• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report shows how recession hit families [W:391, 502]

haymarket said:
You seem to be ignoring the part about fair compensation being paid to the person.

Now why did you leave that important part out? :roll:
Click to expand...

Because, despite the fact that compensation is given, the land is being taken against the will of the owner.
 
they dispense the usual trite and stereotyped arguments against without having to really deal with the nuances and subtleties of individual positions.
Click to expand...
Exactly its a piece of cake to dismiss yer commie-lib machinations, they aren't even worth considering.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I repeat, nothing here fits that definition. Nothing. Take a deep breath. Go over what we're actually talking about. Nothing here fits your definition.
Click to expand...

Taking a person's land against his will. That is most definitely an initiation of aggression*.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
 
Federalist , I wanna violate & damage another person's body today, preferably an attractive young women (J/K)
Save America, kick a commie for mommie today
 
PS Your Overly Sensitive Nature Offends Me ;)
 
Federalist said:
Because, despite the fact that compensation is given, the land is being taken against the will of the owner.
Click to expand...

And where do you get the belief that you own the land in the first place and the will of the supposed owner is equal to the powers of an all powerful god?
 
Boo Radley said:
I repeat, nothing here fits that definition. Nothing. Take a deep breath. Go over what we're actually talking about. Nothing here fits your definition.
Click to expand...

Exactly..... and the reason it does not fit is that this one from Federalist - like many such right libertarian principles and beliefs - are constructed contrary to reality and the world we live in. They go through great mental gymnastics and all sort of mental contortions to come up with axioms that make no actual sense in the society we live in but are dishonestly constructed to simply justify their anti-government and anti-social extremist views.
 
Federalist said:
Taking a person's land against his will. That is most definitely an initiation of aggression*.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
Click to expand...

No, not really. As noted above. There is proper compensation.
 
haymarket said:
Exactly..... and the reason it does not fit is that this one from Federalist - like many such right libertarian principles and beliefs - are constructed contrary to reality and the world we live in. They go through great mental gymnastics and all sort of mental contortions to come up with axioms that make no actual sense in the society we live in but are dishonestly constructed to simply justify their anti-government and anti-social extremist views.
Click to expand...

Quite true. I went thought this earlier. He misses all the reasoning, the factual compensation, and the history behind such issues, and leaps straight to exaggeration.
 
haymarket said:
And where do you get the belief that you own the land in the first place and the will of the supposed owner is equal to the powers of an all powerful god?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that people don't own the land they have purchased? Going commie on us now?
 
I suppose anyone who is dependant on the government for their very survival (in their minds if not in reality)
must continue to espouse their socialist rhetoric to anyone and everyone is shouting distance.
Certainly when the balloon goes up they will be long forgotten in the shuffling madness of the loco-
motive breath, runs the all time loser headlong to his death
 
Boo Radley said:
Quite true. I went thought this earlier. He misses all the reasoning, the factual compensation, and the history behind such issues, and leaps straight to exaggeration.
Click to expand...

Exactly. When one does those things - it reeks of being so far out of the norm that they person marginalizes themselves via their own extremism. In the end, they become so far apart from normal society that they have to redefine everything to suit their own twisted beliefs so that it all fits. Its like a person trying to put together a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and using scissors to cut off all the curved shapes so they fit together easily for themselves and the resulting mess is simply ignored that it does not resemble any real image.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, not really. As noted above. There is proper compensation.
Click to expand...

False. If there were "proper" compensation, the owner would sell voluntarily. Obviously the compensation is not sufficient, which is why it is necessary to initiate aggression* and take the land.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
 
Federalist said:
Are you saying that people don't own the land they have purchased? Going commie on us now?
Click to expand...

I merely asked you where you get the belief that they own the land in the first place. Can you answer that?

If there were "proper" compensation, the owner would sell voluntarily.
Click to expand...

In the USA, we operate on a FAIR MARKET compensation system which gives the individual the opportunity to make a case as to what is proper.
 
haymarket said:
I merely asked you where you get the belief that they own the land in the first place. Can you answer that?
Click to expand...

Sure I can answer that: Because the previous owner transferred title to me.

In the USA, we operate on a FAIR MARKET compensation system which gives the individual the opportunity to make a case as to what is proper.
Click to expand...

And ultimately be forced through the initiation of aggression* to sell even if his doesn't wish to.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
 
Federalist said:
False. If there were "proper" compensation, the owner would sell voluntarily. Obviously the compensation is not sufficient, which is why it is necessary to initiate aggression* and take the land.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
haymarket said:
And what made them the owner?

And where did that title come from?
Click to expand...

Fascinating. So now your are arguing that people don't own their land. Well, in that case, I guess anyone can just move onto your land and start using it.
 
haymarket said:
And what made them the owner?

And where did that title come from?
Click to expand...
and to think he spent decades filling young minds with mush?
Be advised those who command wealth and assets do so because they are capable
because if they are not it will be transferred to those who can, by the market not at the point of a gun like you'd want.
What's that dude always repeatin' ? Oh here it is:
* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
or your hero's fav:
sfl312.jpg
 
randel said:
i'd say that that is a spot on analysis
Click to expand...

Seems your desired strategy is to be a cheerleader and never answer a direct question either. I provide data from BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the U.S. Treasury Dept. which you never refute and others claim I am interpreting inaccurately therefore one more time, what source or sources do you believe and find to be accurate if not the non partisan sources I post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom