The Beef I Have With Liberals And Conservatives

[7 of 11]

Too many laws that are unenforceable can lead us to a police state that will prove almost impossible the break.

The conservative want a camera in my bedroom and in my personal life to make sure that I'm not an enemy of the state or a threat to little children. They believe in preemptive striking anything that would dare even look at them crossed face. In doing so they have invalidated half the constitution in that you cannot not charge a person with a crime they are not planning to commit. Basically what it boils down to is that conservatives want thought control over all else.

The liberals want government in all places that the conservatives don't. They are the antithesis of each other. They want to tell me what I can drive, where I can live, what I can eat, and where I can worship, and how I can run my business and who I can hire. The liberals are only happy when equality is forced upon the masses so long as they themselves end up with a bigger cut of the pie and only those that have achieved success are extorted into making for all these wonderful failed programs-- the true embodiment of "1984s" big brother.

I am, on the other hand, a libertarian. We take what is good from both sides of the coins and weld them together. A libertarian system rewards those that have achieved success by letting them eat the fruits of their labor, while at the same time it refuses to dictate a code of morals by a force that is equally unqualified and unworthy of such a task.

[TheWizard]

I agree with you some what./ I think personal freedom is the most important thing. We don't need the government in our business. :)

[Cat Pile]

Originally posted by TheWitch2
I agree with you some what./ I think personal freedom is the most important thing. We don't need the government in our business. :)

But what if you're business directly harms another persons business?

Who will step in to mediate the tendency for business ethics with regards to Environmental, Social, and Economic responsibility?

How does business give the less fortunate a push on the bum so to speak, to get them into a productive position in society?

Is affirmative action, Medicare, and other huge government organizations any more wasteful or damaging to the economy than Enron’s', WorldCom’s', and other Mega corporations whose main business is opening up markets through de-regulation, milking them dry of any cent possibly, criminal accounting practices, and the thefts of billions of dollars of investors, tax-payer, and private money?

I think Libertarian is a lot like Agnostism, it is like you don’t want to be Christian, yet you don’t want to be atheist, you just wanna sit up high and say 'Whatever', such is the case with Libertarians. They claim personal responsibility, yet when faced with the fact that humans are not generally nice to each other, and require some sort of social order (be it police, or public education, down to ensuring woman’s rights to vote) to function properly, most Libertarians fall apart.

I am of course more on the liberal side of the scale, however I am fiscally conservative. Partly from my upper NY upbringing, to my current residence in Canada, I think that it is possibly to have an efficient, responsible government that doesn't stagnate, nor waste money, only if the population is educated.

We Americans as a whole do not seem like the smartest people in the world, 2 quarters of us believe in Angels, while half of us don't even believe in evolution. Even the president says he has doubts about the theory. But than again facts don’t sit well with this administration.

Partisan politics get in the way too much, I hate republicans, and democrats equally. Democrats because they are wussy, fence sitters who don’t want to be labelled 'liberal', even if they should be. Republicans because of their strong, manipulative media, whose prime brainchild (fox corporation) also runs shows like 'Married by America', and complete lack of fiscal conservatism.

Ohh well, that's my morning rant.

GO LIBERTARIANS, if your party becomes as big as the greens, than maybe there is a hope of getting out of our current 1 party republicrat situation.

[Dukkha]

You, Carl, swing (quite violently) between far-rightist and left-leaning-centristic views. I dont see how you can hate the left and the right when you are constantly gravitating towards one or the other?

[Calladen]

This is why I am not affiliated, or will ever affiliate, myself with a party.

I have taken two different political party tests, and have been scored exactly the same (49%, 0% being liberal, 100% being conservative, but if I retook this test again, my views on abortion have changed and it would make me more around 54%).

And actually people like me would be considered Agnostic, as we are the ones who don't believe in any one side.

[Ace Rockolla]

Originally posted by Cat Pile
But what if you're business directly harms another persons business?

There will still be a government, there will still be laws, and that sort of action will be unacceptable. This isn't anarachy, this is just a smaller government that doesn't actively intervene nearly as much.

Who will step in to mediate the tendency for business ethics with regards to Environmental, Social, and Economic responsibility?

