RoyalOrleans
New member
Ooops!
Terribly sorry about all that, old boy.
I should've edited the imbecile's post down to "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH".
Terribly sorry about all that, old boy.
I should've edited the imbecile's post down to "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH".
hugo
New member
Now that I no longer have to address the under 70 IQ group let me quote J.S. Mill from the first chapter of "On Liberty":
And to the under 70 IQ group, Yo Mama.
Mill is following in the tradition of Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and Madison, known as "The Father of the Constitution". You do not arrest someone, especially in their own home, for protesting the action of a government official. Whether it be the police officer at their door or the POTUS. You do not choke your maid for not starching your shirt, or stone your maid for not sweeping the floor or for blowing a camel. You do not behead a man for not taking out the garbage. You do not denose a man for stupidly playing with a chimpanzee. They may be all acts of irresponsibility, but they are not crimes deserving of either government imposed penalties or individually imposed violence. I respect no group more than police officers because the vast majority of them manage not to abuse the power placed in their hands. It is a tough job. Police officers, i.e. Crowley, sometimes slip up, to err is human.
And to the under 70 IQ group, Yo Mama.
ImWithStupid
New member
And you again ignore, the repeatedly backed, constitutionally upheld, disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct laws that are legally on the books, and under which Officer Crowley, rightly and legally acted on.
If your beef is with the laws, I'll accept that, but if your beef is with Officer Crowley acting on the laws he swore to uphold, you're wrong.
If your beef is with the laws, I'll accept that, but if your beef is with Officer Crowley acting on the laws he swore to uphold, you're wrong.
timesjoke
Active Members
He knows he is wrong Joe, that is why he dodges direct questions he knows will prove he is wrong.
I took him to task even with the same people he likes to quote and he runs away. I say people like hugo are the worse Americans to exist because he knows he is wrong, and he pushes his attitudes anyway.
When people are stupid, what do you say? When people are smart enough to know better and act stupid just to give them the appearance of justification, now that is what many would call evil.
hugo
New member
You know better than I, IWS, that the police officer can use use his individual discretion in cases like this. Crowley could have walked away, since the only source of Gate's outrage, was Crowley's presence.
Clearly, disturbing the peace laws must be on the books, otherwise a neighbor blaring loud rap music could make my life a living ****. I firmly believe though that few arrests are made when an officer is called on a disturbing the peace call. Now, if the peace disturber refuses the officers request to stop his actions he will be arrested. So why do I think Gates should not have been arrested when Crowley requested Gates to shut up and Gates refused to do so? Mainly, because when I watch Cops (sorry, that is the best I can do) if the peace disturbance is caused by arguments between two individuals what the officer almost always does is get the individuals to seperate, to get one or both to return to their homes or somewhere else where they are no longer in the proximity of each other. Seldom is an arrest made. Crowley could have seperated the two parties in this disagreement quite easily. All he had to do was say. "Have a nice day, you raving lunatic" and leave. Crowley, was, most likely, not legally wrong, under current laws; he was wrong under my personal moral code, that emphasizes individual liberty and the Constitution as envisioned by our founding fathers, not the Constitution that the oligarchs in black robes have given us. Jefferson summed it up best "The government that governs best, governs least."
timesjoke
Active Members
lol, and again only the officer's ability to walk away is all hugo will ever see. The individual is blameless, a government official is always to blame in his world.
I am now and will forever be a supporter of individual responsibility as was all of the people hugo claims to admire. Even his sig hold the truth of how personal responsibility is the key to a successful society....so why is it even hugo refuses to hold people responsible for their own actions? Why does hugo make excuses for a race pimp? Why does hugo believe that anything done to a police officer is reasonable?
With individual liberty comes individual responsibility, one is impossible without the other.
I am now and will forever be a supporter of individual responsibility as was all of the people hugo claims to admire. Even his sig hold the truth of how personal responsibility is the key to a successful society....so why is it even hugo refuses to hold people responsible for their own actions? Why does hugo make excuses for a race pimp? Why does hugo believe that anything done to a police officer is reasonable?
With individual liberty comes individual responsibility, one is impossible without the other.
timesjoke
Active Members
He is the only guy saying the actions of the professor does not matter eddo. He says the officer should have walked away just because he is a government employee and deserves whatever abuse is piled on him.
I hate that in people like hugo. They know better, but they still impose all people doing a job for the Government as the bad guy and at the same time say anything done by the non-government person is completely blameless and justified because the police deserve that level of mistreatment.
