Jack Hunter vs Amazing Atheist on state's rights.

[RPfan1992]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8VMXWOnfc4&feature=g-all-u

[Bastiat's The Law]

Great video. As self-admitted atheist, TheAmazingAtheist is an embarrassment.

[robertwerden]

Im fucking tired of Jack Hunter ignoring Ron Paul and more importantly ignoring Mitt fucking Romney.
Attack already. What the fuck is going on with the OC.

[libertyfanatic]

There is nothing amazing about the Amazing Atheist.

[matt0611]

There is nothing amazing about the Amazing Atheist.

Yep, just another loud, annoying, rude, lefty, with incoherent, hypocritical, and self-contradicting views. There's thousands of em unfortunately.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

There is nothing amazing about the Amazing Atheist.

Yeah, he's horrible. lol

[Henry Rogue]

I know this thread is about States' Rights, but I can't help thinking about Tom Woods and The Judge talking about nullifacation which I'm for. However I'm not so enthused with the complete nullifacation of the Constitution by Federal government.

[Vessol]

Ugh, I hate TJ. He's obnoxious, rude, and does not ever try to make any kind of objective argument. He always retorts to ad hominems and childish attacks.

Jack Hunter handled him well, but I've never really seen Jack Hunter as a debater I guess. I would've loved to hear Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, or even Stefan Molyneux go at TheAmazingAtheist.

[matt0611]

Ugh, I hate TJ. He's obnoxious, rude, and does not ever try to make any kind of objective argument. He always retorts to ad hominems and childish attacks.

Jack Hunter handled him well, but I've never really seen Jack Hunter as a debater I guess. I would've loved to hear Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, or even Stefan Molyneux go at TheAmazingAtheist.

I agree, Jack Handled him pretty well, and to my knowledge Jack is pretty inexperienced with debating. Would love to see Tom, Peter, or Stefan rip this guy apart. But on the other hand this guy is so disrespectful, rude, and insignificant that they shouldn't waste their time.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't like either Jack or Amazing Atheist much (at least their shows). But, sheesh. AA strikes me as obnoxious. He is quite right (roughtly 90%) about "states' rights", though. Microsecession FTW! :cool::toady:

[matt0611]

I don't like either Jack or Amazing Atheist much (at least their shows). But, sheesh. AA strikes me as obnoxious. He is quite right (roughtly 90%) about "states' rights", though. Microsecession FTW! :cool::toady:

As does Jack IIRC. I think Jack is fine with states succeeding.

AA contradicts himself, on one hand he's for "microseccession" but on the other hand he's against states rights. That makes no sense.

[heavenlyboy34]

As does Jack IIRC. I think Jack is fine with states succeeding.

AA contradicts himself, on one hand he's for "microseccession" but on the other hand he's against states rights. That makes no sense.
Actually, that's probably the most sensible thing he talks about. States don't have rights naturally. They only do to the extent that individuals allow it. The states' rights argument usually ignores individual sovereignty, so AA's statement is correct to that extent.

[seyferjm]

Peter Schiff would annihilate the AA, I'd pay to see that happen.

[matt0611]

Actually, that's probably the most sensible thing he talks about. States don't have rights naturally. They only do to the extent that individuals allow it. The states' rights argument usually ignores individual sovereignty, so AA's statement is correct to that extent.

Well, in my view, "states rights" is just a shorthand for the arrangement that the individual states hold the general governing powers of the individuals that live in that state and they give up *certain and defined* governing powers to the federal government. Of course, each state government is a republican form of government that should protect individual rights as well through their own state Constitutions. But I get what you're saying, kinda.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, in my view, "states rights" is just a shorthand for the arrangement that the individual states hold the general governing powers of the individuals that live in that state and they give up *certain and defined* governing powers to the federal government. Of course, each state government is a republican form of government that should protect individual rights as well through their own state Constitutions. But I get what you're saying, kinda.
Yeah, I understand the shorthand usage of "states' rights". Just making sure. One of the Federalists' arguments that kind of makes sense is that States have just as much potential to be tyrannical as the FedGov. The problem is that their solution was to make the FedGov far more powerful than the states. The proper check on state tyranny is to enhance individual sovereignty.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Peter Schiff would annihilate the AA, I'd pay to see that happen.

Eh, maybe. I'd rather see Tom Woods up against him. It'll never happen though, AA just isn't in Tom's league.

[Vessol]

Eh, maybe. I'd rather see Tom Woods up against him. It'll never happen though, AA just isn't in Tom's league.

It would probably go something like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc

[jmdrake]

George Wallace was a progressive. He was only for "states rights" and segregation for political reasons.

[LibertyEagle]

Im fucking tired of Jack Hunter ignoring Ron Paul and more importantly ignoring Mitt fucking Romney.
Attack already. What the fuck is going on with the OC.

How is Hunter ignoring Ron Paul?

[Sola_Fide]

Jack did great here. Nothing worse than a statetheist.