Those terms are a little vague, but government will mediate contractual disputes and such. The pollution of the world is the pollution of the property of others--without their consent--and can be a crime. Committing fraud against individuals and other such financial dishonesty will also be a crime. If "social responsibility" is what I think you mean it to be (i.e., we must restrain ourselves from violence and sexual content for fear of its effects on some) then I believe no such thing should exist. However, I will give you the fair chance to correct any wrong assumptions I might have made.

How does business give the less fortunate a push on the bum so to speak, to get them into a productive position in society?

Charity. It'll just force people who care to put their money where their mouth rather than expecting taxes to take care of it.

Is affirmative action, Medicare, and other huge government organizations any more wasteful or damaging to the economy than Enron’s', WorldCom’s', and other Mega corporations whose main business is opening up markets through de-regulation, milking them dry of any cent possibly, criminal accounting practices, and the thefts of billions of dollars of investors, tax-payer, and private money?

Affirmative Action is wrong and unfair, but that's covered in another thread.

Medicare would either be privatized or taken under the wing of regular medical insurance, as it was for a while.

Other "huge government organizations" would be cut down, privatized to the those who use it if they're still useful, or abolished altogether if they do little or no good.

And who said the Enron's or WorldCom's were good? They committed crimes. How many of the THOUSANDS of other corporations have done the same? Frankly, I'm rather tired of people using the same handful of examples to paint every single corporation as criminal. Were this done to individuals, it would be criticized as profiling or stereotyping. But I won't play dumb with you, corporations commit crimes just as people do. However, without a large government that these particular criminal corporations can manipulate, they'll lose their favored status and be much more subject to prosecution when they do do something wrong. So please, enough of demonizing ALL Capitalism because of the actions of a select few! I've already conceeded your point.

I think Libertarian is a lot like Agnostism, it is like you don’t want to be Christian, yet you don’t want to be atheist, you just wanna sit up high and say 'Whatever', such is the case with Libertarians. They claim personal responsibility, yet when faced with the fact that humans are not generally nice to each other, and require some sort of social order (be it police, or public education, down to ensuring woman’s rights to vote) to function properly, most Libertarians fall apart.

Completely inaccurate analogy at its source and at its conclusion. Libertarians do not "fall apart" when it comes to enforcing personal responsibility and I have no idea why you'd even suggest that. How is education a "personal responsibility" of the government? It's not. Women's rights to vote? Hell, Libertarians are in full support of all capable individuals of having the maximum rights (obviously extending some rights to the mentally ill is hard because they might not be able to fully consent and be able to exercise their rights, but rest assured, they're protected from others just like everyone else) and would eagerly ensure women have the right to vote. Police? What makes you think it wouldn't exist? Social order IS maintained via punishing criminals who violate the rights of others. Beyond that isn't ensuring "social order", it's asserting social control.

Again, people's idea of Libertarianism are mostly inaccurate. It's no wonder people despise it so, they just make it out to be the worst it can be sometimes!

I am of course more on the liberal side of the scale, however I am fiscally conservative. Partly from my upper NY upbringing, to my current residence in Canada, I think that it is possibly to have an efficient, responsible government that doesn't stagnate, nor waste money, only if the population is educated.

And despite that dream, despite the presence of public education for everyone, despite the belief some governemnt officials hold of a balanced budget, none of this happens. People still remain either ignorant or uncaring, government still does what it wants when it wants to. How do you propose forcing such education to make the system work?

We Americans as a whole do not seem like the smartest people in the world, 2 quarters of us believe in Angels, while half of us don't even believe in evolution. Even the president says he has doubts about the theory. But than again facts don’t sit well with this administration.

I figured the obligatory Bush crack was necessary, so I'll basically ignore it, although I'm amazed at how it'll show up EVERYWHERE...

But the reality is, you're not going to get people to think in one uniform, homogenized way. Don't even bother. People will do and believe as they want to and the only issue that we should bother with is when they cross the line to bother and commit crimes against others.

