User Profile: justangry

justangry

Member Since: June 10, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [1] May 23, 2015 at 10:47pm

    I read through it once, but I’m not on my game at all. Sick as a dog, and Memorial Day weekend typically puts me in a funk. My initial thoughts are there are some good points, but I’m stuck on the idea of human nature. You, with a religious point a view and me with an objectivist point of view, that seems like a sticking point. It would seem to me, if there were such a thing as human nature, people would make the same choices in the same circumstances, but they don’t unless put into a situation where no choices are given, and even then it comes down to fight or flight. I’ll read it again, when I’m in better spirits.

  • [1] May 23, 2015 at 8:19pm

    @MattC, Great argument. Let’s deprive people of their natural rights because it’s an inconvenience. Not sure where the right to not have to go around protestors is located in the constitution. That’s nothing but stupid-ass sophistry.

  • [1] May 23, 2015 at 6:19pm

    Sigh, There’s a NBA playoff game in Cleveland tomorrow night at 8:30 and the article says there’s only a couple dozen protestors.

  • [2] May 23, 2015 at 6:12pm

    @Catb, You didn’t seem too concerned about armed militias on the highway during the Clive Bundy controversy, which also included brandishing. Just saying.

    @teleprompter, If you have any evidence, please link. Because the only information I have is from this article, which includes a few paragraphs and a couple of pictures.

    When and if this becomes something more than a peaceful protest and civil disobedience, I will renounce their actions. Until then, I’m going to stick with the idea that people have a natural right to peacefully assemble and protest, and that the constitution is on the side of those protesting and not with you neo-fascist nationalists.

  • [1] May 23, 2015 at 4:54pm

    Yeah and it’s wrong. You know I don’t support the destruction of property. I don’t think there’s anyone on here that has clamored more loudly about property rights than myself, but we do live in a fascist police-state and seems we’re at a tipping point. Link your article, and I’ll check it out. Eventually. There’s a bad stomach virus going around and I am, apparently, not immune. I’ll give you feedback after I digest it among other things….

  • May 23, 2015 at 4:31pm

    Show me where in the first amendment it tells people when and where they can peacefully assemble and protest, and GFYS with your childish rant & name calling.

  • [5] May 23, 2015 at 4:12pm

    There comes a time where this philosophy has gotten lots of people killed. With Jade Helm, and all the commies and fascist running this country, I’m afraid we’re close here. 50-30 years ago, sure, you’re right, but I’m scared of our government myself, and scared people run.

    Responses (5) +
  • May 23, 2015 at 4:01pm

    It’s Saturday, dude. Most people don’t work on Saturday, from the pictures this doesn’t seem to be a racially motivated protest (at least from the top picture showing more white folks than black folks), and as of right now they’re merely exercising their first amendment rights. It won’t be chaos unless the commie media agitators and the Soros-funded professional provocateurs show up.

    Responses (7) +
  • [13] May 23, 2015 at 3:19pm

    Context matters!

    Responses (3) +
  • [18] May 23, 2015 at 4:05am

    You’re kidding, right? He’s gone along with republicans on foreign policy much to the dismay of many libertarians. Perhaps you might elaborate.

  • [2] May 23, 2015 at 1:19am

    They don’t have to kill him. They have their ferret faced shill in there to split the vote, and brand new rules from the last convention to make sure a nominee is declared early.

  • May 23, 2015 at 1:11am

    @RJJ, OK, he’s no better than Kruschev. My bad. (Not being a smart ass. I’m truly grateful for the correction)

    @Miami, He had tough choices, but ultimately concluded the ends justify the means, and the legal justification/framework is the same. Meanwhile the technology is so much more sophisticated, so yeah he’s still a dick. Then there’s TARP, “I went against free-market principles to save the free-market”, No child left behind, expansion of Department of Education, Medicare, Medicaid, the DHS, TSA, the Iraq war, destroying SEC records of their investigation of the attack itself, and on and on and on. I do you think your analysis is spot on, I just hate that guy too.

  • [5] May 23, 2015 at 12:30am

    LOL! Who negotiated the terms of the “pro business, anti worker, anti environment bill”? I hate both parties equally, so I’m not sticking up for the GOP. They can rot, as far as I’m concerned, but you are a special kind of stupid.

  • May 22, 2015 at 9:39pm

    You’re awesome. I don’t remember reading any of your previous posts, but I will certainly be sure to keep an eye out for any of your future posts. Good stuff. It fascinates me how religious libertarians and non-believing libertarians or objectivists have come to the same conclusions regarding the NAP. Clearly, I have more reading to do.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] May 22, 2015 at 9:27pm

    I think you nailed it at first, but Bush is a dick. Post 9/11 legislation is no better than the East German Stasi under Stalin.

  • [3] May 22, 2015 at 4:47pm

    “However, heroin, cocaine (crack and etc) and meth need to be stopped.”

    Stopped how? Because even though I agree these drugs are dangerous, the only solution we’ve been given so far is for government to take money from people involuntarily, to pay thoughtless brutes to kidnap them (kill them if they don’t submit) and stick them in cages (also paid for by involuntary theft) with actual violent criminals. Even with all this fascistic barbarism, the problem still exists, and is exacerbated by the rise of violent cartels. How much blood are you willing to spill to stop it, and why do you think the ends justify the means?

  • [1] May 22, 2015 at 11:22am

    Statist

  • [3] May 22, 2015 at 11:16am

    Funny that Murray Rothbard’s name, the Misses Institute, or the NAP never comes up in the Blaze’s vision of libertarianism. Heck, I think the folks at Reason are soft libertarians at times, but they seem like good people and they’re a hell of a lot more libertarian than anyone at the Blaze.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 22, 2015 at 11:00am

    Those are paleoconservatives. A libertarian simply believes in the non-aggression principle.

  • [1] May 22, 2015 at 7:58am

    @thegunshow, Altruism and capitalism are opposing philosophies. Capitalism lifts more people out of poverty than any other system, meanwhile if you believe self-sacrifice is the key to your personal salvation, then it’s not really a sacrifice. The problem arises when self-sacrifice for the betterment of society, as a whole, is considered a virtue, and forced upon others through government. Like the welfare state, or in this case drug criminalization. You know, for the common good. It’s collectivism.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love