[luctor-et-emergo]

(@ the video JH vs AA)
Best thing is where he (AA) argues inflation is non existent because he can buy an F-ing bottle of water for $2.
I mean, really, that has to be the best argument against inflation I have heard in decades.

I did like the video, but sometimes it hurts my ears to listen to some of these arguments, especially because I'd have so much fun countering them. IMO Jack did fine, as he always does, even if you don't agree with him, he has a very friendly and open personality that is hard to object to. Although I have to admit I agree with him most of the time.

[green73]

Thumbsup the video. AA has his minions thumbing it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8VMXWOnfc4

[LibertyEagle]

I thought Jack did great. His answers were clear and understandable and he was very professional in dealing with AA.

[Bastiat's The Law]

(@ the video JH vs AA)
Best thing is where he (AA) argues inflation is non existent because he can buy an F-ing bottle of water for $2.
I mean, really, that has to be the best argument against inflation I have heard in decades.

I did like the video, but sometimes it hurts my ears to listen to some of these arguments, especially because I'd have so much fun countering them. IMO Jack did fine, as he always does, even if you don't agree with him, he has a very friendly and open personality that is hard to object to. Although I have to admit I agree with him most of the time.
Can you post a link to that video?

[Bastiat's The Law]

I know this thread is about States' Rights, but I can't help thinking about Tom Woods and The Judge talking about nullifacation which I'm for. However I'm not so enthused with the complete nullifacation of the Constitution by Federal government.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jHFJk3EqEY

[luctor-et-emergo]

Can you post a link to that video?

I'm sorry, for some reason I had the video of this topic mixed up with another video from last week... Debate between JH and AA....

Here's the video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yjvXaF53x9M

This is the segment I was talking about;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yjvXaF53x9M#t=2503s

In retrospect it's a little off topic, I had not realized JH had already posted a reply on AA's reply. Still had the original video in my mind.
So, watching the rest now. Sorry for the off-topic reply.

[Chrysamere]

I'm an atheist, and I'm ashamed of atheists like the amazingatheist. So arrogant and convinced of his own worldview he feels to need to mock and hate everyone who disagrees with him on anything.

[Origanalist]

I'm an atheist, and I'm ashamed of atheists like the amazingatheist. So arrogant and convinced of his own worldview he feels to need to mock and hate everyone who disagrees with him on anything.

Really?

Posts by Chrysamere;

"Enforcer, stop trying to argue with these redneck fascist morons, you won't convince them.

Thank god I don't live in the USA anymore, out of the 6 countries I've lived in it was by far the biggest shithole I've seen. "

"I shouldn't, you're beyond saving, you are the most arrogant & selfish people on the planet, and the vast majority of you have no clue how the world works, because to your people, you are the world. You will go down no matter what happens. "

"It makes me happy, the republican party is a disgrace to mankind. I'd love to see completely destroyed, I would be very offended if someone referred to me as a republican. "

"What a load of bullshit... Does anyone actually believe this? According to studies.. what studies? And quoting wikipedia? What kind of a complete moron is the writer of this article? America, the country of the fatasses, because of genes ofcourse!

I absolutely agree that the federal government should not be banning this in schools, but the writer of this article is such a complete idiot it discredits anything in his article. "

"So matt collins is a lying useless leecher hypocrite who thinks too highly of himself and has been getting paid to do nothing for months, everyone knows this already, doesn't need to be brought up everytime he posts a thread. "

"Oh how a badly written book about a sky fairy and some unlucky regular guy dying can cause so much commotion.

75 pages, there must be a sky fairy, no other way to explain this madness. "
--------------------

I'm sure there's plenty more, but you get the idea

[Bastiat's The Law]

I'm sorry, for some reason I had the video of this topic mixed up with another video from last week... Debate between JH and AA....

Here's the video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yjvXaF53x9M

This is the segment I was talking about;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yjvXaF53x9M#t=2503s

In retrospect it's a little off topic, I had not realized JH had already posted a reply on AA's reply. Still had the original video in my mind.
So, watching the rest now. Sorry for the off-topic reply.
Thank you, entertaining debate.

[jmdrake]

Yeah, I understand the shorthand usage of "states' rights". Just making sure. One of the Federalists' arguments that kind of makes sense is that States have just as much potential to be tyrannical as the FedGov. The problem is that their solution was to make the FedGov far more powerful than the states. The proper check on state tyranny is to enhance individual sovereignty.

I'm not sure I'm following you. The federalists wanted the federal government to be much more powerful than the states? Or is that just the way things ended up?

Anyway, I see this as "scissors, paper, rock". Individuals can be tyrants to each other too. The state government is supposed limit the power of one individual to abuse another. The federal and state governments are to be in mutual tension with each other. After all, what better way for a group of individuals to express their disdain for federal abuse of power than through the states? That's why state attorney generals have been filing suit against Obamacare.

[whippoorwill]

This is so effin' boss.

[Zatch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAUcLKX05nM

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Peter Schiff would annihilate the AA, I'd pay to see that happen.

Peter has an active youtube channel. We could probably make this happen.