People like hugo cause these things to happen eddo. Hugo is an enabler, he makes these things possible because without guys like hugo, there would be no sympathy for them, no audience, so they would stop doing it.
And Hugo, you never answered any direct question I asked, that is why I kept asking it over and over. You ran away like the coward you are, you know your wrong or you would have stood up and answered the question the first time I asked it of you.
hugo
New member
Sorry, I will give warnings and leave it where you have to click in the future.Since I now have TJ on ignore, and everyone else is capable of comprehending the written word, I doubt I will need to use photos in the future.
Sometimes I forget everyone ain't an insensitive ******* like myself.
I will send you a coupon good for a free bendy class.
hugo
New member
Warning If you are pregnant or eating do not look at image below:
View attachment 2447
She should have been responsible and not entered the chipmunk impersonation contest.
View attachment 2447
She should have been responsible and not entered the chipmunk impersonation contest.
hugo
New member
Video: Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano: Gates arrest "violated the federal Constitution" | **** Politics | Hoping Obama Fails
Judges don't get any more conservative than that guy.
Judges don't get any more conservative than that guy.
hugo
New member
This is what we are fighting for; Andrew Napoltano:
Reason: Let's talk about natural law and positivism. Sketch the two camps and why you believe what you do.
Napolitano: Scholars and lawyers and jurists and people interested in this have always debated what is the source of our rights. There are many, many schools of thought, but they basically fall into two categories. One says that our rights come by virtue of our humanity because we are created in ***'s image and likeness. Because *** is perfectly free, he has instilled in us all the yearnings for freedom that we have: freedom of thought, freedom to develop one's personality, freedom to express oneself, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc. That school of thought is known as the natural law. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration; James Madison, who wrote the Constitution; and virtually all the Founding Fathers, even though some were deists and some were atheists, they were to a person believers in the natural law.
�The other school of thought is sometimes called positivism, sometimes called legal realism. It basically says that the law is whatever the lawgiver says it is. As long as the lawgiver follows its own rules, whatever it says is the law. So positivism would say the majority in a democracy always rules. There are no minority rights because there are no brakes on the majority will. If the majority wants to get rid of the First Amendment, the majority rules; there is no First Amendment. Therefore, there's no protection for freedom of speech. If the majority wants to take property belonging to person A and give it to person B because the majority rules, the majority can do that because, again, there are no natural rights that would allow person A to keep his property against the will of the government.
The attraction to positivism is it is pure democracy. The majority literally always rules. Or whoever is in power always rules. Positivism didn't rear its head successfully, in my view, until the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when we took a decided step toward a centralization of power in Washington and ultimately toward many socialistic programs that we now have because FDR was the ultimate positivist who believed whatever law he signed was a good law and there were no brakes on that.
[The FDR era] began, in my view, the dark part of American history where the federal government believed that it could solve any problem that was national in scope, irrespective of whether it was a federal problem. A federal problem is one arising under the 18 specific enumerated powers given to the federal government under the Constitution. A national problem is something that exists in New Jersey and California and Texas and Illinois. But just because it's national doesn't mean it's federal and therefore can be addressed by the federal governmen
Reason: Let's talk about natural law and positivism. Sketch the two camps and why you believe what you do.
Napolitano: Scholars and lawyers and jurists and people interested in this have always debated what is the source of our rights. There are many, many schools of thought, but they basically fall into two categories. One says that our rights come by virtue of our humanity because we are created in ***'s image and likeness. Because *** is perfectly free, he has instilled in us all the yearnings for freedom that we have: freedom of thought, freedom to develop one's personality, freedom to express oneself, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc. That school of thought is known as the natural law. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration; James Madison, who wrote the Constitution; and virtually all the Founding Fathers, even though some were deists and some were atheists, they were to a person believers in the natural law.
�The other school of thought is sometimes called positivism, sometimes called legal realism. It basically says that the law is whatever the lawgiver says it is. As long as the lawgiver follows its own rules, whatever it says is the law. So positivism would say the majority in a democracy always rules. There are no minority rights because there are no brakes on the majority will. If the majority wants to get rid of the First Amendment, the majority rules; there is no First Amendment. Therefore, there's no protection for freedom of speech. If the majority wants to take property belonging to person A and give it to person B because the majority rules, the majority can do that because, again, there are no natural rights that would allow person A to keep his property against the will of the government.
The attraction to positivism is it is pure democracy. The majority literally always rules. Or whoever is in power always rules. Positivism didn't rear its head successfully, in my view, until the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when we took a decided step toward a centralization of power in Washington and ultimately toward many socialistic programs that we now have because FDR was the ultimate positivist who believed whatever law he signed was a good law and there were no brakes on that.
