• Occam's Banana's Avatar
    43 replies | 936 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 06:22 PM
    Definitional fiat is every discussant's prerogative. Thus, if you like, you (and Ayn Rand) are free to use the word "elephant" to denote "a small furry animal that purrs and uses a litter box" - but this will not turn cats into elephants or elephants into cats. If one is not unconditionally entitled to a thing (that is, if it can be "taken away because "), then it is not a right; it is at best a revocable privilege (regardless of what particular labels you might prefer to use in place of any of those terms). No, you did not give three scenarios where it is the case that "there is no possib the person is innocent." You gave three highly generalized examples of things that might provide some amount of evidence that a person may be guilty. The former and the latter are not even remotely the same things. There are far, far too many possibilities for (not to mention documented cases of) false confessions, doctored evidence (including video), and erroneous "eye" witness testimony to take seriously any claim that they are even commensurable, let alone the same.
    43 replies | 936 view(s)
  • kahless's Avatar
    Today, 05:28 PM
    Have you not learned anything here over the years to what happens when any law or government entity is provided elevated status over another group of individuals? Vigilant against threats in general since that is the nature of business and this world. The fact of life is it happens more so with women and minorities since the government given elevated status. Whereas white males not of any protected group do not have the power to hit back for their failures and game the system with a pay out. There were no generalizations made, it is risk management. There are people in general regardless of race or gender that will always blame everyone else for their failures or lot in life. Some have also been wronged by others or the system itself, but not their employer. In the workplace however these same people use the government given opportunity to make some money from those excuses against those who are innocent of any wrong doing. They will however justify it otherwise to themselves no matter who they hurt since our laws and Progtard culture says they are the victim so they feel they have a license to blame those whom are innocent. This regardless that the employer is color and gender blind, gave them work, gave them repeated chances to do their work, given them a repeated helping hand, have had them in our homes, with our families and considered them friends. Nope, the government given dollar signs are there, it is never their fault and culturally it being drilled into their head that they are always the victim. You could be Mother Theresa to some people but it does not matter with some people. Yes it does suck.
    86 replies | 1872 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 03:34 PM
    First, you bitch and whine about people you say are all, like, "me, me, me" ... ... and then you're all, like, "me, me, me" ... :rolleyes: Hypocrite.
    46 replies | 918 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Today, 02:24 PM
    I'm glad she finally pointed out how drugs can ruin your life. I guess it should be, the war on drugs can ruin your life.
    11 replies | 125 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 02:15 PM
    If it can be "taken away," then it is not a right - it is a (revocable) privilege. (Which is precisely what I meant when I said, "Anything you might lose when you violate the rights of others cannot ipso facto properly have been said to be a right to begin with.") And the notion of a right "to be free from coercion" is nonsensical. The application of coercion/force is sometimes necessary in order to enforce rights. You cannot reasonably speak about rights at all without involving the possibility of coercion. You have the right to be free from aggressive or initiatory coercion/force, but you do not have the "right" to be free from defensive or retaliatory coercion/force. IOW: It makes no sense to speak of "taking away" someone's rights "because ." It is a contradiction to do so.
    43 replies | 936 view(s)
  • kahless's Avatar
    Today, 01:32 PM
    Even when I think back 20-30 years ago, after seeing some of the bs accusations against some of my colleagues I made sure meetings with women were always held in one of the all glass conference rooms with the doors open. If a woman came in my office and closed the door, I would open it and walk outside the office to continue the discussion. Now that was back then. The amount of work that needs to be done to watch your back with women and minorities is counter productive. They get a free pass for misconduct far more than white males. Even some who commit wildly blatant misconduct level some sort of accusation when written up or terminated. Just when you think it cannot get any worse I listen to some of these women on Lawrence O'ODonnell, wtf. Some are such hypocrites. They want to be treated like men in the office but once you do you get accused. While at the same time some of these women are far more obnoxious and insulting compared to their male counterparts. You have the type that act like the female version of Bill O in that old video from years ago, but God forbid you raise your voice at even a slightly higher level to them.
    86 replies | 1872 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 01:23 PM
    I understand it, too. (I shed not a single tear when Dahmer got shanked.) But it doesn't signify. Which is the greater moral outrage: to execute a wrongly-convicted innocent, or to fail to indulge the desires of people who want the death penalty for a guy like Jeffrey Dahmer?
    43 replies | 936 view(s)
  • kahless's Avatar
    Today, 01:03 PM
    You might be right about how he treated his staff and I always get a kick out of that video, but do you think you should still be judged or have not changed from an incident that occurred 30 years ago? Does being an asshole at work now make one a sexual predator, sexual harasser and you should lose your job for it? They replaced him with Tucker and from what I have seen so far he does not appear to be towing the Neocon line.
    86 replies | 1872 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Today, 12:19 PM
    Yes, it's called freedom. The More Government, the more laws and with each law we lose a little more freedom.
    46 replies | 918 view(s)
  • Original_Intent's Avatar
    Today, 10:31 AM
    Yeah, and in the Huffington Post, no less.
    5 replies | 117 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Today, 09:08 AM
    How inept of the cop, not to know the dog wasn't the man the woman had reported in her yard. Maybe she could have investigated the prowler, instead of calling the cops.
    5 replies | 127 view(s)
  • Original_Intent's Avatar
    Today, 08:48 AM
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html
    5 replies | 117 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Today, 07:59 AM
    Strawman. But I believe *the states* have a right to make zoning laws. Fucking liberals.
    11 replies | 248 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Today, 07:56 AM
    Yep. This place definitely isn't what it used to be. The liberals win.
    11 replies | 248 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Today, 07:08 AM
    Yep, charity at gunpoint isn't really charity.
    46 replies | 918 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Today, 07:04 AM
    As if with our controlled media, we have fair free elections? -Rep
    46 replies | 918 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 01:53 AM
    Questions of criminal guilt are insescapably emprical in nature, and are therefore always subject to the possibility of doubt. "Overwhelmingness" (whatever that is supposed to mean) has got nothing to do with it. Among those who have been found "guilty," how do you propose to effectively distinguish between those who are "overwhelmingly" guilty and those are "merely" guilty? (Yet another trial process? A coin flip? Magical divination? What, then?) And having done so (by whatever means). what jurisprudential principles are then to be used to determine the punishments that are proper for those who have been found "overwhelmingly" guilty of some crime as distinct from the punishments (for exactly the same crime, mind you) that are proper for those who have been found "merely" guilty? There are verdicts of "guilty" or "not guilty" - and those verdicts may be correct or incorrect. That is all. And the fact that there may be correct "guilty" verdicts (Dahmer, etc.) does not rectify or abnegate incorrect "guilty" verdicts, of which there will always and inevitably be some number. Under any system of capital punishment, no matter how stringent it may be, there will always be errors. Thus, under any such system, there will always be innocents killed in the name of punishing those who kill innocents. It is difficult to conceive a more profound and indefensible hypocrisy than this.
    43 replies | 936 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Today, 12:43 AM
    So you're saying the government should ban things?
    11 replies | 248 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 12:02 AM
    At first I was like ... ... but then I was like ...
    180 replies | 3427 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:26 PM
    Are you suggesting that the "Court of Rights and Responsibilities" and the "National Sharing Fund" could be anything other than salubrious and upright? :eek:
    4 replies | 204 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:40 PM
    These are about as close to the old bulbs as I could find. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01HDZWOUS/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 They dim nicely too.
    18 replies | 225 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:23 PM
    I'll bet they can't replicate Monty Python's three sided "Matching Tie and Handkerchief" album on a CD.
    18 replies | 225 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:38 PM
    Any time a title claims "The Truth" it never is.
    4 replies | 171 view(s)
  • kahless's Avatar
    04-21-2017, 10:51 PM
    Have you even bothered to listen to some of these women? Complimenting a woman in the office or asking her out at diner outside the office is not sexual harassment nor does it make a person a predator. Especially when he continued to promote her book and have her on the show. Another claims he called me "hysterical" which he told her he would say the same to a man based on her response. That is sexual harassment now, are you f*cking kidding me. If these accusations were sexual harassment then more than half the men in this country would be put out of a job. Will we have to keep our phones on record every time we talk to a woman in the office to protect ourselves from false accusations now? Since that is where we are headed if they are going to make this garbage go mainstream. These absurd accusations diminish what women suffer from real predators and sexual harassment. This is one of those times where I believe it is necessary to defend those we sometimes disagree with before it comes back to haunt us. By giving them and these Progressive think tanks that are behind it cover for their despicable actions, it will come back to bite us. The fact they took him down without objection I can guarantee you at some point they will do the same to Rand, Amash and other liberty candidates.
    86 replies | 1872 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    04-21-2017, 03:41 PM
    We knew he was not a liberal.
    43 replies | 936 view(s)
  • angelatc's Avatar
    55 replies | 1989 view(s)
More Activity