Partisan politics get in the way too much, I hate republicans, and democrats equally. Democrats because they are wussy, fence sitters who don’t want to be labelled 'liberal', even if they should be. Republicans because of their strong, manipulative media, whose prime brainchild (fox corporation) also runs shows like 'Married by America', and complete lack of fiscal conservatism.

Meh...what else is new? (By the way, your leaning is pretty clear to which side of the spectrum you'll gravitate towards.)

Ohh well, that's my morning rant.

GO LIBERTARIANS, if your party becomes as big as the greens, than maybe there is a hope of getting out of our current 1 party republicrat situation.

As long as people hold so many errant views on Libertarianism, I doubt that'll happen soon. But I do hope the view gets more coverage, more ACCURATE coverage so people can decide for themselves if they want to live as individuals or components of the state.

[Ace Rockolla]

Originally posted by Dukkha
You, Carl, swing (quite violently) between far-rightist and left-leaning-centristic views. I dont see how you can hate the left and the right when you are constantly gravitating towards one or the other?

Or perhaps your view of politics needs to get away from this obsolete idea that there is only a two-ended political spectrum. He is neither far left, nor far right.

[Dukkha]

Originally posted by clodhopper5569
Or perhaps your view of politics needs to get away from this obsolete idea that there is only a two-ended political spectrum. He is neither far left, nor far right.


Actually, I detest the labelling of one's political beliefs. The American-centric idea of Authoritative versus Liberatarian sub-categories are just as retarded as the Left-Right labels we seem to adhere to. While Carl is using his own personal conflict, manifesting itself in him hating everything he doesnt consider himself. At the end of the day, he isnt a "Libertarian". No one is. But he likes to think of himself as that. Which is okay.


The political spectrum is double ended. Its up to oneself to judge what those two ends are. The only thing thats obsolete is your notion that there is anything else left. Illustrated by:


Disagree=====Your Viewpoint=====Disagree.


Thats always the way it will be.

[Ace Rockolla]

Originally posted by Dukkha
Actually, I detest the labelling of one's political beliefs. The American-centric idea of Authoritative versus Liberatarian sub-categories are just as retarded as the Left-Right labels we seem to adhere to. While Carl is using his own personal conflict, manifesting itself in him hating everything he doesnt consider himself. At the end of the day, he isnt a "Libertarian". No one is. But he likes to think of himself as that. Which is okay.

I wouldn't say they're "retarded" at all if they fit your beliefs. What do you mean no one is a Libertarian? That's the dumbest thing I've heard. If your beliefs fit Libertarianism, you're a Libertarian. What's so bizarre about that? I'm not suggesting every single person fits solely in to one of a handful of categories, but I'm saying some people DO. Labels can be accurate sometimes. I would classify myself as closest to a Libertarians because my beliefs are closest to theirs (we only diverge on a few points but I won't support their party). Why can't I then call myself a Libertarian? Why can't we accurately label people to be able to determine where they stand overall?

The political spectrum is double ended. Its up to oneself to judge what those two ends are. The only thing thats obsolete is your notion that there is anything else left. Illustrated by:

Disagree=====Your Viewpoint=====Disagree.

Thats always the way it will be.

Are you speaking of ALL issues or only single issues? Because there is a big difference there. Surely, on one issue there might be a single spectrum (although there can be more than just two proposals or ideas an issue, rendering your model inaccurate and mine anything but "obsolete", but I don't go there in this case) but not on ALL issues. I could not simply based on all of my views by fit somewhere in between two points I disagree with (why can't I bet at the end, by the way?...soemone has to be there) could I? I hope you're not suggesting that to me. You're criticizing labels and explain to me that I must fit somewhere on a line between two ends to essentially be labelled. So which is it? I can be conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues (just an example) but your logic, I'm just swinging "violently" between two sides. Well, why can't a person hold those two independant beliefs?

[ResetC2]

you've started 99999 threads like this already

[7 of 11]

Originally posted by ResetC2
you've started 99999 threads like this already


and you told me that 1000000000 times

BTW how many good threads have you started?

[ResetC2]

I've only told you that once... none recnetly, I barely come to this site anymore. Let's not get into an argument, sound good? :)

[7 of 11]

barley or hardly?

