Say Anything Blog

Probably because conservatives won’t debate honestly.  They take statements out of context to prove their believe, not what was actually said.

Probably because property rights are not endowed by the Creator, but are created by man.

Probably because world peace is laudable goal that is thwarted by conservatives who see profit in war.

Probably because conservatives won’t debate honestly

Boy, there is pot calling the kettle black!!

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Probably because property rights are not endowed by the Creator, but are created by man.

Hawk,

I accept your challenge.  Clearly you are unfamiliar with property rights as understood by our founders.  For instance, my body is my private property and those things that I acquire legally are no less so.  Private property rights are derived from the same unalienable rights our constitution acknowledges. 

See any dishonesty there?

World peace is a laudable goal, but one that must be pursued in light of the reality of evil presence and human nature.  To ignore or dismiss these leads to attributing to government an innocence no human government has ever displayed.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

Private property rights are derived from the same unalienable rights our constitution acknowledges. 
See any dishonesty there?

The Constitution does not speak of unalienable rights endowed by our creator, that is the Declaration of Independance. 

The ownership of private property has been a very successful economic principle, but that does not make in inherantly more moral than other systems.  There have been plenty of cultures that did not have a concept of private property that were perfectly moral.

And how can you ask for honest debate and than when I disagree with you, you say I am dishonest?

I was intentionally combative in my first post because it is hypocritical of you to ask for honest debate and than attack liberals using strawman arguments.

The Constitution does not speak of unalienable rights endowed by our creator, that is the Declaration of Independance. 

Correct, it “acknowledges” them.

but that does not make in inherantly more moral than other systems.

In order to answer this fairly we would have to address the theory of private property as understood by our founders.  Clearly I would argue in favor of the superior morality and usefulness to society of private property along the same line as the founders.

And how can you ask for honest debate and than when I disagree with you, you say I am dishonest?

I was asking if there was any dishonesty in my response, not accusing you of being dishonest.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

Hawk,

Locke strongly influenced Jefferson the author of both the DOI and the US Constitution.  One’s person is one’s property and anything removed from its natural state and mixed with that one’s labor becomes that one’s private property.  Government exists, according to our founding principles, to protect individual’s life and property. Our government was not invested with the power to remove that which it was constituted to protect.  And, any government which does so is immoral in that regard.  Therefore the moral superiority of private property rights is established.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

HG
Your post has a little bit of a chauvinist tinge to it. We are to take your absolutes as being objective and proceed from there fairly? Honesty for one may be different for another. Marketing now tells us the truth is what sells. You’re concept of injustice here is… not universal. I feel I am returning to an old theme…
Often on here I make foolish or unsupported claims. Often it is done in an attempt to mirror the foolish and unsupported claims of others.
I am interested in who or what would be the gauge of honesty? History is, by definition, a rational reconstruction. Is it not? Locke wrote many things. Lots of which has been superseded. TO think that if Locke were alive today he would profess the same philosophies… is silly. Perhaps the bare bones, but I suspect he would strike many of his ideas in lieu of the advance of science. If you actually read some of his non-political texts, you’ll find he was very much involved in proto-psychology and natural sciences. I think maybe the ‘final cause’ would go. And he would be delighted by the advances in chymystry and physics. ‘Essence’ sciences on his account.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

TO think that if Locke were alive today he would profess the same philosophies… is silly.

To argue a hypothetical based on Locke being 374 years old is even sillier.  What matters isn’t what Locke or any other founder hypothetically would believe today but what they and their influence gave us, a Constitution.  Fixed absolutes upon which this country operates.  A contract.  Therefore private property rights exist and function according to the agreement.  This is America. 

The same self-evident truths are no less evident today.  Nothing but the intrepretation of that evidence by some has changed.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

Locke strongly influenced Jefferson the author of both the DOI and the US Constitution.

Well Jefferson wrote the DOI, but the Constitution was largely a collaborative effort, but heavily influenced by Madison.

