Oscar flap 'ludicrous' and get rid of Black History Month

[Rob Roy]

The bottom line is......They don't report news. I don't like the left leaning CBS either! I want truth! Not conjecture, NOT opinion!

I have news for you right wing idiots.....The pitchforks will be coming if you continue your GREED! The rest of you need to clear your heads and figure out it's those with the money that are IN power and YOU don't matter any more! The "middle" class is disappearing before our eye's and the plutocrats in charge only worry about who they can control next to keep the cash flow up!
It's profit at the cost of people! Oh hell, why do I bother? Those with eyes, but can not see.

BTW. If I want real world news - I listen to the BBC

Your doom and gloom, fear mongering right wing drivel.....Plays directly into the hands of the people you believe are hiding under every bush.....

You sound like you've made a connection that money owns government privilege, we agree there somewhat.

You requested truth. Okay here it is...Politics is not the answer.

Arguments about which master is the best are not arguments for freedom.

Replacing the bad master with a "good master" might make the whippings less frequent (for awhile), or change which crimes are punishable by whipping but that isn't the same thing as freedom either.


BTW - Can you delegate a right you do not possess?

 

[Rob Roy]

You seem to be quite bent on this notion that "people can't delegate rights they don't have" when I just got done explaining to you that when people go through the process of a public election and they get elected to office by the people they represent, that gives them the authority to write and pass legislation. The power of election (representation of the people) gives them that right.

So now you're repeating a fallacy AND continuing to be in conflict with your own stated belief that people can't delegate a right they do not possess.

You are claiming that a majority of people all having ZERO right to do something which would be wrong if you or I did it... can now vote something which we BOTH agree is wrong for either of us to do into a moral right or make it legitimate if we just get enough people to go along with it.

By virtue of numerical superiority we can turn shitty things an individual does into legitimate things if a gang does it. THAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT? It is a poor argument and a rationalization.
You have offered ZERO evidence to refute my assertion that what is wrong for an individual to do is also wrong for a group of individuals to do.

If it's wrong for either of us to delegate rights we do not possess, it's wrong for a gang of us too.

 

[Padawanbater2]

So now you're repeating a fallacy AND continuing to be in conflict with your own stated belief that people can't delegate a right they do not possess.

You are claiming that a majority of people all having ZERO right to do something which would be wrong if you or I did it... can now vote something which we BOTH agree is wrong for either of us to do into a moral right or make it legitimate if we just get enough people to go along with it.

By virtue of numerical superiority we can turn shitty things an individual does into legitimate things if a gang does it. THAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT? It is a poor argument and a rationalization.
You have offered ZERO evidence to refute my assertion that what is wrong for an individual to do is also wrong for a group of individuals to do.

If it's wrong for either of us to delegate rights we do not possess, it's wrong for a gang of us too.

Society elects someone to public office, their job is to manage how that society operates, so when they get elected, that's precisely what they're there to do; represent the interests of the people who elected them

Regular citizens don't have the authority to write/pass legislation, congresspeople, senators, people that run for office do. That's how our system of government functions. I'm not sure how you can believe your argument that "they can't do it" remains valid when pretty clearly, they do do it. "It's wrong when you or I do it..."... because we weren't elected to public office for exactly that reason.

 

[Rob Roy]

Society elects someone to public office, their job is to manage how that society operates, so when they get elected, that's precisely what they're there to do; represent the interests of the people who elected them

Regular citizens don't have the authority to write/pass legislation, congresspeople, senators, people that run for office do. That's how our system of government functions. I'm not sure how you can believe your argument that "they can't do it" remains valid when pretty clearly, they do do it. "It's wrong when you or I do it..."... because we weren't elected to public office for exactly that reason.

Thanks for reciting again how the illegitimate gang operates. There's no need to do that, it is well established what they do. Your repeating it does nothing to explain your own contradiction.


Where does the source of their legitimacy come from if EVERY ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED AND EVERY ONE OF THE VOTERS has zero authority to do what they do or to DELEGATE the authority to do what they do?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Thanks for reciting again how the illegitimate gang operates. There's no need to do that, it is well established what they do. Your repeating it does nothing to explain your own contradiction.


Where does the source of their legitimacy come from if EVERY ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED AND EVERY ONE OF THE VOTERS has zero authority to do what they do or to DELEGATE the authority to do what they do?

Through voting in public elections. Democracy

 

[Rob Roy]

Through voting in public elections. Democracy

You're still not addressing your OWN contradiction. You agreed that nobody can delegate a right they do not possess.

