board77

There is a whole class of pollutants that are largely ignored by the laws: the man-made chemicals that have the side effect of acting like hormones in mammals.

A very few of them have been banned as carcinogens (a lesser threat) but NOTHING has been banned yet for acting like a hormone, and more of these chemicals are being invented every week, and NO tests are done to check for endocrine disruption.

A pollutant that acts like a hormone can interupt development in every stage of life from fertilized egg onward. Terrible things have been proven in wild life populations, with the effects spreading around the globe. Sterility, birth defects and all kinds of diseases in adult humans have been linked to the effects of these chemicals.

But despite warnings of scientists to manufacturers, nothing has been done. Plastics with that sort of chemical are still made into baby bottles and toys!

Manufacturers and corporations will not regulate themselves. They simply ignore and/or deny unpleasant facts about their products or practices until they are forced to change. $$$$$$ are everything. Relying on them to change to behavior that does not profit them will not work.

CG
On page 11 of this thread, you had a link

Quote:

Compare to THIS

when you hit the word THIS, what came up was a page from TORC discussing your marriage and you getting a license. Is there some reasonable reason you can offer why this link no longer works?

As you may know, I have been banned from TORC and cannot access that site myself. I went to your link just now as I did days ago. It worked before but mysteriously, it no longer works for me. And that is where you had the comments from you explaining your marriage license for insurance coverage.

Most interesting.

Onizuka said

Quote:

It did what it was supposed to - make you angry. That's all. There's no special meaning in it or anything. Just throwing a little gasoline on the fire.

And all this time I thought it was the high octane kool-aide that CG was dispensing in his white robes with the unusual insignia's scrawled upon them.
Now I discover its gasoline. And the libertarians seem to own an entire gas station filled with it tonight.

And CG presents a laundry list of benefits one gets from a legal marriage license .. and sums it all up by saying

Quote:

It seems there's more than money at stake

.

So the price you sold out your ideals for was better than you originally thought it was. You got more than just medical insurance. Again, a wise and prudent decision based on your own self interest. I find no fault with what you did. Welcome to the club. Unfortunately, its not as exclusive as membership in the Libertarian Party.

sauronsfinger wrote:

And all this time I thought it was the high octane kool-aide that CG was dispensing in his white robes with the unusual insignia's scrawled upon them.
Now I discover its gasoline. And the libertarians seem to own an entire gas station filled with it tonight.

ほう？大層な口を利くようになったの、サウロンズ・フィンガ坊。おねしが鬼事で俺に勝ったことが一度でもあったか？

。。。ならば試してみるか？

There is no law that says you have to buy food that is taxed. You can grow your own food. There is no law out there that says you have to buy your clothes at a store. You can weave your own cloth and make your own clothes. There is no law out there that says you have to own a car and pay gas taxes. You could walk. Most people figure out quickly that its very inconvenient to do so and even though most of us do have a hard time with paying taxes, we realize it is easier. Most of us realize that if we did not pay taxes, we would have to pay mercenaries to be our own personal army, that we would have to pave the road in front of our house ourselves at a cost of between $6,000 and $8,000; that we would have to provide our own sewer system as well as our own potable water; that we would also have to provide our own heat which would not be hauled on federally funded highways.

The biggest difference between the Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians are the Republicans and Democrats won't tell the rest of the American populace they are hypocrites for doing so, while buying baby diapers at Wal-mart and paying sales taxes on them on the soap box of self-righteous indignation. The GOP and Dems won't yell about how their personal freedom is being taken away because the law requires marriage licenses to receive insurance, and then turn around and get married to get said insurance. There is no law that says you can't self insure....wait you say its too expensive, so your price of freedom from that law is what?

You see everyone on the planet, everyone who has lived on the planet, every human who survives, compromises their ideals at one time or another, everyone. Most people believe that killing another human being is wrong, but how many want bin Laden dead? The difference is some of us don't get on our soap boxes and call everyone else hypocrites while doing exactly the same thing everyone else is doing. And THAT is why the Libertarian Party fails miserably.

Everyone has a price for their ideals, everyone does what it takes to survive, and any one who believes other wise is living in a fools paradise.

