PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson Wants Driverless Secret Service Cars and a US-Led Gene Editing Revolution




Origanalist
08-20-2016, 04:52 PM
Gary Johnson Wants Driverless Secret Service Cars and a US-Led Gene Editing Revolution;

I recently sat down with Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson at his home in New Mexico and watched an episode of Orphan Black, the hit sci-fi show. Between his CNN Town Hall meetings and endless speeches on the campaign trail, you’re probably asking: How did Gary get the time to watch a television show? It’s a good question, but the former Governor made the time, because he’s interested in the future and willing to explore how it might unfold.


Johnson is excited about using radical science and technology to make America stronger and help the human race.

Nothing else will change America more in the coming decades than radical science and technology. Consider CRISPR gene editing tech and the biohackers who are already trying to splice plant DNA in their skin to be able to photosynthesize energy into their bodies. Talk about a way to end world hunger. Or what about artificial intelligence and nuclear weapons—something Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking have recently publicly worried about? Some experts believe coming AI—an intelligence as smart as an adult human being—could arrive in as little as a decade with enough funding.

Gary Johnson is interested in these things and has ideas about them.

I had the pleasure of talking about it with him while he cooked me dinner and had me as an overnight guest in home (he makes a mean shrimp and scallop pasta). My visit was predicated upon being a possible Vice Presidential choice of his. Given the remarkable personalities also on Johnson’s radar (like Governor Bill Weld who he chose), I probably was a long shot for the position. But that didn’t stop Johnson from spending 2 half-days with me discussing radical technology and the best way to use it to improve America.

PREPARING AMERICA FOR A NEW AGE IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

When Johnson talks about improving America, he really means it. In fact, I believe it’s the main reason he’s running for the US presidency. He worries about America imminently having a cultural and financial meltdown that could irreparably harm this nation—and the world with it. Johnson asserts that he wants to restore commonsense social open-mindedness and fiscal responsibility to our nation before that happens.

It’s not going to be easy for Johnson.

As a well-known extreme athlete and sports competitor, he’s in for the race of his life. He’s likely to be on all 50 state ballots and technically could win the Presidency, but that’s only probable if he’s included in the national debates with Trump and Clinton. To be included he has to reach 15% consistently in the polls. He’s in the low double digits now, but improving every month.

I strongly believe Gary Johnson should be in the debates, whether he makes the arbitrary 15% threshold or not. I believe this not only because it breaks up America’s monopolistic and un-American two-party system, but because Johnson brings a unique perspective to politics with his forward-thinking about science, technology, and future.

ON THE ISSUES

I recently consulted with the US Navy on all things transhuman—including the development of AI. The four naval officers that came to my house in San Francisco were well aware of how important and disruptive this field will be. In an email, I asked Johnson what he thought of those that want to regulate AI, and he wrote, “I think it is important to not regulate the AI industry.” Johnson said the same thing about the internet industry. As a Libertarian, he wants to leave those industries to themselves. Not regulating AI development goes against some leading thinkers like Elon Musk, but it’s right in line with many AI engineers who argue there’s little reason to worry about its creation.

Johnson also believes in longevity research. He says he would “sign legislation promoting research and development” of cures for all diseases. In fact, he likes the Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg recent statements that we should aim to cure every disease before this century is out. Johnson also said he would be “vetoing legislation that would restrict” science development.

Johnson also isn’t afraid to discuss another hot button topic: gene editing. Early in 2015, Chinese scientists used gene editing techniques on the first human embryo. Some scientists immediately sought a moratorium on the radical technology. However, today scientists generally seem to have mellowed out and experiments are proceeding. Many countries are moving forward with research, including the USA (where a federal and bioethics panel recently approved human trials).

I recently told a CNN Courageous produced panel I was on in New York City that CRISPR/Cas9—where DNA is manipulated in genes to get specific outcomes—is probably the most important 21st Century scientific breakthrough and could help eliminate most disease and physical ailments. Already, gene editing has cured some cancer, improved animal’s physical muscles and bodies, and removed malaria from mosquitoes. But America has been hesitant to take the lead with this research, leaving China as the nation who might end up with the most patents and expertise. When asked about this, Johnson wrote me, “Yes, I think America should take the lead.”

Like it or not, if America doesn’t lead here, another nation will. And because other nations may be interested in augmenting their children’s intelligence using gene editing tech, America must be vigilant that this doesn’t lead to an entire generation that is literally biologically smarter than Americans.

Additionally, the economic ramifications of Johnson’s perspective are huge. Many new billion dollar companies likely will be created around gene editing tech. Like the other great technology of the last 30 years—the internet—we want those companies to be US companies.

On a more fun note, Johnson told me he’d “absolutely” use a driverless secret service car. He’s not afraid of having a robot drive the President around. Such a vehicle will surely be here before the end of the next President’s term.

Johnson also told me he’d have a 3D printer put into the White House. It’s been years since America got a new household appliance, and the 3D printing revolution happening right now might mean much less shopping at WalMart—and more making of things right in your home. I expect 3D printers to be in millions of homes within the next 10 years. My neighbor already has one.

The fact is this radical science and technology stuff is not only super cool, but incredibly important. America is entering an age when discussion of immigration, social security, and foreign defense may not be as important as artificial intelligence, gene editing tech, and curing all diseases. Gary Johnson is a candidate willing to address these hot-button issues.

I hope Johnson will make it into the Presidential debates (and Bill Weld into the Vice Presidential debates), so along with his fiscal and social policies, he’ll be able to share with America a brave vision on the future. Gary Johnson is a top-notch presidential candidate for American science and technology for two reasons: He’s excited about it—and he’s willing to openly talk about the issues.

Zoltan Istvan is a futurist and 2016 US Presidential candidate of the Transhumanist Party. His essays have appeared in Newsweek, Slate, Salon, Vice, TechCrunch and many other publications. He lives in San Francisco with his physician wife and two daughters. He’s a former on-camera journalist with the National Geographic Channel.
http://futurism.com/gary-johnson-wants-driverless-secret-service-cars-and-a-us-led-gene-editing-revolution/

phill4paul
08-20-2016, 05:06 PM
Resistance is futile.

Danke
08-20-2016, 05:10 PM
AF1 should also be pilotless.

oyarde
08-20-2016, 05:34 PM
AF1 should also be pilotless.
That makes more sense .

Anti Federalist
08-20-2016, 05:36 PM
Blech...

euphemia
08-20-2016, 06:41 PM
This is a man who has no soul. He really thinks man can make things better.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 07:23 PM
This is a man who has no soul. He really thinks man can make things better.

You object to preventing disease through genetics? Or cars without drivers? Or what?

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 07:25 PM
Blech...

Word of the day.

euphemia
08-20-2016, 08:19 PM
You object to preventing disease through genetics?

You are kidding, right? Do you really think mankind has the capability? What arrogance to suggest he knows the answers, or that he can somehow engineer the human race to get better.

I grew up in a time when people would not even say cancer because it was a dreaded, horrible, and incurable thing. We had a lot of progress on cancer, but then came HIV/AIDS. Now you see people with HIV/AIDS living full and seemingly healthy lives. Disease and death are never going away. It will just be something worse.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 08:32 PM
You are kidding, right? Do you really think mankind has the capability?

I'm not a geneticist (I presume neither are you?), but I don't see why not.

Certain diseases are known to have genetic causes.

We can manipulate genes.

....?


What arrogance to suggest he knows the answers, or that he can somehow engineer the human race to get better.

Was it arrogant to invent penicillin?


I grew up in a time when people would not even say cancer because it was a dreaded, horrible, and incurable thing. We had a lot of progress on cancer, but then came HIV/AIDS. Now you see people with HIV/AIDS living full and seemingly healthy lives. Disease and death are never going away. It will just be something worse.

...not sure I follow your reasoning.

We've cured lots of diseases, but others might pop up, so we should stop trying to cure disease...

...why?

euphemia
08-20-2016, 08:36 PM
Man is not in a state of evolution. It is abusurd for Johnson to suggest we can ever cure all diseases. He is delusional.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 08:36 PM
You object to preventing disease through genetics? Or cars without drivers? Or what?

And you appear to believe that the development of driverless cars and gene therapies, are something that the federal government should be doing. SMH.

Nighthawkeye
08-20-2016, 08:44 PM
And you appear to believe that the development of driverless cars and gene therapies, are something that the federal government should be doing. SMH.
I am sorry I don't see anywhere that rev said the government should be doing this, nor johnson. He wants the fed government to get out of the way so private americans can do so. Johnson is stating that currently people and government are trying to curtail the industry. Removing government interference is not the same as requesting government be involved in something.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 08:45 PM
And you appear to believe that the development of driverless cars and gene therapies, are something that the federal government should be doing. SMH.

Nothing I said implies that, and I don't believe that. Johnson's wrong to be advocating for it. But, as with gay cakes, this is pretty trivial (fairly small amount of money and will probably produce something of value, though of less value than what would have been produced had the money been left with its owners) and doesn't change my view of Johnson at all. And note that he's also talking about eliminating governmental restrictions on this research.

Now, if Johnson were to say that he supports labor unions (as Castle did), that's something that might give me pause.

Nighthawkeye
08-20-2016, 08:48 PM
Man is not in a state of evolution. It is abusurd for Johnson to suggest we can ever cure all diseases. He is delusional. Man has always been in a state of evolution. I don't see where Johnson is stateing we can can prevent all future diseases.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 08:48 PM
It is abusurd for Johnson to suggest we can ever cure all diseases. He is delusional.

Well, Dr. euphemia, you're the expert I guess..

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 09:30 PM
Nothing I said implies that, and I don't believe that. Johnson's wrong to be advocating for it. But, as with gay cakes, this is pretty trivial (fairly small amount of money and will probably produce something of value, though of less value than what would have been produced had the money been left with its owners) and doesn't change my view of Johnson at all. And note that he's also talking about eliminating governmental restrictions on this research.