47 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    He's not a new member. He's been here for years.
  2. I am sure you are happy to see me back so I thought I would take a little initiative and say hello.
  3. View Conversation
    I'll return the rep just give me time.
  4. View Conversation
    Proof Of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey Into The Afterlife with Dr. Eben Alexander III

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSb3G53HsA
  5. View Conversation
    You're welcome.
  6. View Conversation
    google Anna Mae Aquash
  7. View Conversation
    neg rep me, all you want. i still love you. :P
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 47
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
About LibertyEagle

Basic Information

Signature


================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

The Property Basis of Rights

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
51,899
Posts Per Day
14.34
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
47
Most Recent Message
06-04-2015 03:15 AM
General Information
Join Date
05-28-2007
Referrals
2

65 Friends

  1. AdamT AdamT is offline

    Member

    AdamT
  2. adissa adissa is offline

    Banned

    adissa
  3. american.swan american.swan is offline

    Member

    american.swan
  4. angelatc angelatc is online now

    @AngelaTC

    angelatc
  5. BeFranklin BeFranklin is offline

    Member

    BeFranklin
  6. bobbyw24 bobbyw24 is offline

    Banned

    bobbyw24
  7. Bryan Bryan is offline

    Admin

    Bryan
  8. CaptainAmerica CaptainAmerica is offline

    Member

    CaptainAmerica
  9. CaseyJones CaseyJones is offline

    Member

    CaseyJones
  10. Conservative Christian
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 65
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

04-07-2017


04-06-2017


03-30-2017


03-03-2017


03-02-2017


02-28-2017


12-20-2016

  • 09:35 AM - Deleted Posts

09-20-2016


09-11-2016


09-07-2016


07-19-2016


07-18-2016

  • 10:13 PM - Deleted Posts

07-16-2016


07-15-2016


07-09-2016


07-04-2016


06-28-2016



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 141 1231151101 ... LastLast

04-16-2017


04-13-2017


04-11-2017


04-10-2017


04-09-2017



Page 1 of 141 1231151101 ... LastLast