• 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!

State Worker Beat Up At SEIU Meeting

Agnapostate said:
That's because your "libertarianism" is fraudulent, as liberty is incompatible with capitalism. I'm glad we had this little talk. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, having the freedom to own property is naturally inconsistent with capitalism, which is the economic system based on the free ownership of property.

Makes perfect sense to you, I suppose.

Not to honest people, of course, but that crime isn't committed by socialists.
 
rogerredy said:
You let me know when you want to try to stop impressing any of the forum members; you've failed miserably, and are quite boring actually. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear it; I was waiting with baited breath for a reaction. :3oops:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, having the freedom to own property is naturally inconsistent with capitalism, which is the economic system based on the free ownership of property.

Makes perfect sense to you, I suppose.

Not to honest people, of course, but that crime isn't committed by socialists.
Click to expand...

Yes, capitalism certainly does place checks on possessive property rights. Private property, of course, empowers authoritarianism as it allows some to have a dictatorial monopoly of control over a given resource that may be commonly needed but is not subject to democratic management.

That's why capitalism is authoritarian and incompatible with liberty. :shrug:
 
If we all played by your rules of using vintage meanings for words, then there would be no debate about "gay" marriage. After all, everyone gets married with the intention of becoming gay. The argument would be over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to get married. And it would be a very short argument because marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman being joined before God in a religious ceremony.

After all, "gay" became "homosexual" within the last 40 years and marriage was always religious institution until fairly recently when the government decided it could make money by charging fees for the permit.

So are you going to play nice or are you going to actually try at meaningful dialog?
 
1 Easy Target said:
And it would be a very short argument because marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman being joined before God in a religious ceremony.
Click to expand...

Which god?

THE PANTHEONS
AFRICAN GODS
AUSTRALIAN GODS
AZTEC GODS
CARIBBEAN GODS
CELTIC GODS
CHINESE GODS
EGYPTIAN GODS
FINNISH GODS
GREEK GODS
INCAN GODS
JAPANESE GODS
MAYAN GODS
MESOPOTAMIAN GODS
MIDDLE-EASTERN GODS
NATIVE AMERICAN GODS
NORSE GODS
OCEANIC GODS
ROMAN GODS
SLAVIC and BALTIC GODS
SOUTH AMERICAN GODS
SOUTH-EAST ASIAN

Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods. Mythology with a twist!
 
winston53660 said:
Which god?


Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods. Mythology with a twist!
Click to expand...

Take your pick as all of these civilizations had the institution of marriage in one form or another.

Nice segway away from the point I was making though. If you are arguing from a different dictionary, then you have little chance for meaningful discourse. I was pointing out that the meaning of words change over time. That was an effective way to demonstrate the point. It has no other purpose in this thread than to illustrate how words meanings have changed so there is no point in trying to derail this thread to a gay marriage argument that I will not bother to respond to.
:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom