A Round of Applause for John Bolton!

    http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/0712edbarr.html

    Thank god for John Bolton!

    He deserves a round of applause, people! Thumbed his nose at the U.N., and adamantly defended our constitutional right to keep and bear arms!

    Hmm, I wonder what might have happened if Gun Grabber Gore or Kerry got to pick the U.N. ambassador?


    http://volokh.com/posts/1152314168.shtml

Yes, this is actually a positive (and honorable) turn for Bolton, who ended up where he is because of his involvement in Wolfowitz's failed neo-con plan to topple Saudi oil. Unfortunately, Houston and Saudi Arabia worked together to screw that plan and Bolton got demoted.
http://c2ore.com/archives/?itemid=1506

*claps* Send those U.N. gun grabbers packing.  I felt like cheering after reading that article. 

I honestly didn't think much of John Bolton before reading this, and now I can honestly say he's moved up a notch in my book.  I read something on poli that actually changed my mind a bit-thank you!

>>1 Nice.  When I heard about him getting appointed to that position a while ago I didn't really think much of it.  These things are so much more important than I realized at the time..

http://www.nraila.org/news/VideoLauncher.aspx?id=19

Good thing we have Bolton in the U.N.  (appointed by Bush (R)), and Republicans in the White House, Senate, and House.  I hope, for the sake of the 2nd Amendment, they win again in a landslide in the upcoming elections. 

>>6
Do you people fucking *eat* guns? Do you die without them? Sad.

>>7
Yes, some people live off of hunting in the U.S.  Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if quite a few do.  Of course, many just hunt for sport. 

>>7
Yes, people die when they are unarmed. 

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/

>>9 I know about that. I just think the debate is going overboard. I prefer secularism over getting guns super-cheap and super-easy. Then again, that movie has interesting implications. Ah, I just dislike conservatism, evangelicals, anti-abortionists and death penalty-lovers, not to mention the crusade on drugs. I couldn't take that package along with more lax gun legislation, I'd betray my principles.

We should let people buy and sell anything and react to the consequences rather than try to restrict any freedom.

>>11 Couldn't it then be argued that the current laws themselves are viable responses to already experienced, human consequences? Nah, I dunno. I'm but 17 and a Swede so technically I'm supposed to sniff glue, kill gays and have sex right now. Or something of the flavor.

>>12
My response and their response are different. My response puts liberty above justice in the full and complete knowledge that justice exists to preserve liberty and so justice which impedes liberty is not justice. Their response puts justice above liberty because it is easier.

In the future someone will eventually by-pass the law, get their hands on explosives or chemical weapons and use them. Wouldn't it be more logical to prepare aswell as prevent?

>>13 Complex shit. I'm with the liberatrians on most issues, I just hope they'll have the guts to stand up to the less flexible christians in America. I mean, you can't argue well with people who consider a metaphysical dimension, right? Plus, capitalist corruption is still very possible, even if it can't use a government and its army for power...

>>10
Not many liberals, even among the more liberal members of the democratic party are pro-legalization.  Some might take 'liberal' views on pot, but it's pretty much limmited to that.  The libertarians are -THE- party if you are interested in legalization.

Even the ultra-liberal green party isn't as pro-legalization as the libertarians.  However, there are some republitarians like Ron Paul (R-TX), who, though he supports a more or less 'conservative' agenda (i.e. pro gun rights, lower taxes, promotes traditional constitutional values, and withdrawl of tax funds from the anti-gun U.N.,) is also pro-legalization.  It's been mentioned before, but yeah, he happens to be a lifelong member of the libertarian party.  He runs on the republican ticket though. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Another example, is Arlen Specter, a republican senator from PA, who supports gay rights and a woman's right to choose-- as well as low taxes, smaller government, less spending, gun rights, etc. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter

In a recent senate vote to allocate funding for the war in iraq, and afghanistan, of all the united states senators, Specter (R) was the only one in the senate to vote against it. 

Both, as I understand it, are also members of the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus) a somewhat libertarian-oriented group. 

http://www.rlc.org/

i took that libertarian questionnaire ('World's shortest!'  more like world's most stupid).

seriously, if you think their political philosophy contains ideas any more effective than communism, you need to live for a year in somalia or albania (circa 1993).

niggers

>>16
Paranoid goverment loving security fetishist?

>>16
Libertarian politics is basically just capitalism, and hands off everything--market, and personal life.  We had something very close to laissez-faire capitalism for a while in the United States, and it made us the richest country in the world. 

We are rich because of our freedom.  If we were more free, we would be richer. 

>>19 Probably. I think you'd have a lot to lose though. Maybe you should try to slowly take over or modify one of the two big parties, or form a united front with the greens, the pot legalizers and the constituionaries? Nah, it's your battle.
 

>>We are rich because of our freedom.  If we were more free, we would be richer.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/bookstore.asp?z=y

>>21 Yawn. What is this link good for?

>>22

for buying books in order to read up on how the world's wealthiest nation become as such due to a shitload more important reasons than a bout of free trade

>>23 Slavery, then. Well, America got a lot of its riches by not being nationalist assholes who thought it viable to risk its population over some prestigious slews of land in Africa. More slaves went to Brazil than America, and you don't hear the muslim nations who purchased slaves get lambasted that often.

>>24
Slavery had minimal effect to American economy. Note that America started to truly flourish long after slavery was abolished. Very succesful private corporations are reason behind American wealth.

>>25 Yup. It's a shame bastards like Nike, McDonalds et al. are give capitalism a bad name. I mean, they don't care whether you have a free market or not; they are sewn together with society and no one has the attention span to fight them.

>>24
Wrong, slavery doesn't do any good. This is possibly the most evil opinion you have. At least you noticed the fact that when you take away people's economic freedom you bring them closer to slavery. Well America became an economic super power after slavery was abolished and absolutely not because of slavery, and the success is primarily due to the freeing of a large segment of the population's economic freedom so they could contribute their skills and intelligence to a market economy.

In effect the inbred rednecks you love to brand anyone who believes in the constitution, were the original communists of the 19th century and had little to do with the constitution.

>>27 You misunderstood completely, or my written communication didn't reflect y opinion and intent. Take it easy. The nationalist assholes I was referring to wa the European powers. France really treated its colonies like shit.

>>26
I do...

I don't eat at mcdonalds.  I guess you were making a generalization about people generally though. 

>>1 *claps*

>>28
Stop listening to african propaganda. French colonisation didn't end up very well but you can't say they treated the colonized population like shit, at least they tried to make something out of this countries by building schools, industries, roads...
Heard of Algeria, Congo or Central African Republic recently ? Civil war, coup d'etat, terrorism, corruption.
And they give us, Europeans, lessons ?

>>31 They have given us everything. All the comforts we enjoy come at the opportunity cost of people who were fucked over and are being so. Said infraastructures are not used sufficiently because we are not giving them the aid they deserve considering our economic superiority is partially based on stolen resources.  Now I may hear the low argument of how these people in the third world should pick up capitalism, get a good, enlightened government so that we can't take their resources for our cup holders, linoleum, formica and other important whatnots. Please, give me that argument. 

>>32
"All the comforts we enjoy come at the opportunity cost of people who were fucked over and are being so."
Well if you are going to think in terms of groups instead of individuals, they would still be in the middle ages at the rate they werew going before colonisation, don't they owe us for the technology we've given them?

The above premise is wrong as we should think in terms of individuals and not groups. However if you can convince me that we should think in terms of groups and heavy handed punishment I will think in terms of groups and heavy handed punishment.

>>33 Convince... Well, I am not convincedd because I don't want to, but considering that we all enjoy an economy that is built with materials stolen from other countries, we are all guilty. Haiti's central bank, the liquidation of Iraq's social institutions. In a way, we enjoy an economy that is saturated with the money and opportunities of others, and it's the taking for granted that bothers me. In this way, we are damned as a group, but we can ameliorate ourselves if we scrutinize ourselves and try to make others aware of our cushioned situation. The tech that we give them always come at a price, and we won't let them construct their own economies unless we can manipulate it.
Yet, at the moment we have two contenders in Asia that are perfect experiments of capitalism. No doubt will their lives become better, perhaps more free, individualistic and equal. But to what degree, and at what price? I'm always ready to accept facts, and so I never seek conviction on issues that are outside of science or basic morality.