Now, if Johnson were to say that he supports labor unions (as Castle did), that's something that might give me pause.

for like the billionth time, YOU think that massive expansions of federal authoritarianism and tyranny are "trivial." I do not.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 09:32 PM
I am sorry I don't see anywhere that rev said the government should be doing this, nor johnson. He wants the fed government to get out of the way so private americans can do so. Johnson is stating that currently people and government are trying to curtail the industry. Removing government interference is not the same as requesting government be involved in something.

lol you'd probably justify this guy breaking open the heads of 'undesirables' with a baseball bat just because he has the right 'party' after his name. SMDH

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 09:32 PM
for like the billionth time, YOU think that massive expansions of federal authoritarianism and tyranny are "trivial." I do not.

Yeah, that's the thing that plucks me, too. These are not trivial things at all. They should be taken deadly serious at their very mention. And immediately spoken out against. Immediately.

But, hey. Some friends openly profess that bowing to Kings is the best form of government. In Liberty, no less, they profess this. Nothing shocks me anymore.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 09:37 PM
Yeah, that's the thing that plucks me, too. These are not trivial things at all. They should be taken deadly serious at their very mention. And immediately spoken out against. Immediately.

So far as I am concerned, the expansion of federal authoritarianism is literally THE MOST IMPORTANT issue of my lifetime, and this is the most anti-liberty libertarian nominee since the foundation of the LP. Every time this guy calls stuff like that "trivial," in my book it thoroughly and utterly discredits him.

specsaregood
08-20-2016, 09:41 PM
Now, if Johnson were to say that he supports labor unions (as Castle did), that's something that might give me pause.

What exactly did Castle say about labor unions that you disagree with? Can you point me to a quote? There is nothing wrong with freedom of association as long as the govt isn't forcing it on you. Dr. Paul has always been supportive of the right of people in the private marketplace to form unions.

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 09:42 PM
So far as I am concerned, the expansion of federal authoritarianism is literally THE MOST IMPORTANT issue of my lifetime, and this is the most anti-liberty libertarian nominee since the foundation of the LP. Every time this guy calls stuff like that "trivial," in my book it thoroughly and utterly discredits him.

Yep. I absolutely agree.

I'll tell you what, though, Johnson and Trump both were blessings in that regard. Because it got people vocal. Which provided the means to observe contrary intention from within. They provided a good means of measurement. Johnson in particular, given that he's running under the Liberty banner.

That's the one thing I'll take away from this cycle. It's the only thing I'll take away from it.

Danke
08-20-2016, 09:44 PM
What exactly did Castle say about labor unions that you disagree with? Can you point me to a quote? There is nothing wrong with freedom of association as long as the govt isn't forcing it on you. Dr. Paul has always been supportive of the right of people in the private marketplace to form unions.

Had me scratching my head too. Public Unions are a different animal, as that is a forced monopoly.

specsaregood
08-20-2016, 09:46 PM
Had me scratching my head too. Public Unions are a different animal, as that is a forced monopoly.

YEah, that's why I want to hear what he said before I jump to any conclusions about where r3v is coming from.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 09:46 PM
Now, if Johnson were to say that he supports labor unions (as Castle did), that's something that might give me pause.

Because God forbid a libertarian do something stupid...like you know, actually supporting liberties like the freedom of association?

phill4paul
08-20-2016, 09:46 PM
So far as I am concerned, the expansion of federal authoritarianism is literally THE MOST IMPORTANT issue of my lifetime, and this is the most anti-liberty libertarian nominee since the foundation of the LP. Every time this guy calls stuff like that "trivial," in my book it thoroughly and utterly discredits him.

And anyone that supports him. I get not supporting Hillary. Anyone that supported and believed in Ron Paul would never do it. I get not supporting Trump. Anyone that supported and believed in Ron Paul should never do it. And if one believes in this then I cannot understand how one, that looks upon Johnson with a keen eye, could possibly support him either.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 09:47 PM
Yep. I absolutely agree.

I'll tell you what, though, Johnson and Trump both were blessings in that regard. Because it got people vocal. Which provided the means to observe contrary intention from within.

That's the one thing I'll take away from this cycle. It's the only thing I'll take away from it.

It sure has unmasked all the petty tyrants and authoritarianism lovers around here.

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 09:54 PM
It sure has unmasked all the petty tyrants and authoritarianism lovers around here.

Yep. But November will come and go, though. Right? It'll get jiggy around here after November. Bet on it.

It's that time. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of caring about feelings.

specsaregood
08-20-2016, 09:56 PM
Had me scratching my head too. Public Unions are a different animal, as that is a forced monopoly.

https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic/labor-unions


Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy?

Darrell Castle’s answer: I support the right of workers to collectively bargain but I oppose public service unions.


I haven't much else, hopefully r3v will point us to another quote, because I agree with him; even if he didn't answer the question. GJ's answer was one word, "hurt".

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 09:59 PM
Because God forbid a libertarian do something stupid...like you know, actually supporting liberties like the freedom of association?

Labor unions have nothing to do with freedom of association.

They're state sponsored cartels which are legally permitted to extort money from businesses.

Go read the Wagner Act and tell me how it's about liberty.

specsaregood
08-20-2016, 10:01 PM
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/darrell-castle-freedom-fighters-and-public-sector-unions/




Darrell Castle: Freedom Fighters and Public-Sector Unions

4 Replies


by Darrell Castle
Constitution Party National Committee Vice-Chairman

What do the people rioting in the Middle East and the people protesting reductions in public-sector union bargaining rights have in common?

Not much, but the driving force behind each of them is similar, and that driving force is economic hardship.



What we are likely seeing is the crumbling of a world economic order that has existed for decades if not for centuries. In the Middle East the order is one of military style-dictators or royal monarchs at the top, often installed and/or maintained by foreign powers. In the West, the order is one of an unsustainable welfare and public employment system.

One interesting difference is that the protesters in the Middle East really are freedom fighters in that they are fighting to overthrow dictators and a way of life that has oppressed them for decades. In other words, they are seeking to tear down an unsustainable and unjust economic order.

In Wisconsin and other American states, the public-sector unions are seeking to force the government that employs them to restore and maintain union bargaining rights and pay levels. In other words they are seeking to maintain an unsustainable and unjust economic order.

Government employees form unions in order to bargain collectively with government representatives. These unions of government employees are called public-sector unions. The system that allows public-sector unions to organize and bargain collectively is unjust because the public unions exist at the expense of taxpayers who have little or no say in their hiring, firing, or contract negotiating.

The public-sector unions are not the equivalent of private-sector unions at a factory or other place of employment who bargain collectively for better pay and working conditions. Those private employees have no ability or interest in lobbying their employers to constantly increase taxes for their benefit. The system that allows public-sector unions to form and exist is unsustainable because virtually every state is now technically bankrupt, as is the federal government.

In the new budget proposed by President Obama on February 14, 2011, the federal government alone will spend 25.9 percent of America’s GDP or about 26 cents of every GDP dollar. That is a crushing burden of taxation on the American public which cannot be sustained. Even the relatively modest cuts proposed in Wisconsin are unacceptable to the public unions because their members don’t seem to grasp the fact that the old order is ending one way or the other. The modest cuts are designed to keep the system afloat for a short time and possibly push it ahead to the next administration, but it is going to take drastic changes in the entire system to prevent the catastrophic chaos that appears to be in our future.

The reasoning behind the demands of public-sector unions is failed logic because by definition they are part of the government to which they object. They are, in reality, toadies of the ruling elite. This is not some poor group of under-paid, over-worked union employees in a cotton mill or factory chicken farm that is simply demanding a living wage. If those in public-sector unions object to government trying to sustain itself without destroying the taxpayers then let them join the private sector where bargaining rights are more solid.

Behind the crises in the Middle East and the crisis in Wisconsin lie the policies of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve policy that it calls “quantitative easing” is causing the exploding prices of food and other commodities around the world. Flooding the world with dollars, as the Federal Reserve has done, lowers the dollar’s value relative to food and other commodities. When people live on a few dollars a day, if that, a 60 percent increase in the price of food is enough to send them into starvation. This increase in food prices is the driving force behind the Middle East revolution; therefore the Federal Reserve is responsible for it.

How then can the crisis in Wisconsin and the crises in the Middle East be diffused before they spread and take more lives? Unfortunately for the public-sector unions, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has made it clear that bailouts are for banks, not people, and certainly not states. However, Middle Eastern governments have responded by giving money to what they call lower and middle class people. Saudi Arabia gave $37 billion to the Shiite minority and released some political prisoners.

Middle Eastern people are sacrificing themselves to end an economic and political order that has oppressed them for decades. The public-sector unions are demonstrating in order to maintain an unsustainable economic system so that they might continue their way of life at taxpayer expense. That is the difference.


he definitely doesn't support public sector labor unions.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 10:02 PM
Labor unions have nothing to do with freedom of association.

LMAO. omg wtf?


They're state sponsored cartels which are legally permitted to extort money from businesses.

Go read the Wagner Act and tell me how it's about liberty.

Nobody here has justified enforcing it with government, and I'm just going to call you a liar in your claim that Castle has.

Look what abandoning your principles has done to you. SMH. Sad. :(

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 10:02 PM
Darrell Castle: Freedom Fighters and Public-Sector Unions...

he definitely doesn't support public sector labor unions.



Nope. He sure doesn't. Seems like he supports the Individual's freedom of choice to join or not join any organization of his fellow employers or any organization of his fellow workers without restraint or coercion by the government.

Of course, these are fundamentals. Supporting rights would be property rights (money and whatnot) The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

End of the day, Man organizes government to be his tools. That's the way it's supposed to be. Not the other way around.

Danke
08-20-2016, 10:03 PM
Labor unions have nothing to do with freedom of association.

They're state sponsored cartels which are legally permitted to extort money from businesses.

