Police intervene in Congressman Pete Olson's meeting

[raughammer]

You protestors sound like ignorant jerks.

Did you not receive instruct on how to behave in public when you were a child?

Animals....

[1toMuse]

@raughammer: Town Halls are platforms for constituents to connect w/ there rep.s, not to told what to think or be sold propaganda nonsence,.Congress, and all of Gov. are public sevents , they work for us, thus it rightfully angers thoughs who realize ther being sold 1/2 truths and lies. ..... = Thinking people know when to call:"Bull-Shit !" , Wile the "Sheeple get fooled. .. .........................(the protesters are awake)

[mfcobb1]

Rushtrdamus seems to be a lunatic on the rampage. Take some prozac you crazy person.

[zimalmighty]

As someone who speaks German, you need to let go of this debate over Nazi vs Socialist. Maybe if you live in such an egocentric world where the world revolves around America it makes sense. But Germans do not speak English, so Nationalsozialistische might simply mean "socialist" in English when in fact it is not. Nazism is fascist, and fascists are at the opposite of socialists. Nazism is about the state, socialism is about the worker.

[momofsarge]

I can't believe people are worried about acting "uncvil" this is why Republicans always win, they are not civil, and it is certainly NOT civil to try to deny people health care for the profits of Insurance Comapnies..and using children to evok an emotional response is NOT civil

[rooroo1988]

Quit acting like barbarians.

[AhmedM85]

This is a shame, it doesn't matter who you support, none of this helps anyone. Its detrimental to the discussion. If he is wrong, you confront him in a way that's civil. We're like dogs barking at each other.

[thrownover65]

What was it that the republicans called disruptions like this again?.... oh yeah... "Healthy discussion." We need to have respect for one another. Don't stoop down to their level.

[homersparents]

Healthcare is a service. i can never have a right to something that is a service becosue i never have a right to the labors of another.

if doctors didn't exist woudl we still have a right to that labor.

[freesk8]

Well put!

[dionusos2]

I'm a democrat, but why waste time at this rally? The video maker didn't accomplish anything. The wingnuts will continue to believe the lies

[sven0110]

Movie: Idiocracy

We are beyond it

[tangneyk]

Hahahaha! Not so loud and angry once the cops show up, huh?

What a fuckin' pussy.

And if you had a real argument, you wouldn't have to shout people down.

[fen0m]

Is this really supposed to move forward our discussion on health care?

John did you really attend this meeting just so you could make wise-assed remarks and interrupt the man while he was trying to talk?

This is seriously how elementary school kids act. How old are you?

[mistaspot1]

TURN TEXAS BLUE

Fuck these apologists for murderers!!!!!!

[bloodeternalxx]

what a circus

[freesk8]

I attended a town hall meeting with a Democratic incumbent. I was surprised at how often the rules of civility and decorum were violated by opponents of the D's health care bills.

What surprises me about this video is that the left-wing supporters of the D health care legislation show even less civility and less decorum than the right-wing protesters showed at my local forum.

[803brando]

is that any different from what you do? no it isnt, all i see here is a taste of your own medicine

[freesk8]

I, personally, was civil at the town-hall meeting I attended. It is not a taste of my own medicine.

I decry uncivil behavior from the left and the right.

My point was that in this video, the incivility was greater from the left than from the right.

This is interesting since the media is emphasizing the incivility of the right.

[Rushtrdamus]

Wiat wait wait, you detest "uncivil" behavior, yet support the T-bag movement???

You're taking ONE vid and passing sentence??

WTF? You MUST not LOOK for vids showing the right being un-civil.  I can show you at least 100 youtube accounts that regularly call Obama a NIGGER everyday.

I don't know where you grew up, but I know racism when I read it.

Calling the POTUS a nigger trumps calling him a NAZI!

[freesk8]

I merely observed that in this particular video, the incivility from the left was worse than what I observed in another forum from the right.

I agree with you that this is anecdotal, but I never drew a general conclusion.

I agree that calling Obama the n-word or calling him a NAZI is deplorable and ad hominem.

I oppose racism.

However, I do think that Obama is a socialist, and that NAZIs and Soviets were two form of socialists. Obama and the D's are moving the US in that direction.

[Rushtrdamus]

Obama is far from a socialist, and saying he IS one doesn't look good for you. It sounds like you don't think for yourself and rely too much on others to do it for you.

Nazi's were not socialists, they called themselves socialists, but were not. Theye were closer to fascists.

The soviet Union called themselves a "republic", were they?  They were Communists.

BTW, the nazis HATED the left and commies

Try some books, or at least Wikipedia.

[freesk8]

A socialist is someone who wants govt to control the economy. Obama has taken over banking and auto industries. Socialists want higher taxes and more restrictions on gun ownership. Socialists want nat health care. Ergo, Obama wants us to move in the direction of socialism.