[Greg]

Originally posted by Dukkha
You, Carl, swing (quite violently) between far-rightist and left-leaning-centristic views. I dont see how you can hate the left and the right when you are constantly gravitating towards one or the other? i was just going to say the exact same thing.

[Dukkha]

I wouldn't say they're "retarded" at all if they fit your beliefs. What do you mean no one is a Libertarian? That's the dumbest thing I've heard. If your beliefs fit Libertarianism, you're a Libertarian. What's so bizarre about that? I'm not suggesting every single person fits solely in to one of a handful of categories, but I'm saying some people DO. Labels can be accurate sometimes. I would classify myself as closest to a Libertarians because my beliefs are closest to theirs (we only diverge on a few points but I won't support their party). Why can't I then call myself a Libertarian? Why can't we accurately label people to be able to determine where they stand overall?


The Tag "Libertarian" is meaningless outside of American politics. Hence, when talking about One's political beliefs you cannot possibly use it as a predicate. However, someone can aptly be described as Leftist, Rightist, Centrist, etc... However much I detest such labels, theyre still used to describe someone's beliefs - universally. This is best described in terms of Language Games. Everyone has their own language game which they use to play in their own Form or world. Libertarian is yours. <i>(analogy: A builder on a construction site only used 3 words in his life. Up, Down, Drop. He can use these words fine within his work as they enable him to perform all the jobs he needs to do. However, when he goes home to his wife, she cannot understand him because his Language Game does not work outside his Form - or his job on the building site.)</i> You may very well label yourself a Libertarian, but to everyone outside your Language Game, it is meaningless. So, to me, no one can be a Libertarian because that label is meaningless to those outside your Form. Get it?

Labels certainly do exist, but those labels are ones shared by all - not ones that only apply to you, in your little world.

Are you speaking of ALL issues or only single issues? Because there is a big difference there. Surely, on one issue there might be a single spectrum (although there can be more than just two proposals or ideas an issue, rendering your model inaccurate and mine anything but "obsolete", but I don't go there in this case) but not on ALL issues. I could not simply based on all of my views by fit somewhere in between two points I disagree with (why can't I bet at the end, by the way?...soemone has to be there) could I? I hope you're not suggesting that to me. You're criticizing labels and explain to me that I must fit somewhere on a line between two ends to essentially be labelled. So which is it?

How am I saying this? What I propose is that every single opinion anyone can hold must fit in between two points.

E.G. <b>Abortion</b>

No One Should Have Abortion======Your View=========Compulsary Abortions For All


"Your View" can be anything from agreeing that abortion is ok under certain circumstances, to Abortion only after rape, etc... Your view will always fit between two extremes. If you believe that No One should have an Abortion, your belief will still remain as an intermediate between two disagreeable opinions as the goal posts will move, so to speak. Apply that to any issue. Its a fundermental veracy.


I can be conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues (just an example) but your logic, I'm just swinging "violently" between two sides. Well, why can't a person hold those two independant beliefs?

No Brian, you seem to have missed the point of my original post. I criticised Carl for the fact his political views are Catatonic. They swing from him wanting Closed borders (as I remember him saying sometime ago) to not wanting a police state or increased policing of society - which would be needed in order for borders to be closed. My comment was not a broad one, but a specific comment to Carl. If you didnt realise that then I wonder why youre arguing your point now?

[jojoko]

someone has to say it.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/photos/beef22.jpg
"wheres the beef?"

[Ace Rockolla]

Originally posted by Dukkha
The Tag "Libertarian" is meaningless outside of American politics. Hence, when talking about One's political beliefs you cannot possibly use it as a predicate. However, someone can aptly be described as Leftist, Rightist, Centrist, etc... However much I detest such labels, theyre still used to describe someone's beliefs - universally. This is best described in terms of Language Games. Everyone has their own language game which they use to play in their own Form or world. Libertarian is yours. <i>(analogy: A builder on a construction site only used 3 words in his life. Up, Down, Drop. He can use these words fine within his work as they enable him to perform all the jobs he needs to do. However, when he goes home to his wife, she cannot understand him because his Language Game does not work outside his Form - or his job on the building site.)</i> You may very well label yourself a Libertarian, but to everyone outside your Language Game, it is meaningless. So, to me, no one can be a Libertarian because that label is meaningless to those outside your Form. Get it?