Go read the Wagner Act and tell me how it's about liberty.

Kinda of chicken and the egg. Which came first, corporation ( a type of association) that is granted certian state privileges or the reaction to that, which is workers organizing too, and yes also lobbying the government for their interests, as do corporations.

Let's say state was totally neutrel. Would workers be prevented from free association to withdraw their services? I actually have come to the belief that many companies prefer unions in some of the higher skilled fields as it gives them more control vs. having to negotiation with many individual contracts. Seniority from being in a union can actually be to the advantage of the company, harder to leave and start over at the bottom of another company.

phill4paul
08-20-2016, 10:13 PM
Kinda of chicken and the egg. Which came first, corporation ( a type of association) that is granted certian state privileges or the reaction to that, which is workers organizing too, and yes also lobbying the government for their interests, as do corporations.

Let's say state was totally neutrel. Would workers be prevented from free association to withdraw their services? I actually have come to the belief that many companies prefer unions in some of the higher skilled fields as it gives them more control vs. having to negotiation with many individual contracts.

In their current form I look upon unions as corporate mediators that are paid for at worker expense.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 10:14 PM
I haven't much else, hopefully r3v will point us to another quote, because I agree with him; even if he didn't answer the question. GJ's answer was one word, "hurt".

I don't think you appreciate what "collective bargaining" means. It doesn't just mean that some workers form a voluntary society and try to negotiate with the employer as a unit. It's a process defined by the Wagner Act of 1935 (and amended somewhat thereafter) which gets the federal government deeply involved in the labor market: generally by coercing the employer to tip the scales of the "negotiation" in favor of the union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act

The clear meaning of Castle's answer is that he's fine with labor unions as presently constituted (i.e. coercive labor unions as regulated by the Wagner Act), provided they're only in the private sector. This is a common position among run of the mill GOP politicians, who don't generally want to touch the issue of coercive labor unionism itself, limiting their criticism to coercive labor unions in the public sector.

Nighthawkeye
08-20-2016, 10:14 PM
lol you'd probably justify this guy breaking open the heads of 'undesirables' with a baseball bat just because he has the right 'party' after his name. SMDH
Why don't you just make up more bs to justify your ramblings, I never said anything, anywhere close to what you said. Is there anything wrong with Driverless cars or genetic editing? That in and of itself has zero jack crap to do with your government authoritarian tantrum, which neither I nor from this op imply. I support the private sector, and government staying out of the way. Johnson is light years, not perfect but better than Trump or Hillary. If you want to fight against the make believe you made up in your own mind go find someone else.

Danke
08-20-2016, 10:17 PM
In their current form I look upon unions as corporate mediators that are paid for at worker expense.

But an individual that is highly skilled would have to pay a professional negotiator too.

But I think I know what you are saying now that I retread it, and I agree.

But I would llke to add,, in my field they are absolutely necessary with our current structure.

As safety would not have advance as it has throughout the years if it wasn't for a strong Union fighting the bean counters.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 10:22 PM
Kinda of chicken and the egg. Which came first, corporation ( a type of association) that is granted certian state privileges or the reaction to that, which is workers organizing too, and yes also lobbying the government for their interests, as do corporations.

What privileges?

If you mean limited liability for contractual obligations, that's not a privilege, that's a term of a voluntarily agreed upon contract.


Let's say state was totally neutrel. Would workers be prevented from free association to withdraw their services? I actually have come to the belief that many companies prefer unions in some of the higher skilled fields as it gives them more control vs. having to negotiation with many individual contracts. Seniority from being in a union can actually be to the advantage of the company, harder to leave and start over at the bottom of another company.

As I said above, there's nothing wrong with voluntary unions.

The point is that unions are not in fact voluntary, and never have been to any meaningful extent.

Since 1935 they've been coercive by law. Prior to that, they employed coercion illegally.

specsaregood
08-20-2016, 10:23 PM
But an individual that is highly skilled would have to pay a professional negotiator too.
.

Which is pretty common in the nonunionized tech industry, often called recruiters.

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 10:24 PM
Is there anything wrong with...genetic editing?

Well. I dont know. Do you want to take a chance on your great-grandchildren having to pay royalties to those who own the patents just to justify their very existence and right to Life? Not only that, but now they have created genetic switches to be turned on and off. True story, man. Plus the nationalized healthcare thing has people's entire medical history conveniently inventoried.

I like owning my body. All of it. All of the time.

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 10:27 PM
This new term "editing" is an interesting spin on language, btw. I think I'd posted something on this some time ago. That this would be the new PR language. I'll likely never find it now. Anyway, they use that language to avoid any kind of regulation. The companie claim that genetic "editing" can't be considered genetic "engineering" and because they say it can't be considered genetic ""engineering", then, nobod ycan question it or scrutinoze it. Which is BS.

specsaregood
08-20-2016, 10:27 PM
The clear meaning of Castle's answer is that he's fine with labor unions as presently constituted (i.e. coercive labor unions as regulated by the Wagner Act), provided they're only in the private sector. This is a common position among run of the mill GOP politicians, who don't generally want to touch the issue of coercive labor unionism itself, limiting their criticism to coercive labor unions in the public sector.
That isn't clear at all, especially with his limited federal govt stance on other issues. I'd wager that he would say the federal govt should have no role here. email him and ask.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 10:28 PM
Why don't you just make up more bs to justify your ramblings, I never said anything, anywhere close to what you said. Is there anything wrong with Driverless cars or genetic editing?

What, precisely does any of that have to do with the federal government?


That in and of itself has zero jack crap to do with your government authoritarian tantrum, which neither I nor from this op imply.

How does President Johnson plan to force the United States to produce driverless cars and gene therapies?


I support the private sector, and government staying out of the way.

That's good. Too bad we don't have a candidate for President who does likewise.


Johnson is light years, not perfect but better than Trump or Hillary.

That would be an opinion. One I do not share. Their respective expansions of federal power differ only in flavor. Just because Johnson's perversions and obliterations of the Constitutional balance of power just so happens to be sugar coated in "libertarian sounding vocalizations" does not make them any less horrific to me. Perhaps they do to you, like they do to Rev3. But even then that is merely your subjective opinion, and not by any means objective fact.

I oppose the perversion and destruction of the Constitution, even when...perhaps especially when...such distortions might otherwise be attractive to me.


If you want to fight against the make believe you made up in your own mind go find someone else.

you mean like the make believe 'libertarian' you made up in your mind and promptly applied to Gary Johnson?

Danke
08-20-2016, 10:29 PM
Which is pretty common in the nonunionized tech industry, often called recruiters.

So they all have to pay.

The thing in my industry, it is not a one time deal, we are always battling against contract violations and pilot pushing. Most people don't realize that a pilot with a strong Union behind him, can make safety decisions and not worry about being fired. That is a huge distinction, especially if you have a wife and children at home to feed, etc. I also want my mechanics and dispatchers to have a strong Union, but if they don't, I am the final word. It is my life and ticket (license, career) on the line. Passengers that complain about me delaying, refusing or diverting, etc. that inconveniences them may me laugh and sad. They have no idea what I'm doing to make sure it is a safe journey. Schedule is nice, but your pink butt is what a Union pilot can provide. Most equipment that has been added throughout the years that increased safety has been because of a union fighting/ lobbying for it to be mandatory.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 10:33 PM
I don't think you appreciate what "collective bargaining" means. It doesn't just mean that some workers form a voluntary society and try to negotiate with the employer as a unit. It's a process defined by the Wagner Act of 1935 (and amended somewhat thereafter) which gets the federal government deeply involved in the labor market: generally by coercing the employer to tip the scales of the "negotiation" in favor of the union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act

The clear meaning of Castle's answer is that he's fine with labor unions as presently constituted (i.e. coercive labor unions as regulated by the Wagner Act), provided they're only in the private sector. This is a common position among run of the mill GOP politicians, who don't generally want to touch the issue of coercive labor unionism itself, limiting their criticism to coercive labor unions in the public sector.

And you just assume that Castle opposes the Right To Work because...... ?

Because such assumptions make it easier to justify your personal support for Johnson maybe?

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 10:41 PM
And you just assume that Castle opposes the Right To Work because...... ?

Because he said he supports collective bargaining, which is the exact opposite of Right to Work....... ?

Collective bargaining, I reiterate, entails a whole series of coercive practices, including workers being forced to accept collective bargaining agreements set forth by the union which they're forced to join and to which they're forced to pay dues. Right To Work is all about eliminating these coercive measures. It's not about allowing workers to organize voluntarily, as that right already exists and has never been in question.

There is zero political controversy about voluntary unions; it's a non-issue.

Anyone talking about unions in American political discourse is (unless they explicitly say otherwise) talking about coercive unions.

William Tell
08-20-2016, 10:42 PM
Now, if Johnson were to say that he supports labor unions (as Castle did), that's something that might give me pause.
No it wouldn't. None of the awful things Johnson/Weld have said so far have given you pause. You still consider it an A rated ticket.


That isn't clear at all, especially with his limited federal govt stance on other issues. I'd wager that he would say the federal govt should have no role here. email him and ask. Yep. By r3v's logic we should assume all pro trade libertarians are for NAFTA because, well NAFTA was called pro trade.

Danke
08-20-2016, 10:48 PM
What privileges?

If you mean limited liability for contractual obligations, that's not a privilege, that's a term of a voluntarily agreed upon contract.



As I said above, there's nothing wrong with voluntary unions.

The point is that unions are not in fact voluntary, and never have been to any meaningful extent.

Since 1935 they've been coercive by law. Prior to that, they employed coercion illegally.

I see your point, but can a company not refuse to hire union workers? Unions are at an all time low, whatever laws they have been using don't seem to have been effective.

Nighthawkeye
08-20-2016, 10:50 PM
What, precisely does any of that have to do with the federal government?



How does President Johnson plan to force the United States to produce driverless cars and gene therapies?