Locke was in favor of the labor theory of property.  I would call it sweat equity.  You owned something because of the labor you put into it.  In Locke’s time the nobility owned most property and the working class (the laborers) was generally very poor.  Locke is trying to address this issue.  I’m not sure you would like how this theory treats investment income.

But I would argue that this is no more moral than the Lakotas who claimed that nobody could own the land, but everybody could use it.

La propriété, c’est le vol!
Property is theft!

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his 1840 book What is Property?

Hawk,

Fortunately our definition of private propterty is certain and fixed in our constitution so that we have no need to entertain philosophies.  Bottom line is we have private property rights because we have unalienable rights in America. Removing or infringing upon private property rights is contrary to the purpose of government.  Whatever your take on private property, nowhere does our founders support the notion that all is the property of government first and the citizen second.  Nor does private property allude to property being owned by all.  Given our founding principles the latter would be a gross contradiction.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

But I would argue that this is no more moral than the Lakotas who claimed that nobody could own the land, but everybody could use it.

How so?

Based on what truth?

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

Fixed absolutes upon which this country operates.

Of the original 13, Rhode Island and NoCarolina never approved it. It was overhauled in the eighteenhundreds. Big time.
Many amendments are ignored any many are overstressed. When the government provided us protection from the states… we started being increasingly more fucked.

orignal absolutes? maybe the wishbone of that chicken, but the rest is gone.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie, the original language and intent is there.  The courts interpretation of some ammendments have led us to the mess we’re in today.  Amazingly liberals think we need to get it wrong even more in order to progress.  Conservatives simply want to maintain the original intent of limited government and individual liberty.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

Conservatives simply want to maintain the original intent of limited government and individual liberty.

Speaking of honesty, I believe it was the ‘Conservatives’ who supported, and continue to support, the Patriot Act? Are we still in a state of war HG? How long will that last? Original intent? Do you think signing statements are being used according to the original intent?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Habeas corpis hg?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Now you are the one apologizing for the ‘interpretists’.

‘Its mostly there’. Can we get a gradation of ‘mostly’ in your absolute schema?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Speaking of honesty, I believe it was the ‘Conservatives’ who supported, and continue to support, the Patriot Act?

It has been ruled constitutional.  We are still at war.

Article 1 section 9:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

Sparkie, putting “mostly” in my comment isn’t very honest of you.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

It has been ruled constitutional.

Oh.

The courts interpretation of some amendments have led us to the mess we’re in today.

Oh.

When we juxtapose your statements, it makes me wonder why you didn’t answer this

Can we get a gradation of ‘mostly’ in your absolute schema?

or this

Are we still in a state of war HG? How long will that last?

You are not an originalist, even a weak one. You lay that fact bare.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Do you think signing statements are being used according to the original intent?

Please clarify.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

There is no rebellion, public safety concern or invasion that justifies the suspension of habeas corpus.

Sparkie,

You are a student of logic and you make no logical sense. 

Just because some scotus decisions are not in keeping with the original intent doesn’t mean that no scotus decision does.  So that if I cite the courts ruling in favor of the Patriot act, it doesn’t mean that decision is not in keeping with the original intent.

I’d expect better from you.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

There is no rebellion, public safety concern or invasion that justifies the suspension of habeas corpus.

no public safety concern given the act of 6 men on 9/11?  You’ve got to be kiddin’

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

Hawk,

Do you have a foundational argument for the morality of the Lakotas lack of property rights?

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

Sparkie,

You are a student of logic

Must not have studied very hard...LMFAO, I couldn’t let that one pass without comment.

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

I’d expect better from you.

Well, I’d expect you not to politicize your interpretation of which interpretations are ‘original’… or at least make an effort.

The original constitution is not constitutional. It was not approved by Rhode Island and North Carolina. Did you get that?

Also, I’d like to know how you feel about all the amendments? Just fine? What about federal protection from the state?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Personally, I have tried for over a year with one or two individuals here, but have finally dropped them as honest debaters after I clearly proved their challenge and they did not concede, ask a follow up question, nor attempt to rebut my assertions.

I was forced to conclude that they do not wish to honestly debate.

