ Life's hard you know, so strike a pose on a Cadillac

05-29-2008, 08:08 PM	#11
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	vir est a baro res fatur pro ipsum __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

05-29-2008, 07:12 PM	#6
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Jeez Merc, that's a deeply shitty thing to say.

05-29-2008, 07:58 PM	#10
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	lol

05-29-2008, 08:47 PM	#12
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Due to the response of others, I viewed this idiot's posts concerning my wife. Of course, once again he is talking out of his ass and his Latin, like his English, is poorly written. res fatur pro ipsum - In legal circles this means "the law speaks for itself". I think this moron was trying to say "It speaks for itself" or "Is fatur pro ipsum" Also, vir est a baro translates to "Man is a fool". I believe our resident dickhead was trying to say "Sit an fossor" which means "He is a fool" and of course he'd be describing himself. The fact remains that nothing I've said about the Constitution or our government is false. Each and everything I've said about the strict limitation that our military be used solely for the defense of the United States of America, and then only when a formal declaration of war is made by Congress against another nation and that our military is Constitutionally prevented from ever taking part in "pre-emptive" military actions, is an indisputable fact and the absolute truth; not my opinion; but independently verifiable, unbiased, and undeniable truth. I'm also right about the federal government having zero authority over immigration. As usual, he has nothing to back up his idiotic reading (assuming he actually reads) of the Constitution, or his outlandish and retarded claims that the American government has any authority outside of our own borders, that our military is here to "liberate" others or to police the world or fill in security gaps globally. Since he has nothing to back up his stupidity and I've got facts, the Constitution, logic, reason, history, and common sense on my side he's got no choice but to make attacks against my wife. How pathetic. What a fucking pussy. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)