Where does Johnson say he plans to "force" the united states to produce a driverless care or gene editing. He said he would like to ride around in the car, and said he would like to get the government out of the way from preventing gene editing. There is no force implied there. You are taking his support of something, into an implied government force of something. They are not the same thing.

As for Johnson, I have had issue with some of Gary Johnson's views and have also said Weld is not very libertarian As for levels of Authoritarianism its not even remotely close Trump and Hillary are way more As for Castle I think he is benefiting on these boards by not having to face rigorous questioning by media. This allows supporters to assume the best of him as their is virtually no info out there, other than the bit he has been able to control. If your view is just to throw out a protest vote, you might as well write in Ron Paul. I don't see an advantage of voting for Castle over a write in vote for Ron Paul.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 10:52 PM
By r3v's logic we should assume all pro trade libertarians are for NAFTA because, well NAFTA was called pro trade.

Suppose someone were making a pro paper money comment.

Would it reasonable to assume that they supported inflationary monetary policy by the government, or Hayek's free market paper money?

...the former, because 99.99999999% of the time anyone is talking about paper money, that's what they're talking about.

If you can show me another statement of Castle's where he specifics that he's only in favor of voluntary unions, great.

Until then, I'm going with the rational assumption to the contrary.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 10:59 PM
I see your point, but can a company not refuse to hire union workers?

I don't know the exact details, but basically employers (of a certain size I think, not all employers) are required to hold a vote on unionization if/when certain conditions are met (e.g. petition of some kind is submitted). If the vote passes, then a (coercive) union is formed, and once it's formed and there are "negotiations," the resulting "agreements" (which presumably include restrictions on firing union workers, among many other stipulations) are binding on the employer.


Unions are at an all time low, whatever laws they have been using seem to have been effective.

The laws have (most fortunately) been weakened over the years.

The original Wagner Act was practically bolshevik in its design, with unions being led in revolutionary activity by actual, card carrying Communists.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 11:01 PM
Because he said he supports collective bargaining, which is the exact opposite of Right to Work....... ?

Uh. no. No it isn't. Collective bargaining only becomes opposed to the Right To Work when employees are forced into the unions against their will, by government fiat. Voluntary associations are called "liberty." See First Amendment to the US Constitution.


Collective bargaining, I reiterate, entails a whole series of coercive practices, including workers being forced to accept collective bargaining agreements set forth by the union which they're forced to join and to which they're forced to pay dues. Right To Work is all about eliminating these coercive measures. It's not about allowing workers to organize voluntarily, as that right already exists and has never been in question.

Right to Work eliminates government regulations that permit unions to force people to join against their will. I live in a Right To Work state. I helped craft our current Right To Work law. By no means did it come out of the sausage grinder perfect, but it's not bad. The point to that is that having actually helped write and pass Right To Work law in North Carolina, I think I might have a pretty good idea what "Right To Work" means, and it certainly does NOT mean banning public association by government gun and fiat.


There is zero political controversy about voluntary unions; it's a non-issue.

Except for your unfounded assumption that Castle supportes government forced unionization simply because he used a term that you clearly fail to comprehend.


Anyone talking about unions in American political discourse is (unless they explicitly say otherwise) talking about coercive unions.

riiight. So when Ron Paul talked about unions he was being a progressive libtard? Simply because "the U-word" passed out from between his lips?

specsaregood
08-20-2016, 11:03 PM
If you can show me another statement of Castle's where he specifics that he's only in favor of voluntary unions, great.

Until then, I'm going with the rational assumption to the contrary.

So basically you are just making shit up on the fly, with no real basis for assuming what his position is. good to know. maybe I'll email him on the subject. I'd wager a campaign donation that his position is the same as Dr. Pauls.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 11:06 PM
Where does Johnson say he plans to "force" the united states to produce a driverless care or gene editing. He said he would like to ride around in the car, and said he would like to get the government out of the way from preventing gene editing. There is no force implied there. You are taking his support of something, into an implied government force of something. They are not the same thing.

How exactly is he going to acquire a driverless Presidential limo without either forcing someone to produce it, or spending enough taxpayer money to pay someone to produce it?

Like, magic or something?


As for Johnson, I have had issue with some of Gary Johnson's views and have also said Weld is not very libertarian As for levels of Authoritarianism its not even remotely close Trump and Hillary are way more As for Castle I think he is benefiting on these boards by not having to face rigorous questioning by media. This allows supporters to assume the best of him as their is virtually no info out there, other than the bit he has been able to control. If your view is just to throw out a protest vote, you might as well write in Ron Paul. I don't see an advantage of voting for Castle over a write in vote for Ron Paul.

Just because Johnson's specific violations of our liberty are more appealing to us as a group than Trump's or Hillary's violations, does not make his violations any less severe, it only makes them easier to swallow. Some (like me) might even say that is even more dangerous than the openly offensive kind, because it's insidious.

William Tell
08-20-2016, 11:08 PM
If you can show me another statement of Castle's where he specifics that he's only in favor of voluntary unions, great.

Until then, I'm going with the rational assumption to the contrary.
Give me a break. You tried to deter people from supporting Castle by falsely claiming he supported bans on gambling and porn. When you were shown he specifically said the government shouldn't be involved in that stuff you still didn't remove those issues from your list. We both supported Rand. I realize we support different candidates now, and as an individual I can respect your choice. But my problems with what Johnson and Weld stand for is what they actually say. Dishonest attacks just irritate people. If I make a mistake I try to fix it. With you it seems to be a waste of time to point out your errors.

specsaregood
08-20-2016, 11:12 PM
Give me a break. You tried to deter people from supporting Castle by falsely claiming he supported bans on gambling and porn. When you were shown he specifically said the government shouldn't be involved in that stuff you still didn't remove those issues from your list. We both supported Rand. I realize we support different candidates now, and as an individual I can respect your choice. But my problems with what Johnson and Weld stand for is what they actually say. Dishonest attacks just irritate people. If I make a mistake I try to fix it. With you it seems to be a waste of time to point our your errors.

Seriously, in the answers to questions that I've seen from Castle he would have fit in great around here 2007-2015. His answers are often talk about underlying principles and freedom; they aren't one word answers. They are very Ron-Paul esque.

Danke
08-20-2016, 11:13 PM
I don't know the exact details, but basically employers (of a certain size I think, not all employers) are required to hold a vote on unionization if/when certain conditions are met (e.g. petition of some kind is submitted). If the vote passes, then a (coercive) union is formed, and once it's formed and there are "negotiations," the resulting "agreements" (which presumably include restrictions on firing union workers, among many other stipulations) are binding on the employer.



The laws have (most fortunately) been weakened over the years.

The original Wagner Act was practically bolshevik in its design, with unions being led in revolutionary activity by actual, card carrying Communists.

I think I may be in agreement with you, in the big picture. But the nuts and bolts, unions have been screwed by the government courts.

I was hired at a company that valued my background (gave them lower liability insurance rates, less training, etc.)

But they promised me a pension as part of me agreeing to come to their company over others that wanted me.

They used a now proven corrupt court and judge ((all sectioned by the state, I.e. Government )). To raid those well funded accounts and leave me with pennies on the dollar.


Do I think unions are perfect? Hell no. But corporations are getting away with robbery by the force of our judiciary. Breaking contracts and staying in business.

Can workers do that, nope. They might even be blacklisted and not find employment if they made waives.

William Tell
08-20-2016, 11:15 PM
Seriously, in the answers to questions that I've seen from Castle he would have fit in great around here 2007-2015. His answers are often talk about underlying principles and freedom; they aren't one word answers. They are very Ron-Paul esque.

Yeah. No candidate is perfect, but when the only attacks really being used against Castle are guilt by association or outright false, it says something.

Nighthawkeye
08-20-2016, 11:32 PM
How exactly is he going to acquire a driverless Presidential limo without either forcing someone to produce it, or spending enough taxpayer money to pay someone to produce it?

Like, magic or something?




How does a president get around in a car now a days, did they force people to create cars? Unless your argument is against the expense of say Air force 1 or the White House etc or anything a president uses in general. But I assume you are talking about the creation of the technology. If its produced through the free market their is no force needed. If it is the latter well that kind of eliminates the position of Presidency all together, but its not apparent that a driverless car for the president could end up being cheaper in the long run than one with secret service driving.

Just because Johnson says he would like to ride around in a driverless car does not imply from him a desire to force the creation of said item. If he proposed money grants to get them you would have a point, but as of right now he hasn't

As for you going on about somehow we/I am ok with Johnson using force because we support the ideals behind it, that is bogus. Lets take the cake baking issue, I haven't seen anyone off hand on these boards actually say they agree with gary on that issue. The only thing I have seen is people saying its not enough of an issue to change their willingness to vote for him. Its as if anti-johnson crowd is makeing a mountain out of a mole hill, is gary wrong on the issue yes, is it worthy of voiding a candidacy, not in my opinion.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 11:32 PM
From the AFL-CIO:


In the United States, some three-quarters of private-sector workers...have the right to collective bargaining.

Q. In which state is it illegal for private sector workers to voluntarily organize and ask the employer to negotiate with them?

A. None

...yet the AFL-CIO seems to think collective bargaining is illegal for 1/4 of private sector workers.

Hmm...

Could it be that "collective bargaining" does not mean the right of workers to voluntarily organize and ask the employer to negotiate?

Could it instead refer to the whole series of coercive practices (against both workers and employers) laid out in federal labor law?


This right came to U.S. workers through a series of laws. The Railway Labor Act granted collective bargaining to railroad workers in 1926 and now covers many transportation workers, such as those in airlines. In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) clarified the bargaining rights of most other private-sector workers and established collective bargaining as the “policy of the United States.” The right to collective bargaining also is recognized by international human rights conventions.

Well, the AFL-CIO thinks so, and they might reasonably be assumed to know something about labor law, don't you think?