USSR= Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

NAZI= National Socialist Party. Mussolini was a socialist before he started calling himself a fascist.

Architects hate engineers, but both are technical.

Try different books.

[Rushtrdamus]

Architects HATE engineers??? to yhe point of WAR???

Socialists want to control the means of production. Our Gov't runs LES than 2% of our economy, I'll give you that we are 2% socialist.

You TOTALLY left out REPUBLICS, huh?

Reagan was a democrat BEFORE he started calling himself a Republican, what's your point?

That Reagan wil always be a dem??

WTF?

[freesk8]

At my university, they lobbed burning things at each other annually. But my point is that just because two groups tend to hate each other, does not mean they do not share fundamental things in common. Both communists and fascists want total central control. They are two types of socialist.

Govt soaks up about 40% of the economy in taxes. So we are about 40% of the way to pure socialism.

The US is a Republic, or should be. But both the USSR and NAZI party have SOCIALIST in their names.

[freesk8]

The difference between D's and R's these days is miniscule. R's gave us the medicare drug benefit. D's voted for the PATRIOT Act and Iraq war. D's now maintain the Afghan war. D's gave us the Viet Nam war. R's overspent and started TARP bailouts.

The difference between D's and R's is minor.

I'm a Libertarian. Socially liberal and fiscally responsible.

I suggest the following books: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, The Libertarian Reader ed by David Boaz, Capit. & Freedom by Milton Friedman.

[Rushtrdamus]

I've got a book for you also, it's called a dictionary.

[freesk8]

Which word would you like me to look up for you?

[Rushtrdamus]

How the fuck did you come up with the figure of 40%? It takesd more than soaking up bits of the economy in taxes in order to be called a socialist state. The Govt. of a socialist state CONTROLS the means of production. Not taxes the means but controls it.

Right now our Govt. controls around 1% of our economy, not 40%.

The soviets also had republic in their name, funny how you would avoid THAT little fact?

[freesk8]

If the government taxes 40% of GDP, then it controls 40% of our income.

Google "US Government Spending as percent of GDP" and hit the first link, "usgovernmentspendingDOTcom."

Nice chart of data since 1903.

You have to include the national debt and unfunded entitlements to get up to 40%.

Just because the USSR called itself a Republic doesn't mean it was one. It is aspirational. They aspired to both socialism and being a republic. I'd say they achieved more of the former than the latter.

[Rushtrdamus]

THAT'S not socialism. If the Govt CONTROLED 40%, that's STILL not a true socialist state. That's why I told you to get a dictionary.

Socialism is "Govt. controling the means of production" Not taxing the means of production. If that were true, the U.S was far closer to a socialistic state in the 50's and 60's.

Our top tax rate was at 90% in the 50's and 60's.

No shit sherlock, that's what I've been saying, just because you call yourself something DOES NOT meant that's what you are.

[freesk8]

I never said the US was a pure socialist state. I said that since the govt (fed, state and local) soak up 40% of the productive product of the people, we are 40% of the way to pure socialism. Anyone who wants to move us further in that direction by raising govt taxes or spending is a socialist in my book.

The govt now regulates all publicly traded cos. It owns a controlling stake in GM. It creates monopolies in utilities, the post office, etc.

90% marginal rate only applied to the rich.

[Rushtrdamus]

In one sentence you say we aren't socialist and in another you say we are.

I guess because we have jet airplanes now, we're all Nazis? After all, THEY had jets first.

How much of the U.S.'s means of production does our Govt. control? LESS that 2%, NOT 40%. PLUS you combine all 3 forms of Govt. to get to 40%. How does that work? They all work under different laws and regs.

Dude, I recomend a civics class.

[freesk8]

The govt has formed one, giant corporation. States are bound by the bill of rights. Localities are subservient to the states. The govt we have in the US has many parts. It is incomplete to look at the 20-25% of taxes and spending that the feds make and saying that is all. States and local govts also tax and spend and control and regulate and own.

Welcome to my civics class. Tuition is free.

But so far, you are failing, my friend.

[Rushtrdamus]

DUde you "civics class" Has no civics in it.

Reality must also have a roll in life. Drugs aren't everything my friend. It seams as though that is your Main focus.

[freesk8]

Drugs are not a major issue for me, but you brought them up first at the same time you mentioned yellowcake.

Your civics has no morality in it. Survival of the fittest works for animals, but people are more sophisticated. We don't live like animals because we have a rational faculty.

But you are free to dump your rational faculty, and morality. Don't expect a rational person to agree with you if you do.

[kinsho185]

Jesus, Coby, shut the fuck up.

[iwonderwhoitis22]

Seems these Republican fucknuts are getting a taste of their own medicine.

[4bmoore]

Jon Coby desperately seeking media attention he got the last go round, with more lies. Hate to break it to you, but I doubt Olbermann will bite this time after being forced to publicly retract the story last time when Coby's lies were uncovered.