>>34
Tell that to my grandad as he plummetted from the sky burning alive over London. Oh wait, you can't, he died saving your ass from the Nazis. I guess since he was white he must have been a nazi and responsible for the war as much as Adolf Hitler, we're all guilty *cut cut cut cut* oh noez why did I start world war 2 waaah.

Stop trolling stupid fucktard, my point was that no one should be judged for actions they didn't commit purely because they were born a certain race or a certain nationality I'm going to repeat this 8 times so you look like an idiot if you ignore my point again. Read it all the way through.

Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.
Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.

The only reason why I came up with the argument was to show you how stupid your idea is because you seem to judge the truth, not on the truth, but what you like the sound of. I disagree with the argument I came up with and your argument because...

Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.

I don't discriminate against black people due to their higher crime rates because it is illogical, unfair on the innocent and damn evil.

Judging individuals due to the actions of others in their group is not logical.

On another thread it seemed as though you were almost trying to justify slavery and I thought I would let that pass and that maybe it was misunderstanding, now you are trying to justify discrimination fool me once shame on you, I'm not fooled anymore. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>35

If you indentify yourself as someone from a group, you cease to be an individual.

>>35 Um, by defending his more democratic country from a dictatorship he didn't excuse the next generation thriving partially because of extortion of other countries. But, despite the horrors of colonialism, it is the 2nd half of the century that has featured the worst examples of thievery and manipulation of other countries. Collective responsibility is a poor term semantically. I prefer "accumulated responsibility" because that highlihts the fact that humanity's deterioration or elevation is nothing but the result of six billion animals acting upon each other and their environment. Revolutions have nothing on the power of slow, incremental change.

>>35 I also seem to explain that I don't justify judging of anyone because of whom they share their genotype or phenotype with (doye), but that any individual in a country that builds on resources taken from other countries should make active change. I don't judgee groups because they are not a singular unit, neither physically nor mentally. I judge ideologies, cultures and environments on the observable effect it has on individuals, but in the end I recognize how everything, from the best to the worst of human civilization, is due to every human being having lived or being alive.  

>>37
"I judge ideologies, cultures and environments on the observable effect it has on individuals"

Unless you are completely insane you should agree that, observably and generally, tyranny is evil and democracy is good. How much accumulated responsibility do the ideologies, cultures and environments which support tyranny have compared to the accumulated responsibility of the ideologies, cultures and environments which support democracy?

Given the chance the gunmen of Somalia (just the gunmen responsible for tyranny, not the innocent civilians or masculine honourable libertarian warriors) would colonise and exploit Italy since they do this very easily to their own people, this makes their ideology, culture and environment more deserving of penalty than Italy's which currently has no wish to colonise and exploit Somalia or any other nation.

>>39 "Unless you are completely insane you should agree that, observably and generally, tyranny is evil and democracy is good. How much accumulated responsibility do the ideologies, cultures and environments which support tyranny have compared to the accumulated responsibility of the ideologies, cultures and environments which support democracy?" Um, naturally I like democracies and ideologies that support them. I haven't said the opposite.
"Given the chance the gunmen of Somalia (just the gunmen responsible for tyranny, not the innocent civilians or masculine honourable libertarian warriors) would colonise and exploit Italy since they do this very easily to their own people, this makes their ideology, culture and environment more deserving of penalty than Italy's which currently has no wish to colonise and exploit Somalia or any other nation." Well, these gunmen wouldn't have a shot at power or dominion if it was't for the fact that our ancestors beat Africa and parts of Asia into a swagger, we haven't made good on our obligation to help these countries back and we still allow corporations that abuse their weakened states to do business while we don't raise our voices. Hence- we are responsible.

Actually, I don't want to participate in this discussion any more. I agree on your points and I didn't try to oppose them anyway. We're talking by each other, not with each other.