Then when faced with my followup questions you doubled back and began offering rationalizations which contradict your first belief.

The problem is in YOUR belief (and the indoctrinated belief of many others) that some people have more rights than others.

The authority of government CAN'T be legitimate based in your first correct belief that nobody can delegate a right they do not possess.

When you stop believing in two opposing things at once you will be able to see things much clearer, Grasshopper.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You're still not addressing your OWN contradiction. You agreed that nobody can delegate a right they do not possess.

Then when faced with my followup questions you doubled back and began offering rationalizations which contradict your first belief.

The problem is in YOUR belief (and the indoctrinated belief of many others) that some people have more rights than others.

The authority of government CAN'T be legitimate based in your first correct belief that nobody can delegate a right they do not possess.

When you stop believing in two opposing things at once you will be able to see things much clearer, Grasshopper.

Nobody can delegate a right they do not possess until they get elected to public office where it becomes their job to represent the public interest

Pretty simple stuff here, no contradictions

 

[Rob Roy]

Nobody can delegate a right they do not possess until they get elected to public office where it becomes their job to represent the public interest

Pretty simple stuff here, no contradictions

I'm afraid that one made my ludicrousity (sic) meter hit the red zone.

Of course there is a contradiction. If you can't delegate a right you do not possess, and nobody has that right in the first place...
it DOESN'T EXIST. An aggregate of people ALL believing in the Easter Bunny does not make the Easter bunny legitimate or real.

You cannot vote a thing that doesn't exist into existence. If IT WERE POSSIBLE (it isn't) we could vote the Easter Bunny into existence couldn't we?

The belief that government is legitimate and arises from a just means has been defeated by me and in part by you. Except you then suspend your first correct belief in order to permit your second incorrect belief to continue to exist.

Like I said before you are not alone, there are lots of people that have been duped just as you have been.

Thanks for trying though.



So while you continue to believe in a contradiction, that alone can't make two opposing things both valid at the same time. It is impossible.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Climate change - "They're trying to tax me to provide for third world nations!"

Media - "The liberal lamestream media has perpetuated a liberal conspiracy forever, now it's my turn to get back at them!"

Campaign finance - "The unions have been buying elections forever, now it's my turn!"

etc.

Victim mentality with a childlike sense of entitlement, everything you project onto those you hate. It's cute.

1. Fact, admitted even by your own leaders in the hoax, justified, but admitted. How is pointing out admissions by your side qualify as victimhood? Nice try. Fail.

2. The MSM doesn't even try to hide their bias any longer, but how do you come up with its my turn to get back at them? Do I have a boycott I'm heading up that I don't know about. Fail.

3. Again, straight up fact. Unless unions HAVEN'T been making political contributions for years. You might want to tell them, they haven't tried to hide it either. I do believe the playing field is fair now and I do think YOU'RE playing the victim and hypocrite. Fail.

Childlike sense of entitlement? Again, the foundation of YOUR political philosophy and the antithesis of mine. Staggering hypocrisy.

 

[pnwmystery]

1. Fact, admitted even by your own leaders in the hoax, justified, but admitted. How is pointing out admissions by your side qualify as victimhood? Nice try. Fail.

2. The MSM doesn't even try to hide their bias any longer, but how do you come up with its my turn to get back at them? Do I have a boycott I'm heading up that I don't know about. Fail.

3. Again, straight up fact. Unless unions HAVEN'T been making political contributions for years. You might want to tell them, they haven't tried to hide it either. I do believe the playing field is fair now and I do think YOU'RE playing the victim and hypocrite. Fail.

Childlike sense of entitlement? Again, the foundation of YOUR political philosophy and the antithesis of mine. Staggering hypocrisy.

Loool you just proved all his points.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Loool you just proved all his points.

Yes, that's what I did by proving liberals have the victim mentality and childlike sense of entitlement. Loooooooooooool.

Maybe if you guys mash your fat little sausage fingers on the like button enough, all of America will believe that democrats aren't always wailing about being victims. Good luck with that.

 

[pnwmystery]

Yes, that's what I did by proving liberals have the victim mentality and childlike sense of entitlement. Loooooooooooool.

Maybe if you guys mash your fat little sausage fingers on the like button enough, all of America will believe that democrats aren't always wailing about being victims. Good luck with that.

No, you proved what he said. That you have the victim mentality. Us liberals are trying to make it better for everyone, you're trying to make it better for yourself.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

No, you proved what he said. That you have the victim mentality. Us liberals are trying to make it better for everyone, you're trying to make it better for yourself.

First, it's "We liberals".