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 11:35 PM
From the AFL-CIO:



Q. In which state is it illegal for private sector workers to voluntarily organize and ask (not demand under penalty of law) the employer to negotiate with them?

A. None

...yet the AFL-CIO seems to think collective bargaining is illegal for 1/4 of private sector workers.

Hmm...

Could it be that "collective bargaining" does not mean the right of wotkers to voluntarily organize and ask the employer to negotiate?

Could t instead refer to the whole series of coercive practices (coercion against both workers and employers) laid out in federal labor law?



Well, the AFL-CIO thinks so, and one would presume that they familiar with labor law and don't have an anti-union bias.

I care about how the AFL-CIO wants to spin their agenda, about like I care how Hillary wants to spin progressive liberalism.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 11:37 PM
I care about how the AFL-CIO wants to spin their agenda, about like I care how Hillary wants to spin progressive liberalism.

Where in the US it is illegal for workers to voluntarily organize and ask (not demand) an employer to negotiate with them?

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 11:41 PM
Give me a break. You tried to deter people from supporting Castle by falsely claiming he supported bans on gambling and porn.

No, I correctly claimed that his party's platform calls for banning gambling and porn.


When you were shown he specifically said the government shouldn't be involved in that stuff you still didn't remove those issues from your list.

If you mean I didn't go back and edit what I had already posted somewhere else, no I probably didn't.


Dishonest attacks just irritate people. If I make a mistake I try to fix it. With you it seems to be a waste of time to point out your errors.

There's nothing dishonest in what I'm saying about Castle, it is the only rational interpretation of what he said.

If it's erroneous, and he didn't mean what he appeared to mean, let's see the evidence.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 11:42 PM
How does a president get around in a car now a days, did they force people to create cars? Unless your argument is against the expense of say Air force 1 or the White House etc or anything a president uses in general. But I assume you are talking about the creation of the technology. If its produced through the free market their is no force needed. If it is the latter well that kind of eliminates the position of Presidency all together, but its not apparent that a driverless car for the president could end up being cheaper in the long run than one with secret service driving.

The US President neither forced, funded, or invented that horse and buggy, the motor carriage, or the airplane. George Washington didn't run around talking about he was going to acquire a jet aircraft when he got elected.


Just because Johnson says he would like to ride around in a driverless car does not imply from him a desire to force the creation of said item. If he proposed money grants to get them you would have a point, but as of right now he hasn't

There is no role for government, period. not to encourage it, not to want it, nothing.

Frankly, I am in shock at how so many 'libertarians' nowadays are perfectly fine with expanding government authoritarianism as long as it's shyt they like. SMDH.


As for you going on about somehow we/I am ok with Johnson using force because we support the ideals behind it, that is bogus. Lets take the cake baking issue, I haven't seen anyone off hand on these boards actually say they agree with gary on that issue. The only thing I have seen is people saying its not enough of an issue to change their willingness to vote for him. Its as if anti-johnson crowd is makeing a mountain out of a mole hill, is gary wrong on the issue yes, is it worthy of voiding a candidacy, not in my opinion.

YOU think obliterating the Constitutional balance of power that defines the right government of the United States is trivial. I on the other hand believe that it is the most important issue in my lifetime. You are confusing your own opinion with objective fact. If you can't even identify basic reality, why would I take anything you say at face value?

Natural Citizen
08-20-2016, 11:45 PM
Lets take the cake baking issue...Its as if anti-johnson crowd is makeing a mountain out of a mole hill, is gary wrong on the issue yes, is it worthy of voiding a candidacy, not in my opinion.

Mole hill? Are you kidding me? The right to property is the principal support for The Individual's right to Life and Liberty itself. This is the most fundamental supporting principle of Individual Liberty. To reject that fundamental principle is to reject the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

This is hardly a mole hill. It is the most critical fundamental of all.

r3volution 3.0
08-20-2016, 11:46 PM
Hey look, the Bernsters too champion collective bargaining rights and lament its absence in parts of the US:


What’s a union? And what does collective bargaining mean?

A union is a legally recognized group of workers that uses collective bargaining — a process of negotiation between an employer and a group of employees aimed at reaching agreements to provide basic security for workers. This agreement generally includes guaranteeing safe working conditions, ensuring that all workers’ rights are being protected, guaranteeing the ability to negotiate for better wages, and allowing workers to have a voice in the workplace.


Why do we not see as many unions nowadays?

Over the last few decades the decline of the middle class has mirrored the decline of unionized workers in America. Corporations and their lobbied counterparts in Washington, D.C. have been ferociously attacking the organizing and collective bargaining rights of public and private sector union members. This hostile environment towards labor unions benefits the multibillion dollar corporation’s bottom line, its CEOs, and its shareholders, not the average worker.



http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-workers-rights/

Surely they mean voluntary unions...

Socialists hate coercion.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2016, 11:48 PM
Where in the US it is illegal for workers to voluntarily organize and ask (not demand) an employer to negotiate with them?

Um. what? WHo has ever claimed that it was illegal to organize? Is this just another one of your myriad random strawmen?


There's nothing dishonest in what I'm saying about Castle, it is the only rational interpretation of what he said.

If it's erroneous, and he didn't mean what he appeared to mean, let's see the evidence.

lol wow. You may legitimately need professional help, brother. Mind you that would explain why you are so lost and confused right now.

Nighthawkeye
08-20-2016, 11:58 PM
There is no role for government, period. not to encourage it, not to want it, nothing.

Frankly, I am in shock at how so many 'libertarians' nowadays are perfectly fine with expanding government authoritarianism as long as it's shyt they like. SMDH.



YOU think obliterating the Constitutional balance of power that defines the right government of the United States is trivial. I on the other hand believe that it is the most important issue in my lifetime. You are confusing your own opinion with objective fact. If you can't even identify basic reality, why would I take anything you say at face value?

Frankiy I am in shock that you somehow find johnson's desire of someday riding around in a driverless vehicle is expanding government, you sound like a thought nazi "How dare you even think about it" As for the obliteration of the constitutional balance, it was destroyed decades ago and the genie won't be put back in the bottle over night. I pretty much believe you've done lost basic reality and don't really care how you take what I say. You pretty much have made up bs as to what I have even argued so far, so no point in taking at face value as you will change it in your own mind anyway.

nikcers
08-20-2016, 11:58 PM
There is no role for government, period. not to encourage it, not to want it, nothing.

Frankly, I am in shock at how so many 'libertarians' nowadays are perfectly fine with expanding government authoritarianism as long as it's shyt they like. SMDH.


You made a better argument in the other thread, I think it boiled down to something like mental chains are worse then real chains. I think you are wrong, I think that the child poverty rate, the starving children and entitlement bubble is worse then real chains. I think kids going hungry every day because the state has to keep building tanks is worse then real chains. I think kids signing up to fight for their country and then being lied to and sent over seas is worse then real chains. I think Johnson has the best opportunity to tell both parties that I don't want to support any more wars over seas. I honestly don't know how to send that message any other way then voting for a third party who sucks.

GunnyFreedom
08-21-2016, 12:04 AM
Frankiy I am in shock that you somehow find johnson's desire of someday riding around in a driverless vehicle is expanding government, you sound like a thought nazi "How dare you even think about it"

Right. Because my raison d'etre is to police what people think. Are there no lies or ignominies that Johnson supporters and Trump supporters will not stoop to in their desperate desire to eradicate liberty from the human race?


As for the obliteration of the constitutional balance, it was destroyed decades ago and the genie won't be put back in the bottle over night. I pretty much believe you've done lost basic reality and don't really care how you take what I say. You pretty much have made up bs as to what I have even argued so far, so no point in taking at face value as you will change it in your own mind anyway.

So because it was destroyed decades ago, the answer is to destroy it even further?

I don't think so. The answer to a broken leg is not to start whacking it with a sledgehammer, it's to splint the broken leg.

No, I will not change my mind. I have seen Johnson for the statist authoritarian anticonstitutional psychopath he is. So far as I can tell, he is no better than Trump or Hillary, and I will die before I lend that charlatan my franchise.

Danke
08-21-2016, 12:08 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zQf0kmqLfM



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhcRxVd4qrw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZohgiBxcstc

GunnyFreedom
08-21-2016, 12:10 AM
You made a better argument in the other thread, I think it boiled down to something like mental chains are worse then real chains. I think you are wrong, I think that the child poverty rate, the starving children and entitlement bubble is worse then real chains. I think kids going hungry every day because the state has to keep building tanks is worse then real chains. I think kids signing up to fight for their country and then being lied to and sent over seas is worse then real chains. I think Johnson has the best opportunity to tell both parties that I don't want to support any more wars over seas. I honestly don't know how to send that message any other way then voting for a third party who sucks.

I don't actually recognize any of that. :-/

All of those are symptoms of the underlying problem of the federal government operating outside of it's parameters. If you feed kids today they will be hungry again tomorrow. If you fix the broken government, a lot of that poverty will not have happened in the first place. The problem you cite is more emotionally compelling, to be sure, but it is not even remotely as fundamental as the Constitutional imbalance of power.

Fix the problems you cite without fixing the government and your problems come back even worse than before. Fix the problem I identified without addressing hungry children, and eventually the hungry children problem resolves on its own.

My argument is not as emotionally appealing, granted, but it is an order or magnitude more fundamental.

r3volution 3.0
08-21-2016, 12:13 AM
Um. what? WHo has ever claimed that it was illegal to organize?

http://rs479.pbsrc.com/albums/rr154/EpIcFaIl11/facepalm.jpg~c200

Reread the thread if you can't follow along.

GunnyFreedom
08-21-2016, 12:24 AM
http://rs479.pbsrc.com/albums/rr154/EpIcFaIl11/facepalm.jpg~c200

Reread the thread if you can't follow along.

Yeah, sorry, I'm not the one twisting stuff into whatever weird fantasy world of falsehoods and lies, just to justify some absurd preconceptions.