I consider myself to be a conservative, honest and straightforward person.
I have posted many examples, first-hand with pictures to back up my assertions, but to no avail.

There are some who refuse to acknowledge The Truth, but I sort of knew that many in the general population are liars.  I even met three adults in the workplace who were like that.  They even admitted it to me after years of debating them at work.

Communism is evil

The original constitution is not constitutional. It was not approved by Rhode Island and North Carolina. Did you get that?

How so?  The convention only required 9 of the 13 ratify it.  11 ratified and the last two did so later.  Where did you get your history Sparkie?

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

Do you have a foundational argument for the morality of the Lakotas lack of property rights?

They are just an example, one of many, of people who were living peacefully for the most part, who did not have a society based on private ownership of property.  In fact when the US government offered them billions of dollars for the Dakotas, they turned it down stating that they didn’t own the Dakotas.  If you want me to quote some Native American philosopher, I can’t.  They didn’t write it down, it was just the way they lived.  I’ll grant you that their system was not as successful, but it is no less moral.

If you are going to use the Labor Theory of Property as your moral basis, I could argue that we have gone off the tracks.  It is not the Investment Theory of Property.

Also, I’d like to know how you feel about all the amendments? Just fine?

I tend to agree with Madison, the limits on government were spelled out in the Constitution and the ammendments mostly unnecessary.  An argument might be made that the ammendments opened the door for the government to narrow the definition of the rights mentioned.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

Always on topic Chief, thanks.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

but it is no less moral.

Hawk, We cannot measure it since the basis is unknown.  Therefore, we have nothing to judge the morality by.

I guess if the Lakota didn’t own the land then they had no right to it.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

I guess if the Lakota didn’t own the land then they had no right to it.

No, it was there philosophy that everybody had a right to it, that is why nobody could own it.

This is why I am arguing that property rights are amoral.  Property rights do not make a society more or less moral.  Freedom does.  So under our system having property gives more freedom so it on net a positive thing.  But not all systems require property for freedom.

This is why I am arguing that property rights are amoral

That certainly is not more true than any other human convention.  In fact individual property rights lifted mankind from the state tyranny where only persons of royalty could have claim to property.  Such was the state in Europe until the industrial revolution. The idea of property rights was then brought to the new world by the European settlers.

As far as the American Indians are concerned, while it’s mostly true that they held land in common, there was considerable competition for land by the various tribes with the land going to the strongest.  The Indians were only concern with land usage and not ownership because they thought no one could lay a claim to ‘mother earth’.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Chief:

Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back.

95% of your arguments boil down to this: “I know The Truth therefore I am right.”

Pathetic.

95% of your arguments boil down to this: “I know The Truth therefore I am right.”

Jack,

Have you any authoritative support for this conclusion and your 95% figure that you can share with the rest of us, or is this more of the sort of gratuitous, “progressive” self-congratulatory drivel that gets guys like you on other folks’ “Do Not Bother - Not Worth the Effort” lists?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Jack.  Hello, Not sure we have exchanged ideas before.  Care to be more specific, or is that just your opinion.  I deal mostly in Truth and facts gathered by scientific analysis.  I would be glad to enlighten you if you like.  Yes, I offer my opinion from time to time, but that is SA.
Sometimes, some of us in the military share personal observations.  Here is one for you.... care to comment.  It is about the nasty muslim facists not observing the geneva convention, bombing one of our hospitals.  Picture is attached.

Communism is evil

Jack are you saying that all truth is relative and therefore not exclusive?

If Chief knows the truth about something then it is likely that he is right.

truth = right

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs, that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
-Congressman Artur Davis

This is why I am arguing that property rights are amoral.  Property rights do not make a society more or less moral.  Freedom does.  So under our system having property gives more freedom so it on net a positive thing.  But not all systems require property for freedom.

Hawk, I don’t think you are listening to yourself.  If as you stated freedom makes a society more moral, then more freedom means more morality.  Since private property means more freedom, and according to your own argument, more morality, then private property rights are not amoral.