[The FDR era] began, in my view, the dark part of American history where the federal government believed that it could solve any problem that was national in scope, irrespective of whether it was a federal problem. A federal problem is one arising under the 18 specific enumerated powers given to the federal government under the Constitution. A national problem is something that exists in New Jersey and California and Texas and Illinois. But just because it's national doesn't mean it's federal and therefore can be addressed by the federal governmen
hugo
New member
Declarations of independence: Positive vs. negative rights
People have the right to be individuals and associate with whom they choose, but not to the coerced support of others
TIBOR R. MACHAN
After so many years of Americans aspiring to live up to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, with much success, critics of America have changed their tune. It used to be that this country failed to be true to those principles but as that has gradually - and at times abruptly - changed, critics had to find something else to beef about.
And, sure enough, they found it, in that highly questionable doctrine of "positive rights" first laid out in 1944 in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's so-called Second Bill of Rights. The tact now is to say, yes, the founders did promote the doctrine of individual negative rights - which are prohibitions barring people from intruding on others, recognizing everyone's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property) - but these aren't really the rights in need of government protection. What needs to be protected, they argue, are the entitlements everyone has to material support from government, for which others must pay through taxes. In short, these new "rights" amount to nothing less than the imposition of involuntary servitude on taxpayers!
But this is a hoax. No such rights exist. Indeed, the entire point of rights talk is to set borders around each of us, borders that may only be crossed with permission. For example, someone needs to ask your permission to enter your home or drive your car. If somebody asks you to stop saying or writing certain things - you must consent or they must desist. Those are examples of the negative, or freedom, rights all humans have because of their nature as moral agents. A moral agent requires the freedom to exercise moral choice, for better or for worse.
Only if a person invades another's realm is there justification for interference (in self-defense). This is an individualist social-political outlook closely associated with the American founding but it is now being drastically undermined.
These days, no sooner does one speak up in support of individualism than one will be accused of wanting to isolate individuals, to destroy human community life. This is plain wrong and either a misunderstanding or an out-an-out attempt at distortion. Just because adults require independence of mind and a sphere of personal authority, which is secured by protecting their basic rights, it doesn't mean people do not greatly benefit from community life. There is little that's more satisfying than the associations people forge with their fellows: marriage, family, companies, teams, choruses, orchestras and myriad others.
Alas, there is one way of forming communities that is unsuited to people: coercively, when they are herded into groups they do not choose based on their own understanding and goals - that is, by violating their rights. Prisons are such involuntary communities, and the only reason they are supposed to exist is to house people who refuse to live peacefully with their fellows.
None but the crudest defense of individualism omits that when individuals come together, much of what makes their lives worth living stems from their togetherness. And, yes, as children we are involuntary members of one community, the family, at least until we grow up and have free choice. That, indeed, is what parents and guardians ought to aim for when they raise children, to prepare them all for becoming competent, loving, responsible and adventurous independent adults.
Yet forcibly grouping people immediately undermines this by depriving the young of their opportunity to hone their skills at making decisions for themselves, decisions that are usually quite unlike the decisions others need to make. That's because we all are unique in many respects, while at the same time also much alike. As one of my favorite philosophers, the comic actor Steve Martin, put it in his novel "The Pleasure of My Company": "People, I thought. These are people. Their general uniformity was interrupted only by their individual variety."
Of course, much of this is evident from the history of the more Draconian and brutal attempts to make us all one, from ancient Sparta to societies in the 20th century. But, sadly, too many people hold on to the vision of human associations without remembering that the "human" must be very closely heeded when one embarks on community life.
Human beings, more than anything else in the world, are individuals, with minds of their own, which, however much they learn from others, must get into operation from their own initiative. While other beings are pretty much hardwired to do the right thing by their nature, our nature is that we must learn what that right thing is and then embark on doing it of our own free will. This, mainly, is the source of individuality.
Forgive me for bringing in a bit of personal history, but I do have some experience to draw upon here, having lived under communism for much of my early years. And my father was an avid fascist, supporting the Nazis. Neither of these political systems offer a promising community life; nor do communities that try to go just a bit in those political directions.
Human communities are, indeed, marvelous but only when they do not quash the human individual. When they do, when they try to compromise the principles of individualism, look out. They will try to lie and cheat and bamboozle since only in doing so can coercive community life be made credible. They will emphasize the fabulous goals and forget about the vicious means by which they propose to reach them, like conscript armies or schools or any other collective endeavors we are forced to join.