Nighthawkeye
08-21-2016, 12:33 AM
Yeah, sorry, I'm not the one twisting stuff into whatever weird fantasy world of falsehoods and lies, just to justify some absurd preconceptions.hahahaha points up through the thread hahahaha sure sure what ever you say, good luck with your franchise.

nikcers
08-21-2016, 12:42 AM
I don't actually recognize any of that. :-/

All of those are symptoms of the underlying problem of the federal government operating outside of it's parameters. If you feed kids today they will be hungry again tomorrow. If you fix the broken government, a lot of that poverty will not have happened in the first place. The problem you cite is more emotionally compelling, to be sure, but it is not even remotely as fundamental as the Constitutional imbalance of power.

Fix the problems you cite without fixing the government and your problems come back even worse than before. Fix the problem I identified without addressing hungry children, and eventually the hungry children problem resolves on its own.

My argument is not as emotionally appealing, granted, but it is an order or magnitude more fundamental.

I don't want to feed kids, I just don't want to spend any more of their money. This goes farther then that though, I don't want the country voting to eat these kids because we are hungry and they don't have a say in the matter. This is coming someone who hates kids, but somebody has to inherit our debt, and our country. The people who are inheriting the keys to the country have a 1 in 5 shot of starving, and their only way out of poverty is going into the military a lot of times. So these kids not only grow up without food, their brains don't develop right, now they get sent to Iran and come back with PTSD.

GunnyFreedom
08-21-2016, 12:43 AM
hahahaha points up through the thread hahahaha sure sure what ever you say, good luck with your franchise.

.... it is... MY franchise, no matter how desperately you and rev3 desire to dictate to me what I can and can not do with it.

GunnyFreedom
08-21-2016, 12:49 AM
I don't want to feed kids, I just don't want to spend any more of their money.

If you restore the Constitutional balance of power, then the size scope and cost of the federal government diminishes by 60% at minimum, thereby leaving these kids to keep a lot more of their own money, and therefore resolving the hungry children problem. If you do not restore the Constitutional balance of power, any tax refunds or rebates to future generations will only ever be temporary and only last the two years until the next session of Congress.


This goes farther then that though, I don't want the country voting to eat these kids because we are hungry and they don't have a say in the matter. This is coming someone who hates kids, but somebody has to inherit our debt, and our country. The people who are inheriting the keys to the country have a 1 in 5 shot of starving, and their only way out of poverty is going into the military a lot of times. So these kids not only grow up without food, their brains don't develop right, now they get sent to Iran and come back with PTSD.

And if we restored the Constitutional balance of power, we wouldn't be able to send these kids to Iran without a Congressional Declaration, which they seem terribly reluctant to pursue.

As I said, every single one of the problems described here, boil down to the power imbalance. Try to fix the problem without fixing the imbalance, the problem comes back in short order. Instead fix the power balance and the problems vanish. The power balance issue is more fundamental.

Nighthawkeye
08-21-2016, 12:59 AM
.... it is... MY franchise, no matter how desperately you and rev3 desire to dictate to me what I can and can not do with it.
Beware we got our pilotless black helicopters hovering over your franchise, if you don't submit now we are going to drag your franchise off to a Johnson rally. Hahahahaha Do as we command or else :p

r3volution 3.0
08-21-2016, 01:05 AM
.... it is... MY franchise, no matter how desperately you and rev3 desire to dictate to me what I can and can not do with it.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/38498345.jpg

Natural Citizen
08-21-2016, 01:07 AM
Oh gosh. We're back to memes now, rev? Heh.

Natural Citizen
08-21-2016, 01:09 AM
I am glad that you popped off tonight, though, Gunny. These Johnson guys are getting waaaay too comfortable.

SewrRatt
08-21-2016, 01:17 AM
Could it be that "collective bargaining" does not mean the right of workers to voluntarily organize and ask the employer to negotiate?

Could it instead refer to the whole series of coercive practices (against both workers and employers) laid out in federal labor law?


I think letting the AFL-CIO or the federal union laws decide what exactly the phrase "collective bargaining" means is just about as good an idea as letting Gary Johnson and Bill Weld decide what "libertarian" means.

r3volution 3.0
08-21-2016, 01:21 AM
I think letting the AFL-CIO or the federal union laws decide what exactly the phrase "collective bargaining" means is just about as good an idea as letting Gary Johnson and Bill Weld decide what "libertarian" means.

We aren't debating what the phrase should mean: e.g. how it should be interpreted in a court of law.

We're debating what it means in common usage.

...in order to determine which is the most reasonable interpretation of Castle's statement, since he didn't explain what he meant.

The cited examples show that collective bargaining commonly refers to the practices of coercive labor unions.

...not voluntary labor unions as Castle enthusiasts would have you believe.

SewrRatt
08-21-2016, 02:14 AM
We aren't debating what the phrase should mean: e.g. how it should be interpreted in a court of law.

We're debating what it means in common usage.

...in order to determine which is the most reasonable interpretation of Castle's statement, since he didn't explain what he meant.

The cited examples show that collective bargaining commonly refers to the practices of coercive labor unions.

...not voluntary labor unions as Castle enthusiasts would have you believe.

Ron Paul specifically used the phrase "collective bargaining" too. It's reasonable to assume that a person using that phrase means what the words themselves are defined as, not that they're referring to a bunch of legislative shit the government has tacked onto the phrase. Unless they specifically say they mean all that legislative shit.

r3volution 3.0
08-21-2016, 02:18 AM
Ron Paul specifically used the phrase "collective bargaining" too. It's reasonable to assume that a person using that phrase means what the words themselves are defined as, not that they're referring to a bunch of legislative shit the government has tacked onto the phrase. Unless they specifically say they mean all that legislative shit.

Uh yea, as I just said, that's exactly what we're debating: what the common definition of the term is.

SewrRatt
08-21-2016, 02:36 AM
Uh yea, as I just said, that's exactly what we're debating: what the common definition of the term is.

collective
[kuh-lek-tiv]
adjective
1.
formed by collection.
2.
forming a whole; combined:
the collective assets of a corporation and its subsidiaries.
3.
of or characteristic of a group of individuals taken together:
the collective wishes of the membership.
4.
organized according to the principles of collectivism:
a collective farm.

bargain
[bahr-guh n]
verb (used without object)
6.
to discuss the terms of a bargain; haggle; negotiate.
7.
to come to an agreement; make a bargain:
We bargained on a three-year term.

GunnyFreedom
08-21-2016, 03:25 AM
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/38498345.jpg

Well, yes. That's pretty much "liberty" in a nutshell is it not?

GunnyFreedom
08-21-2016, 03:27 AM
Beware we got our pilotless black helicopters hovering over your franchise, if you don't submit now we are going to drag your franchise off to a Johnson rally. Hahahahaha Do as we command or else :p

I think you must have let your tinfoil hat slip off and are maybe receiving the MKUltra signal again? You are talking gibberish.

GunnyFreedom
08-21-2016, 03:29 AM
Uh yea, as I just said, that's exactly what we're debating: what the common definition of the term is.

On what planet does "collective bargaining" necessarily and auto-magically imply "the use of government force and/or taxpayer money?"

dannno
08-21-2016, 04:24 AM
Well, yes. That's pretty much "liberty" in a nutshell is it not?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLPM-P7mNQw

William Tell
08-21-2016, 07:23 AM
There's nothing dishonest in what I'm saying about Castle, it is the only rational interpretation of what he said.

Well, I guess there are a lot of us irrational people in this thread. Since the definition of rational now means agreeing with you.

William Tell
08-21-2016, 07:26 AM
Ron Paul specifically used the phrase "collective bargaining" too. It's reasonable to assume that a person using that phrase means what the words themselves are defined as, not that they're referring to a bunch of legislative $#@! the government has tacked onto the phrase. Unless they specifically say they mean all that legislative $#@!.
Exactly.

AuH20
08-21-2016, 09:55 AM
Is Gary hanging out with Ray Kurzweil?

euphemia
08-21-2016, 12:18 PM
Nobody would be talking to Gary Johnson if he wasn't running for president, so if he is being interviewed, it is in the context of a presidential campaign. If Johnson wants a liberty message out there, he needs to start putting it out there. He is going off to these rabbit trails, and I have completely written him off.

Suzanimal
08-21-2016, 12:44 PM
He says he would “sign legislation promoting research and development” of cures for all diseases.


Additionally, the economic ramifications of Johnson’s perspective are huge. Many new billion dollar companies likely will be created around gene editing tech. Like the other great technology of the last 30 years—the internet—we want those companies to be US companies.


Is he thinking that the taxpayers should fund this? :confused:


If that's the case, he's not even fiscally responsible.

euphemia
08-21-2016, 01:21 PM
Indeed. So basically we have the Obama redux where all the money goes out to friends-and-relations to build these huge companies that have nothing to show for the investment.

undergroundrr
08-21-2016, 01:32 PM
Great OP. Thanks. War is my "single issue" and Gary Johnson is speaking more loudly and forcefully about ending wars than anyone else. But one of my pet issues is the complete separation of science and state. If the fed gov hadn't nationalized technological progress through the FDA, NSF, NASA, etc. we'd all be living to 300 years and driving our own personal Millennium Falcons. Instead, our great achievement is neat phones that play Pokemon Go.

I LOVE the way Gary Johnson is talking here. It's eye-rollingly absurd how many people are trying to pick some ultra-statist content from any of it. Some of the same people are saying we should have an IQ test for immigrants. It'd be hilarious if the immigrants were the ones with technologically enhanced intelligence. In the meantime, the human potential of Americans is stunted by the state's control over science and education.

Don't want to be a cyborg? Get your hands off that computer keyboard and throw away your smartphone. You already are one.

euphemia
08-21-2016, 01:43 PM
Um, then if war is your single issue, then Johnson is not your man. Darrell Castle is. Johnson is a statist. Just because he is talking about different issues and state involvement, he is still a statist, and probably a worse one than even Hillary Clinton.

undergroundrr
08-21-2016, 02:27 PM
Um, then if war is your single issue, then Johnson is not your man. Darrell Castle is. Johnson is a statist. Just because he is talking about different issues and state involvement, he is still a statist, and probably a worse one than even Hillary Clinton.

Darrell Castle is awesome. I disagree with the rest of your post.

Krugminator2
08-21-2016, 02:40 PM
This seems like a pretty bad answer to submit to the question he was asked. My answer would be labor unions have made American business less competitive vs the world. And if I wanted to opine further on collective bargaining then I would say unions should not be given special negotiating privileges. People can assemble and businesses can fire them for trying to assemble. I do not support collective bargaining.

https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic/labor-unions'


Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/657250856) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: I support the right of workers to collectively bargain but I oppose public service unions

phill4paul
08-21-2016, 02:43 PM
Um, then if war is your single issue, then Johnson is not your man. Darrell Castle is. Johnson is a statist. Just because he is talking about different issues and state involvement, he is still a statist, and probably a worse one than even Hillary Clinton.

No. I don't particularly care for Johnson but he is not "probably" worse a statist a Hillary. Absolutely not. Don't even kid yourself into believing it.

specsaregood
08-21-2016, 03:38 PM
No. I don't particularly care for Johnson but he is not "probably" worse a statist a Hillary. Absolutely not. Don't even kid yourself into believing it.

Dunno, I see Johnson as more likely to decide that old people cost to much and start shipping them off to the soylent green factory in china, then paying to reimport it.

phill4paul
08-21-2016, 03:45 PM
Dunno, I see Johnson as more likely to decide that old people cost to much and start shipping them off to the soylent green factory in china, then paying to reimport it.

Who knows? No matter who wins count on more bureaucracies and their attendant functionaries and more regulation without representation that curtail the limited liberties we now are afforded.

specsaregood
08-21-2016, 03:49 PM
Who knows? No matter who wins count on more bureaucracies and their attendant functionaries and more regulation without representation that curtail the limited liberties we now are afforded.

I disagree, I think the deck chairs belong on the starboard aft section of the ship.

phill4paul
08-21-2016, 03:55 PM
I disagree, I think the deck chairs belong on the starboard aft section of the ship.

I agree! But, we should move them there by forming a line and passing them individually from one to another as opposed to carrying them individually one at a time or two carrying ten in a stack.

nikcers
08-21-2016, 04:38 PM
Dunno, I see Johnson as more likely to decide that old people cost to much and start shipping them off to the soylent green factory in china, then paying to reimport it.

That helps with our trade deficit though it looks real good on the books!

r3volution 3.0
08-21-2016, 05:22 PM
Dunno, I see Johnson as more likely to decide that old people cost to much and start shipping them off to the soylent green factory in china, then paying to reimport it.

Trump: "I could eat people and get away with it, okay?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)

euphemia
08-21-2016, 05:53 PM
No. I don't particularly care for Johnson but he is not "probably" worse a statist a Hillary. Absolutely not. Don't even kid yourself into believing it.

He is too a statist. The reason he is worse is that he denies it. He is a statist in the worst way, and I will never, ever, vote for him. The Libertarian Party has jumped the shark with him, and they will die faster than the GOP. This was a huge mistake. I hope it is just a party mistake and I don't have to live with his stoner stupidity past November.

specsaregood
08-21-2016, 05:55 PM
Trump: "I could eat people and get away with it, okay?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)

So yet another thing Johnson has in common with Trump, good to know.

GunnyFreedom
08-21-2016, 06:43 PM
No. I don't particularly care for Johnson but he is not "probably" worse a statist a Hillary. Absolutely not. Don't even kid yourself into believing it.


He is too a statist. The reason he is worse is that he denies it. He is a statist in the worst way, and I will never, ever, vote for him. The Libertarian Party has jumped the shark with him, and they will die faster than the GOP. This was a huge mistake. I hope it is just a party mistake and I don't have to live with his stoner stupidity past November.

There may be a perspective differential going on here. I think probably in absolute terms Hillary is clearly more statist, but Johnson, by laying claim to the libertarian mantle, is more insidious. Hillary's statism, although far worse in real metrics, will have basically zero effect on the composition of the liberty base. Johnson's statism, although less extreme, is in a position to effect libertarian thought over the coming decades.

So yeah, Hillary is obviously more emphatically statist than Johnson, but Johnson's statism (although lesser than Hillary) is in a much stronger position to do actual harm to the liberty movement.

I think Phill is looking at the absolute metrics, and Euphamia is looking at effect, in which both are speaking accurately but from different perspectives...

Natural Citizen
08-21-2016, 06:47 PM
I think probably in absolute terms Hillary is clearly more statist, but Johnson, by laying claim to the libertarian mantle, is more insidious.

Yep. That's my major malfunction. Any grade above a D in his "Liberty Evaluation" thread would be a disgrace and a disservice to the concept of Individual Liberty itself.

Technically, I'd give him an F on principle alone. I don't eve nbelieve in a middle ground. One either adghere t othe fundamental principles and its foundation for moral code or they dont. It's really that simple. Whether one does or does not is precisely the difference between a Man-over-Government philosophy and Government-over-Man philosophy. Mr. "That'd be my contention, yes" to send men from the government with guns to force me relinquish my right to property. Phhht. That one single thing is patently a full rejection of the Individual's right to Life and Liberty itself. And don't even get me started about his open acknowledgment that he'd consider signing off on a patently illegal transfer of power from the people to a King.

In Liberty, he says these things. That's just beautiful. I always thought that Liberty simply meant Man-over-Government. Seems like Johnson's idea of Liberty is precisely the opposite of that.

euphemia
08-21-2016, 06:52 PM
There may be a perspective differential going on here. I think probably in absolute terms Hillary is clearly more statist, but Johnson, by laying claim to the libertarian mantle, is more insidious.

Insidious! That's the word I was looking for. Indeed. There you go. Drink the Johnson koolaide. It's not libertarian at all. Gary is just as statist as Hillary, but it's mostly on different issues, and more dangerous ones.

Origanalist
08-21-2016, 07:22 PM
Insidious! That's the word I was looking for. Indeed. There you go. Drink the Johnson koolaide. It's not libertarian at all. Gary is just as statist as Hillary, but it's mostly on different issues, and more dangerous ones.

Says the person who doesn't want the war on drugs eliminated unless prescription drugs are deregulated.

euphemia
08-21-2016, 07:26 PM
Well, Dr. euphemia, you're the expert I guess..

I'm allowed a perspective, as per the Constitution. You and Gary don't seem to think so.

Man is not in a state of evolution, because since the Garden of Eden all of creation has been in a constant state of decay. Mankind will never be better, poverty will never be eliminated, and we cannot end disease. We have the power to be kind to people who suffer, but we cannot fix the planet.

Origanalist
08-21-2016, 07:31 PM
I'm allowed a perspective, as per the Constitution. You and Gary don't seem to think so.

Man is not in a state of evolution, because since the Garden of Eden all of creation has been in a constant state of decay. Mankind will never be better, poverty will never be eliminated, and we cannot end disease. We have the power to be kind to people who suffer, but we cannot fix the planet.

And where pray tell is the authority for the war on drugs in the Constitution?

GunnyFreedom
08-21-2016, 07:47 PM
And where pray tell is the authority for the war on drugs in the Constitution?

Article Uh-Uh, Section Nowhere.

William Tell
08-21-2016, 07:49 PM
Article Uh-Uh, Section Nowhere.

Two article. -T

Origanalist
08-21-2016, 07:50 PM
Article Uh-Uh, Section Nowhere.

I must have missed that part...:toady:

euphemia
08-21-2016, 07:51 PM
And where pray tell is the authority for the war on drugs in the Constitution?

That's kind of a random comment. Hear me: Gary Johnson is not a Libertarian or a libertarian. He is a statist and a utopian. He will not be able to take the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, because he does not believe in the ideals and principles represented in it.

Origanalist
08-21-2016, 07:53 PM
That's kind of a random comment. Hear me: Gary Johnson is not a Libertarian or a libertarian. He is a statist and a utopian.

Lol. Just skip right by your own statism. "random comment" :rolleyes:

euphemia
08-21-2016, 07:54 PM
Lol. Just skip right by your own statism. "random comment" :rolleyes:

Keep it up, Junior. Johnson does not believe I have rights at all.

phill4paul
08-21-2016, 07:56 PM
That's kind of a random comment. Hear me: Gary Johnson is not a Libertarian or a libertarian. He is a statist and a utopian.

And Trump is not a Libertarian or libertarian. He is a statist. And Hillary is not a Libertarian or a libertarian. She is a statist. You have been given a choice to pick one of three statists. Take the bait if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Origanalist
08-21-2016, 07:57 PM
Keep it up, Junior. Johnson does not believe I have rights at all.

You're on a roll aren't you dear? I highly doubt I am your junior. And if I am in years I'm not enough of one to not know why you're attacking Gary Johnson.

euphemia
08-21-2016, 07:59 PM
I have never said anyone was a liberty candidate except Darrell Castle. Go back and look. I don't post all that often.

Gary Johnson is not telling the truth when he claims to believe in personal liberty. The only liberties he believes in are his own. Everyone else can just be forced to do his bidding at the point of a gun.

Natural Citizen
08-21-2016, 08:16 PM
It could be said that doping is anti-moral. But this is not for the government to decide. That's a judgment left for the big Man.

euphemia
08-21-2016, 08:56 PM
I highly doubt I am your junior.