Alright, I see what you're saying. But left and right are even relative terms between foreign politics. Europe's "center" is to the left of of America's "center". So I'd say no, people can't be even aptly spoken of even in those terms, unless you speak of relative terms to each other. They aren't really universal. The term "Libertarian" still has meaning, even you understand it. Just because "Libertarian" might not exist outside American politics, does not mean no one has beliefs that fit in that group. To refer to your analogy, sure the three terms of the construction worker mean nothing to the wife, but that by no means implies they have no meaning AT ALL. Just because someone may be ignorant of the term, does not mean the term has no meaning at all, just no well-known meaning. (I'm not even sure what your point with this whole debate is, because frankly, I don't see one.)

So I still a person can label themselves a "Libertarian" (I actually don't anymore though) and you can't just throw that term out because other people don't get it. (that seems like what you're arguing, which if so, is baffling)

And "my Form"? "Language Games"? Are you getting this from somewhere, because it sounds like you're pulling it out of your ass.

Labels certainly do exist, but those labels are ones shared by all - not ones that only apply to you, in your little world.

Since when is my world so "little"? Now you're just, well, being belittling. You said yourself "Libertarian" has meaning in American politics as a whole, not just in my "little world". It's a label that describes a particular collection of beliefs. Again, I don't see how from place to place those sets of beliefs change and thus negate any need for a label

How am I saying this? What I propose is that every single opinion anyone can hold must fit in between two points.

E.G. <b>Abortion</b>

No One Should Have Abortion======Your View=========Compulsary Abortions For All

"Your View" can be anything from agreeing that abortion is ok under certain circumstances, to Abortion only after rape, etc... Your view will always fit between two extremes. If you believe that No One should have an Abortion, your belief will still remain as an intermediate between two disagreeable opinions as the goal posts will move, so to speak. Apply that to any issue. Its a fundermental veracy.

What other opinion beyond "No One Should Have An Abortion" can there be? I fail to see how new possibilities spring up just because you're at one end. What is beyond that? What is more anti-abortion that prohibiting the practice completely? If you're going with this idea (I still think it could be an inaccurate and over-simplified model), then you can't have free-flowing ends forever.

No Brian, you seem to have missed the point of my original post. I criticised Carl for the fact his political views are Catatonic. They swing from him wanting Closed borders (as I remember him saying sometime ago) to not wanting a police state or increased policing of society - which would be needed in order for borders to be closed. My comment was not a broad one, but a specific comment to Carl. If you didnt realise that then I wonder why youre arguing your point now?

You didn't say that. You merely said his views appeared to swing wildly, not that he was seemingly contradicting himself. Had you simply said that, you're right, there would be no debate. (Either way, if that was your point, we got WAY off track somehow...)

And do you know me? I have no idea who you are and I don't like people speaking to me like they know me when they don't. So don't use my first name again. It comes across are more condescending than anything else.

[Dukkha]

So I still a person can label themselves a "Libertarian" (I actually don't anymore though) and you can't just throw that term out because other people don't get it. (that seems like what you're arguing, which if so, is baffling)


heres my point: >.< -------------------------------------------here you are. Missing it completely.

My argument is that the term "Libertarian" is meaningless when applied to international politics. It works within the framework of American politics, but not when taken outside of it. Is it really that hard to understand?


And "my Form"? "Language Games"? Are you getting this from somewhere, because it sounds like you're pulling it out of your ass.

Jesus Christ, I forgot how lazy some people were on here. Go and read up on the subject of Wittgenstein's "Language Games" and apply them to what Ive said. Im not doing it for your lazy arse. I try to use a technical analogy and it falls on its arse. Why am I not suprised.