Second, horseshit, it's class warfare and you just happen to be in the class that benefits from your agenda.

Third, your definition of victim is someone who looks after their own welfare? Really? You're not any better at grammar and definitions, than you are at synonyms.

Wowsers.

 

[pnwmystery]

First, it's "We liberals".

Second, horseshit, it's class warfare and you just happen to be in the class that benefits from your agenda.

Third, your definition of victim is someone who looks after their own welfare? Really? You're not any better at grammar and definitions, than you are at synonyms.

Wowsers.

It's all "me me me," they're taking from "me me me." They're oppressing "me me me (for being white)." They're taking my "liberties," when we're expanding them. Third, your paragraph structure sucks, your sentence structure is flawed, and we already proved that you're not good at all with synonyms, however you think you are. If I really wanted to write formally I would - I wasn't aware I needed to with you, princess.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

It's all "me me me," they're taking from "me me me." They're oppressing "me me me (for being white)." They're taking my "liberties," when we're expanding them. Third, your paragraph structure sucks, your sentence structure is flawed, and we already proved that you're not good at all with synonyms, however you think you are. If I really wanted to write formally I would - I wasn't aware I needed to with you, princess.

Yes, please link where I posted they're oppressing me for being white. I'd love to see that. Would you like ten thousand examples of liberals crying victimhood? It should take a 30 second Gugleè search. You've got to be fucking around, victimhood IS liberalism. Lol.

Pro tip: People whose grammar looks like they've had a recent lobotomy, shouldn't be judging anyone's writing ability.

 

[pnwmystery]

Pro tip: People whose grammar looks like they've had a recent lobotomy, shouldn't be judging anyone's writing ability.

You also have no idea what liberalism is apparently, which is pretty laughable. You really should follow your own advice. Guglee? Come on now, not even close in pronunciation.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

You also have no idea what liberalism is apparently, which is pretty laughable. You really should follow your own advice. Guglee? Come on now, not even close in pronunciation.

I understand you're a noob on RIU, but just because a long running joke/term is above your head, doesn't mean you should comment. Unless you like looking like an idiot. Then, by all means, proceed.

You really should let Pad go it on his own, you aren't helping his cause.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I'm afraid that one made my ludicrousity (sic) meter hit the red zone.

Of course there is a contradiction. If you can't delegate a right you do not possess, and nobody has that right in the first place...
it DOESN'T EXIST. An aggregate of people ALL believing in the Easter Bunny does not make the Easter bunny legitimate or real.

You cannot vote a thing that doesn't exist into existence. If IT WERE POSSIBLE (it isn't) we could vote the Easter Bunny into existence couldn't we?

The belief that government is legitimate and arises from a just means has been defeated by me and in part by you. Except you then suspend your first correct belief in order to permit your second incorrect belief to continue to exist.

Like I said before you are not alone, there are lots of people that have been duped just as you have been.

Thanks for trying though.



So while you continue to believe in a contradiction, that alone can't make two opposing things both valid at the same time. It is impossible.

How does a person obtain the legitimate right to arrest you? They go to a police academy, right? When they complete their training, they become police officers with the full authority to put people in handcuffs and take them to jail. Where did this authority originate? Through their successful passage of their training at the police academy. Similarly, when a person gets elected to public office, they obtain the right to legislate.

Again, pretty simple stuff here bud...

 

[Rob Roy]

How does a person obtain the legitimate right to arrest you? They go to a police academy, right? When they complete their training, they become police officers with the full authority to put people in handcuffs and take them to jail. Where did this authority originate? Through their successful passage of their training at the police academy. Similarly, when a person gets elected to public office, they obtain the right to legislate.

Again, pretty simple stuff here bud...

In order to arrest a person, there should be a real crime that took place, not a statutory edict violation that has more to do with disobedience than a real crime...for starters.

No, you are confused. A cop has the POWER to arrest you, that isn't the same as a right.

A cop is a person, we already agreed that no people can delegate rights to another person which they themselves do not possess.

You keep spinning what happens as if it is legitimate, "because it's legal" .

All people have the right to defend themselves, no people have the right to use offensive force....even if they are cops.
A legislative power is not a right....learn the difference.


Here...enjoy....

 

[Rob Roy]

No, you proved what he said. That you have the victim mentality. Us liberals are trying to make it better for everyone, you're trying to make it better for yourself.

Is it better for everyone, if they are peaceful, and they make their own decisions in life or is it better for everyone if other people make their choices for them and those choices must be obeyed or the person will be harmed ?

How do you use force to make a peaceful persons life better for them? I'd love to hear your explanation.