Ara-anna's post reminds me of two ofthe words great religions and how they compromised basic fundamental principles and ideals.

For the first three centuries of its existence the Christian Church, or Catholic Church if you prefer, was a pacifist faith. Christians were taught pacifism and were not permitted to be soldiers or engage in violence. But then the Church made a deal with the Roman Emperor. Persecutions stopped. The religion did not have to be underground anymore and was recognized. Oh, and that pesky pacifism ... no longer applies. And years later when some intellectual Catholic thinkers came along with complex idealogical theories about "a just war" and other mental gynmasitic to justify the Church position... what did we do to them? Make them saints for their efforts.

The Islamic faith is a beautiful religion based on peace and respect. But funny how some of its most ardent disciples have turned into a reason to justify the poor treatment of women and the killing of innocent people. People can justify anthing.

Hmm. Still don't think I quite fit your description. No matter the circumstance, I would not do something that hurts others (hurts them now or hurts them later).

If I was offered $10,000,000 and the catch is that someone will be 'hurt' if I accept - nope. Add any number of zeros to that number. The decision remains the same. SF might at a certain number of zeros rationalize it all out and accept. If the catch was smaller, he'd accept even faster. If the catch were larger, say multiple people killed, just keep adding zeros and SF will accept at some point. That's the difference between SF and myself - I will never willingly commit an action that hurts another. Ever ever ever.

If I could opt out of Social Security right now, I would. I believe it hurts this nation and its people in the long run and would gladly forgo the benefits that come with being in the program. I guess I would just have to start up my own retirement fund which is probably much cheaper per month.

If I could not pay any taxes at all and forgo all the benefits they give me, I would. I'll take my chances defending myself, shaking hands with people, and just overall having some common sense.

But unfortunately, I cannot not pay taxes. There is no option for it. I would go to prison. See my dilemma?

Edit: the only problem I readily forsee with not paying taxes is the situation with the roads. I probably wouldn't be allowed to use them. That would be troublesome.

And for Ara's comment about roads: in a free-market society, a company will realize there's a market for road-building and will do so. They would probably charge a very reasonable fee for upkeep and expansion of their roads. Gee that was easy. It'd be so much better that way, too. The government doesn't care when its roads fall into disrepair - they get your money anyway. They don't care if it takes 5 years to add another lane to a freeway - they get your money anyway. A private company, though, doesn't get your money anyway.

1. Avoid all name calling (including calling each other idiots, hypocrites, ass-lickers, pig farmers or other derogatory terms or terms perceived as derogatory) at all costs.

Check.

2. In order to avoid ad infinitum back and forth debates about Libertarianism, if a debate about liberterianism arises, each of the six parties to the dispute can respond to someone from the other side only once in a day. So there will be a total of up to three responses on either side. The parties can make other posts on the subject, but can not direct those posts to one of the parties on the other side (including asking them to provide answers to questions), nor quote or paraphrase statements made by the other side (with or without attribution).

Check.

3. Avoid asserting extreme positions without supporting those positions with logical arguments, not just an assertion of a belief system.

Check.

4. Avoid being condescending when debating with not only each other, but with others as well.

Check.

5. Take the time to think before posting.

Check.

Congratulations! You guys have managed to completely shatter all of the points of the Agreement, not to mention the most basic rules of civilized discussion.

On a brighter note, C_G, I didn't go to law school until I was well into my 30s, and even then, I went at night and worked during the day. So there is still hope.

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:

Congratulations! You guys have managed to completely shatter all of the points of the Agreement, not to mention the most basic rules of civilized discussion.

On a brighter note, C_G, I didn't go to law school until I was well into my 30s, and even then, I went at night and worked during the day. So there is still hope.

Thank you, V. And I might add that my aunt did not attend law school until she was in her middle forties, and also practiced then for over fifteen years. She still does a bit of freelance stuff.

SF and CG - we like you, so please stop arguing "about" each other and just argue "with" each other. The personal stuff is degrading to us all, and you are both old enough to avoid it.



Back to the discussion.

Well......

So much for entering THIS thread.

Jeezus Murphy.

C_G and SF: you guys are. . . . . driving other people away.

As for the Eikichi person: go pull the wings off flies or kick puppies, or something. You're not contributing much here beyond troll dung.