(Incidentally, THAT is intentionally belittling. Just in case you need clarification in future (oh, there I go again))


Since when is my world so "little"? Now you're just, well, being belittling. You said yourself "Libertarian" has meaning in American politics as a whole, not just in my "little world". It's a label that describes a particular collection of beliefs. Again, I don't see how from place to place those sets of beliefs change and thus negate any need for a label

Now youre just seeing what you want to see. By "little" I mean the "small" world of American politics when compared to the greater picture. I cant see where you can feel "belittled" by the fact that the politics of one country (be it AMerica, Britain, France, Canada, Mexico, Sealand, etc..) can be anything other than small when compared to international politics, which we are talking about.


What other opinion beyond "No One Should Have An Abortion" can there be? I fail to see how new possibilities spring up just because you're at one end. What is beyond that? What is more anti-abortion that prohibiting the practice completely? If you're going with this idea (I still think it could be an inaccurate and over-simplified model), then you can't have free-flowing ends forever.

Forcibly stopping the practice of Abortion for one. Nigeria, for instance, has its own police force stopping women having abortions. If they are found to have had an abortion or planning one, they are "removed". At one point, certain parts of Ireland dictated that a woman must leave the country to have an abortion. Boats were used to carry out the procedure. I am unsure if this still goes on. But dont focus on abortion as this isnt about it. I used it as an example. Moving on...


You didn't say that. You merely said his views appeared to swing wildly, not that he was seemingly contradicting himself. Had you simply said that, you're right, there would be no debate. (Either way, if that was your point, we got WAY off track somehow...)

And do you know me? I have no idea who you are and I don't like people speaking to me like they know me when they don't. So don't use my first name again. It comes across are more condescending than anything else.

LMFAO. Dont be a dick. Im suprised how cunty certain people have become over the last year. Get a life mate, dont get so het up over a fucking message board ;)

~BenM/Dervish/etc.. just in case you feel the inexplicable need to know.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox the 0th]

Originally posted by clodhopper5569
Or perhaps your view of politics needs to get away from this obsolete idea that there is only a two-ended political spectrum. He is neither far left, nor far right.
Yes, you might be given that illusion: people think he's left and right wing, therefore he must be a combination of economic conservative and social libertarian or something.

You're wrong. He swings, that's the point (as Ben pointed out. BTW, I thought I recognised that writing style, alrite mate? :)). This does not simply mean he doesn't fit into any "model" we might have in our minds, it just means he's inconsistent.

Example? Well, we all know what his views on economics are generally don't we? But he's been known to propose such things as a cap on earnings. Extreme socialism much?

[Ace Rockolla]

Originally posted by Dukkha
My argument is that the term "Libertarian" is meaningless when applied to international politics. It works within the framework of American politics, but not when taken outside of it. Is it really that hard to understand?

Nope. :D But you didn't say that off the bat. :)

Jesus Christ, I forgot how lazy some people were on here. Go and read up on the subject of Wittgenstein's "Language Games" and apply them to what Ive said. Im not doing it for your lazy arse. I try to use a technical analogy and it falls on its arse. Why am I not suprised.

Because not all of us are in your Form and are playing your Language Game when we don't know the rules. :D

Now youre just seeing what you want to see. By "little" I mean the "small" world of American politics when compared to the greater picture. I cant see where you can feel "belittled" by the fact that the politics of one country (be it AMerica, Britain, France, Canada, Mexico, Sealand, etc..) can be anything other than small when compared to international politics, which we are talking about.

Well America isn't THAT little. And normally, when people talk about my "little world" they follow it up by saying I'm delusional or something...which is usually right. :D

Forcibly stopping the practice of Abortion for one. Nigeria, for instance, has its own police force stopping women having abortions. If they are found to have had an abortion or planning one, they are "removed". At one point, certain parts of Ireland dictated that a woman must leave the country to have an abortion. Boats were used to carry out the procedure. I am unsure if this still goes on. But dont focus on abortion as this isnt about it. I used it as an example. Moving on...

Creepy...I didn't know it went quite that far...

This does remind me of this Simpsons episode where Kodos and Kang took over Clinton and Dole's bodies in the 1996 election. One was making a speech saying "No Abortions For All" and people all booed. Then he said "Abortions For All!" and everyone booed. Then after thinking for a moment he said, "Abortions for some, miniature American Flags for all!" and everyone cheered. Haha...that was great shit.