Really? I know how to spell originalist, and I am one, which means I believe in the original intent of the Constitution, as Ron Paul does. I'm a fat little grandma. In any case, you are deluded if you think Gary Johnson is a liberty candidate, or if you think he is interested in the Constitution as Ron Paul is. Johnson is not a Libertarian, he is not the anti-war candidate, and he does not believe in liberty for all. He believes in using politics to get rich, and he won't care about you at all if he is ever elected to anything, unless your aim is for Johnson to get rich because of politics.

Origanalist
08-21-2016, 09:10 PM
Really? I know how to spell originalist, and I am one, which means I believe in the original intent of the Constitution, as Ron Paul does. I'm a fat little grandma. In any case, you are deluded if you think Gary Johnson is a liberty candidate, or if you think he is interested in the Constitution as Ron Paul is. Johnson is not a Libertarian, he is not the anti-war candidate, and he does not believe in liberty for all. He believes in using politics to get rich, and he won't care about you at all if he is ever elected to anything, unless your aim is for Johnson to get rich because of politics.

Blarg, blarg, blarg.....

I'm a skinny old grandpa, and the name jab is always a indication the other poster has no point to make. Because I have been running that screen name since 2007 and by jove, I never realized that name wasn't a correct spelling of originalist. Boy, you sure got me there.

(got any pics you can send me?)

Danke
08-21-2016, 09:14 PM
Blarg, blarg, blarg.....

I'm a skinny old grandpa, and the name jab is always a indication the other poster has no point to make. Because I have been running that screen name since 2007 and by jove, I never realized that name wasn't a correct spelling of originalist. Boy, you sure got me there.

(got any pics you can send me?)

http://i0.wp.com/knuckledraggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/white-trash.jpg?w=375

nikcers
08-21-2016, 09:16 PM
Blarg, blarg, blarg.....

I'm a skinny old grandpa, and the name jab is always a indication the other poster has no point to make. Because I have been running that screen name since 2007 and by jove, I never realized that name wasn't a correct spelling of originalist. Boy, you sure got me there.

(got any pics you can send me?)

customer who drop-kicked cake charged (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2016/06/21/woman-kick-kroger-cake-charge/86202470/)
http://www.13newsnow.com/img/resize/content.13newsnow.com/photo/2016/08/17/download_1466887774777_3421579_ver1.0_147146020951 5_5409184_ver1.0.jpg

phill4paul
08-21-2016, 09:16 PM
Really? I know how to spell originalist, and I am one, which means I believe in the original intent of the Constitution, as Ron Paul does. I'm a fat little grandma. In any case, you are deluded if you think Gary Johnson is a liberty candidate, or if you think he is interested in the Constitution as Ron Paul is. Johnson is not a Libertarian, he is not the anti-war candidate, and he does not believe in liberty for all. He believes in using politics to get rich, and he won't care about you at all if he is ever elected to anything, unless your aim is for Johnson to get rich because of politics.

Do you feel the same about Hillary and Trump?

euphemia
08-22-2016, 06:58 AM
I have said very clearly that Hillary is a money wh*re. Trump is Trump being Trump.

The other thing I have said is that there is every chance Darrell Castle would appoint judges that would follow the Constitution. There is a pretty good chance Trump would appoint good judges. There is no chance at all Johnson or Clinton would do that.

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2016, 10:00 AM
I have said very clearly that Hillary is a money wh*re. Trump is Trump being Trump.

Johnson's wrong on gay cakes...TRAITOR TO THE REPUBLIC WHO WANTS TO KILL US ALL AND FEED US TO THE CHINESE!

Trump's wrong on the Fed, the wars, spending, stimulus, bailouts, socialized medicine, the PATRIOT Act, etc, etc.....ah, boys will be boys.

:rolleyes:

At least other Trumpkins around here have the courage to admit that they're Trumpkins.

...though I can understand the motivation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF5NW94K51A

...nobody wants a big T carved in their forehead.

euphemia
08-22-2016, 10:17 AM
I'm not a Trump supporter. Despise Hillary. Strongly dislike Johnson, and it's for more reasons than just the cake thing. He is not a principled man, and he is in politics to make money. He wants liberty for some, but not for all. That's not liberty.

We don't yet know who will be on our ballot in November. There really isn't anyone besides Castle whose views I appreciate.

euphemia
08-22-2016, 10:42 AM
r3v, your guy is shooting himself in his collectivist foot as often as he can, that's no reason to lash out at me. I, and many others here have proven that the Libertarian Party has chosen very bad candidates this go around. They are not worth supporting. It's not enough that Johnson is someone else. The issue is that he does not believe in personal liberty in many ways, and he either self-contradicts, or Weld contraticts. Horrible ticket.

specsaregood
08-22-2016, 11:01 AM
r3v, your guy is shooting himself in his collectivist foot as often as he can, that's no reason to lash out at me. I, and many others here have proven that the Libertarian Party has chosen very bad candidates this go around. They are not worth supporting. It's not enough that Johnson is someone else. The issue is that he does not believe in personal liberty in many ways, and he either self-contradicts, or Weld contraticts. Horrible ticket.

Yeah, I have no idea why one would want to send the LP the message that these are the types of candidates they should nominate if they want votes, you'll just get more of the same. I'll be voting for Castle or nobody.

roho76
08-22-2016, 11:40 AM
I'm not a geneticist (I presume neither are you?), but I don't see why not.

Certain diseases are known to have genetic causes.

We can manipulate genes.

....?



Was it arrogant to invent penicillin?



...not sure I follow your reasoning.

We've cured lots of diseases, but others might pop up, so we should stop trying to cure disease...

...why?

Just because we can manipulate genes doesn't mean we should. It takes longer to approve medicine through the FDA for market than the time we've been manipulating genes with any real data on the subject.

Using penicillin is not manipulating genes. Stop comparing the two.

euphemia
08-22-2016, 11:43 AM
The other question about human gene manipulation is, where do those genes come from? Maybe this explains why Johnson is so intent on preserving the abortion industrial complex.

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2016, 11:44 AM
Just because we can manipulate genes doesn't mean we should.

Why shouldn't we?

I assume you're not a geneticist either, so I don't expect a technical answer.

Just describe to me the real-world negative consequences you expect to arise.

Origanalist
08-22-2016, 11:46 AM
Just because we can manipulate genes doesn't mean we should. It takes longer to approve medicine through the FDA for market than the time we've been manipulating genes with any real data on the subject.

Using penicillin is not manipulating genes. Stop comparing the two.

He does tend to flail about.

euphemia
08-22-2016, 11:46 AM
Why shouldn't we?

I assume you're not a geneticist either, so I don't expect a technical answer.

Just describe to me the real-world negative consequences you expect to arise.

So you think the abortion industrial complex exists to provide a steady supply of human tissue for the purposes of experimentation?

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2016, 11:46 AM
The other question about human gene manipulation is, where do those genes come from?

O, I don't know, how about donated blood?

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2016, 11:47 AM
So you think the abortion industrial complex exists to provide a steady supply of human tissue for the purposes of experimentation?

So you think aborted fetuses are the only source of human DNA?

euphemia
08-22-2016, 11:50 AM
So you think aborted fetuses are the only source of human DNA?

Not clever enough. You avoided the question to avoid the possible thought that your candidate is a gruesome man with no principles.

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2016, 11:56 AM
Not clever enough. You avoided the question to avoid the possible thought that your candidate is a gruesome man with no principles.

Personally, I don't care about abortion one way or the other.

But abortion is neither here nor there, since there's no indication that aborted fetuses are being or need to be used for this kind of research.

One does not (obviously) need aborted fetuses to obtain human DNA.

Do you have some kind of source for your hysterical accusations or are you just making things up?

nikcers
08-22-2016, 11:57 AM
Just because we can manipulate genes doesn't mean we should. It takes longer to approve medicine through the FDA for market than the time we've been manipulating genes with any real data on the subject.

Using penicillin is not manipulating genes. Stop comparing the two.

Just because i can order a pizza through my cellphone at the push of a button while on the toilet doesn't mean I should.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/265/jxtV0.jpg

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2016, 12:24 PM
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/265/jxtV0.jpg

I failed. :(

...was really looking forward to getting my tail and cloven hooves installed.

nikcers
08-22-2016, 01:07 PM
I failed. :(

...was really looking forward to getting my tail and cloven hooves installed.
I saw on TV the other day someone had a chainsaw for an arm, I am sure they can do it, the government just doesn't let them.

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/uruguayan-tatoo-artist-victor-hugo-peralta-poses-for-a-photographer-picture-id460816145?k=6&m=460816145&s=594x594&w=0&h=18xqxzUZssViBh-mv_KxAbfsSmp5hgn4OA8mWaADJWI=

euphemia
08-22-2016, 04:03 PM
Personally, I don't care about abortion one way or the other.

You should care. You should care a lot. Abortion is one end of the spectrum. Withdrawal of care is the other end. Is that where you think the human genes should come from? You never did say.

And just to be clear: People who want to donate their bodies to science are certainly free to do so. I'm an organ donor. But aborted babies and the poor or homeless who have died should not be used. Remember the Planned Parenthood videos? Whatever else you want to say about them, that woman can't unsay what she said.

roho76
08-22-2016, 04:31 PM
Why shouldn't we?

I assume you're not a geneticist either, so I don't expect a technical answer.

Just describe to me the real-world negative consequences you expect to arise.

As soon as you tell me everything that could go wrong in minute detail. Put your body were your mouth is. Otherwise, people who don't know sh*t about gene manipulation, like Gary Johnson, should probably shut the f*ck up about it. Especially if they want to be the dictator of Mericuh.

nikcers
08-27-2016, 12:57 AM
MUH SPECIAL OLYMPICS

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
08-27-2016, 01:30 AM
Johnson: "Please assassinate me just like Michael Hastings!"

This has been my chief concern with this guy since 2011. He comes off as a naive flake who will get bamboozled by the NWO if he ever actually got into power. And now we're seeing that come to pass with this NWO creep Weld dragging Johnson to the TPP and all the rest of it.