Um - if I should return all those lovely wedding gifts I bought from wal-mart, just say so.

Jude wrote:

Um - if I should return all those lovely wedding gifts I bought from wal-mart, just say so.

Yes! You should! Don't feed the beast!

Here's another suggestion: put a cork in it.

All was said earlier in the thread has since been rendered too stinky to bother with.

These little shit-flinging episodes tend to do that.


C_G and SF, now that the wedding's off, you guys should stop dating.

Geez, can this please stop? I like ALL of you too much to see this occur - SF, you were out of line with some comments, and C_G was out of line when he reacted to personal attacks as he saw them.

PULEEZE??? with sugar on it, and whatever else it takes?

Again, can we argue the merits of the TOPICS and not resort to digging at each other's integrity? For firmly entrenched opinions such as those that are being expressed, it seems that the topics themselves offer more than enough ample ground to discuss.

Be creative and attack the opinions being expressed and not the people behind them, please. I am asking for my sake and that of others who might wish to join in this thread except for all of the nastiness being posted here.

Creative people work around such base things as personal attacks. We are all VERY creative people here. I expect a very high caliber of disagreement. :D

Is the honest man who believes theiving to be wrong a hypocrite when he hands over his wallet to a thug rather than be shot? Is he endorsing theft by handing over his wallet at gunpoint? He could always take the bullet instead. The situation is more extreme, granted, but the principle is the same. When the thug holds a gun to one's head and demands money, that is coercion; when the government holds one's natural rights hostage and demands that one jump through hoops to regain them, that is also coercion. Is the man who hands over his wallet to the thug a hypocrite?

I would also like to see whatever proof you have that we aren't doing anything about the things we "bitch" about, as you so condescendingly put it.

Quote:

But you see CG - you are not a bad person because you have a record of hypocrisy. Most of us do. That is just part of being human. None of us are perfect. No idealogy is perfect. No idealogue is perfect. It is counter to being human. Get used to it.

Meril36
In case you have not yet noticed, you live in the United States of America. There are no natural rights here whatever you think in your own mind they may be. Your rights are found in the US Constitution and in what the Supreme Court says they are. Thats it. Get used to it or hit the road and find someplace where your idea of rights are recognized.

Nobody has a gun to your head. Nobody did when you got married. Nobody did when you chose your careers. Lots of folks in this country find a way not be a part of the corrupt system. You want your cake and be able to eat it too and never have it diminish. Nice work it you can get it.


from CG

Quote:

However, because government is in the marriage business, in order to get her on my insurance and to have her name changed, we need to go through the proper government checks.

from, Meril36

Quote:

It is true, we could have merely had our religious ceremony and considered ourselves married, without benefit of a government sanction, but to have done so would have given us a substantial financial burden on our lives together. Not wishing to end up in a cardboard box, we opted to jump through the hoops.

And what exactly have you done to stop participating in all the corrupt government activities you bitch about? Not a damn thing. You work for a pseudo-political party which gets less than four-tenths of one percent of the national vote for president. You might as well say you support Mickey Mouse and claim that as activism.

Yovargas
where have you been? The building is burning down and you were expected to throw some of your own gasoline on the fire. Your absence will most likely cost you an extra ration of True Believers Kool Aide this week at the indoctrination meeting.

sauronsfinger wrote:

There are no natural rights here whatever you think in your own mind they may be. Your rights are found in the US Constitution and in what the Supreme Court says they are. Thats it.

So it's back to that, huh?

So you do in fact believe that no one has the right to live because it isn't written in any legal document anywhere? Wow that's terrible.

Onizuka
What I believe is immaterial and unimportant. There are only nine people in this entire nation who can impose their will concerning what they believe about the US Constiution and those are the members of the US Supreme Court.

There is nothing terrible about it. That is a simple fact. Some of you folks may get all excited about these so called natural rights - but unless the Supreme Court says you got 'em ... forget about it... cause you don't.

What we really need is a separate thread for you and sf to bitch at each other (with occasional assistance from your respective cheerleaders, of course ) without disrupting the flow of the thread. I don't think anybody cares much anymore if you two yell at each other. It'd just be nice if it didn't derail an existing thread so badly.