LMFAO. Dont be a dick. Im suprised how cunty certain people have become over the last year. Get a life mate, dont get so het up over a fucking message board ;)

~BenM/Dervish/etc.. just in case you feel the inexplicable need to know.

Hahaha...I figured it out about a few hours later and I'm like "shit, I remember this guy!" Then I figured you'd tear me a new asshole. :D I earned it, I am more cunty, by the way. Check out my diary and you'll see I've taken dick to a new level. (What can I say, dealing with people like Zaphod makes you angry! :D)

Cool to see you back though. :metal: I was wondering where you wandered off to.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox the 0th]

Dealing with "people like me" makes you angry? Why, because I make valid points? Or because you go around holding vindictive grudges against people who don't agree with you? Or what? "Dealing" with you doesn't make me angry so why would it be any different for you?

But then we all know how this site works don't we, arselickers. ;)

To pick up on an interesting point though..
Forcibly stopping the practice of Abortion for one. Nigeria, for instance, has its own police force stopping women having abortions. If they are found to have had an abortion or planning one, they are "removed". At one point, certain parts of Ireland dictated that a woman must leave the country to have an abortion. Boats were used to carry out the procedure. I am unsure if this still goes on. But dont focus on abortion as this isnt about it. I used it as an example. Moving on...
I may be wrong here, but I thought the case in Ireland was that abortion was illegal, so the use of boats was actually to get to international waters where Irish law does not apply, and carry out the procedure there. Not because of any actual requirement in Irish law. So presumably unless the law has actually changed since then, the practice still exists.

[Dukkha]

clodhopper5569 <3



I may be wrong here, but I thought the case in Ireland was that abortion was illegal, so the use of boats was actually to get to international waters where Irish law does not apply, and carry out the procedure there. Not because of any actual requirement in Irish law. So presumably unless the law has actually changed since then, the practice still exists.

I know the practice existed as recently as the 60s but Im not sure if it still happens now. Then again, its not something I think a lot about - not being irish and not having a uterus :P

[Ace Rockolla]

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox the 0th
Dealing with "people like me" makes you angry? Why, because I make valid points? Or because you go around holding vindictive grudges against people who don't agree with you? Or what? "Dealing" with you doesn't make me angry so why would it be any different for you?

But then we all know how this site works don't we, arselickers. ;)

Now, now...just one cunty person here is a enough. ;)

[Zaphod Beeblebrox the 0th]

I am sure there are plenty of people cuntier than you, but I am still at pains to understand how you are angered in this way. Unless it was just a throwaway thing to "justify" your actions to you pals on the site.

[CommanderxVenus]

those darned governments, i say to hell with them. they look down upon my dreams; to be a colombian drug lord. if only.....

[Daballa00]

Too many laws that are unenforceable can lead us to a police state that will prove almost impossible the break.

The conservative want a camera in my bedroom and in my personal life to make sure that I'm not an enemy of the state or a threat to little children. They believe in preemptive striking anything that would dare even look at them crossed face. In doing so they have invalidated half the constitution in that you cannot not charge a person with a crime they are not planning to commit. Basically what it boils down to is that conservatives want thought control over all else.

The liberals want government in all places that the conservatives don't. They are the antithesis of each other. They want to tell me what I can drive, where I can live, what I can eat, and where I can worship, and how I can run my business and who I can hire. The liberals are only happy when equality is forced upon the masses so long as they themselves end up with a bigger cut of the pie and only those that have achieved success are extorted into making for all these wonderful failed programs-- the true embodiment of "1984s" big brother.

I am, on the other hand, a libertarian. We take what is good from both sides of the coins and weld them together. A libertarian system rewards those that have achieved success by letting them eat the fruits of their labor, while at the same time it refuses to dictate a code of morals by a force that is equally unqualified and unworthy of such a task.


You, my friend, need to get you're head out of Myths, Lies, And Downright Stupidity... but on a more serious note I agree with you for the most part

[Oxford]

Daballa, unless you have something to add to a conversation, please don't bring back really old threads.