The American founders knew that the central public good is securing for us our rights. Everything else in society is to be done by individuals and voluntary groups, not the government. This false doctrine of entitlements, of positive "rights," fundamentally undermines their project.
People have the right to be individuals and associate with whom they choose, but not to the coerced support of others
TIBOR R. MACHAN
After so many years of Americans aspiring to live up to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, with much success, critics of America have changed their tune. It used to be that this country failed to be true to those principles but as that has gradually - and at times abruptly - changed, critics had to find something else to beef about.
And, sure enough, they found it, in that highly questionable doctrine of "positive rights" first laid out in 1944 in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's so-called Second Bill of Rights. The tact now is to say, yes, the founders did promote the doctrine of individual negative rights - which are prohibitions barring people from intruding on others, recognizing everyone's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property) - but these aren't really the rights in need of government protection. What needs to be protected, they argue, are the entitlements everyone has to material support from government, for which others must pay through taxes. In short, these new "rights" amount to nothing less than the imposition of involuntary servitude on taxpayers!
But this is a hoax. No such rights exist. Indeed, the entire point of rights talk is to set borders around each of us, borders that may only be crossed with permission. For example, someone needs to ask your permission to enter your home or drive your car. If somebody asks you to stop saying or writing certain things - you must consent or they must desist. Those are examples of the negative, or freedom, rights all humans have because of their nature as moral agents. A moral agent requires the freedom to exercise moral choice, for better or for worse.
Only if a person invades another's realm is there justification for interference (in self-defense). This is an individualist social-political outlook closely associated with the American founding but it is now being drastically undermined.
These days, no sooner does one speak up in support of individualism than one will be accused of wanting to isolate individuals, to destroy human community life. This is plain wrong and either a misunderstanding or an out-an-out attempt at distortion. Just because adults require independence of mind and a sphere of personal authority, which is secured by protecting their basic rights, it doesn't mean people do not greatly benefit from community life. There is little that's more satisfying than the associations people forge with their fellows: marriage, family, companies, teams, choruses, orchestras and myriad others.
Alas, there is one way of forming communities that is unsuited to people: coercively, when they are herded into groups they do not choose based on their own understanding and goals - that is, by violating their rights. Prisons are such involuntary communities, and the only reason they are supposed to exist is to house people who refuse to live peacefully with their fellows.
None but the crudest defense of individualism omits that when individuals come together, much of what makes their lives worth living stems from their togetherness. And, yes, as children we are involuntary members of one community, the family, at least until we grow up and have free choice. That, indeed, is what parents and guardians ought to aim for when they raise children, to prepare them all for becoming competent, loving, responsible and adventurous independent adults.
Yet forcibly grouping people immediately undermines this by depriving the young of their opportunity to hone their skills at making decisions for themselves, decisions that are usually quite unlike the decisions others need to make. That's because we all are unique in many respects, while at the same time also much alike. As one of my favorite philosophers, the comic actor Steve Martin, put it in his novel "The Pleasure of My Company": "People, I thought. These are people. Their general uniformity was interrupted only by their individual variety."
Of course, much of this is evident from the history of the more Draconian and brutal attempts to make us all one, from ancient Sparta to societies in the 20th century. But, sadly, too many people hold on to the vision of human associations without remembering that the "human" must be very closely heeded when one embarks on community life.
Human beings, more than anything else in the world, are individuals, with minds of their own, which, however much they learn from others, must get into operation from their own initiative. While other beings are pretty much hardwired to do the right thing by their nature, our nature is that we must learn what that right thing is and then embark on doing it of our own free will. This, mainly, is the source of individuality.
Forgive me for bringing in a bit of personal history, but I do have some experience to draw upon here, having lived under communism for much of my early years. And my father was an avid fascist, supporting the Nazis. Neither of these political systems offer a promising community life; nor do communities that try to go just a bit in those political directions.
Human communities are, indeed, marvelous but only when they do not quash the human individual. When they do, when they try to compromise the principles of individualism, look out. They will try to lie and cheat and bamboozle since only in doing so can coercive community life be made credible. They will emphasize the fabulous goals and forget about the vicious means by which they propose to reach them, like conscript armies or schools or any other collective endeavors we are forced to join.
The American founders knew that the central public good is securing for us our rights. Everything else in society is to be done by individuals and voluntary groups, not the government. This false doctrine of entitlements, of positive "rights," fundamentally undermines their project.