There were several cameras in the audience that did not feature Coby's running commentary where he continues to make up his own version of the story.

Enjoy propagating the lies. In case you haven't noticed, there aren't many left on your side.

[opiumthoughts]

Jesus are these adults stop crying if you dont like what the man is saying get the fuck out you moron with the camera, some people are there to listen.

[bardoc13]

Did you say the same thing when people were yelling at the democrats townhall meetings? cuz if you didn't you sir are a hypocrite.

[opiumthoughts]

I'll say it to the Democrats and Republicans if someone is on stage speaking you don't yell out your ignorant slogans that's not a debate, but in most cases the other videos I saw were people holding there hand up and chewing the speakers out. This ass clown with the camera didn't even let the guy speak just yelling shameful shameful.

[bardoc13]

Well ok at least you are consistently against rude behavior. Although in this case one could argue that what pete was saying was so rididiculous it didnt merit listening to it. He tells a story about how private insurance denies this woman and then finishes by saying the public option would have prevented her treatment. He's trying to trick simple minded folk into thinking public option had something to do with the womans denial by simply mentioning it at the end.

[4bmoore]

Maybe the story sounded so ridiculous because you chose to listen to "Coby" who was the voice behind the camera shouting out his own made up version of the story. This woman was NEVER denied private insurance, they sent her all the way to Michigan for coverage when doctors in network offered no option. This would NEVER happen under a govt plan. Get your facts straight and then have a civilized debate. Stop propagating the lies.

[bardoc13]

really the best solution is single payer. we already pay more for healthcare than single payer costs in most countries. Really there isnt even a serious bill yet... we dont know what is gonna be in it. Again, what does this story about private insurance, have to do with the public option?

[bardoc13]

He is obviously using the woman's cancer story which had nothing to do with the public option to gain support against obamacare. So private insurance denied her made her desperately look for help and somehow that has something to do with the public option being bad? The story is actually a good example why private insurance needs to be overhauled. So if I say a bad story about private insurance and say the word "public option" at the end I can trick simpletons against it.

[4bmoore]

Again, get your facts straight. This was about a woman's son who had a heart transplant in MI when doctors in TX told her to wait for her son to die or terminate the pregnancy. He got a heart in MI when he was 17 days old. Nothing to do with cancer and her son is alive today because private insurance allowed her to find a doctor on her own that would help.

Nothing to do with cancer. Maybe if you would listen and hear the TRUTH, you would understand.

[bardoc13]

oh gosh .... and what does this have to do with the public option? its just a government run insurance company. im sure they will let you go across state lines.... And if you're telling me its a common practice for insurance to allow such free reign on what doctors you can see maybe you should do some reading. Insurance companies fight you the whole way on expensive medical treatments. Even in state.

[cowboybill117]

you don't like what he says leave, others there want to hear him  your just being an idiot

[cowboybill117]

looks like the fool in this video is the one taking it

[fakenewz]

stupid fat cops

[llandshark]

LOL ... F**king PIG... I will threaten you if you don't behave!

Peace

[jemminger]

From the slides:

"Brittany Kraft is convinced that her son would not be born under the Democrat's proposed public option plan."

So we're going to take one persons' OPINION to decide the fate of the country's health care?

I could be convinced that I'm going to fly by holding a feather in my mouth, but that doesn't mean it's true.

[DillonX]

Pete Olson is absolutely incompetent.

The good news is that he'll be defeated in 2010!

[canisdormit]

The problem is not republicans or democrats, it's that the elite and their agents (our "elected" officials) are crippling our country with their lunacy. They like it when everyone else is fighting, because it means the focus is drawn away from their ill intentions. The elite do everything they can to keep the populace blindfolded. All the while they increase their own wealth and power.

[spucy]

What's up with him saying the child wouldn't have survived if there were a (now proposed) public option 7 years ago? That's irrelevant because nothing was in the works 7 years ago, right? I'm not so sure since I was still in school at the time.

[narcberry]

People that look at the world through politically polarized lenses give and deserve little respect.

I recommend everyone watch interviews with Ron Paul. Whether you agree or disagree with his message, you will see a fine example of what a politician should behave like.

[devans00]

This is one of the funniest thing I've seen all week. Republicans applaud and encourage poor behavior when it's against Democrats. Get their panties in a twist when it's against themselves.

Ha, ha, ha. Reap what you sow jackasses.

[jhamm999]

glad to see liberals have un-american rabble rousers like we conservatives. at least according to pelosi. the irony is so rich.

[IanDavidOnDU]

What a crybaby hypocrite.

[artvandelay3911]

So, when teabaggers disrupt townhalls they are standing up for their rights, when Democrats call Republicans out for their lies at townhalls they're criminals disrupters and police are called in. Nice.

[Clemrm]

Diffrence is artvandelay3911, 'teabaggers' are smarter than you and the general retard general public.

Another diffrence is, they are not stupid enough to label themselves as Democrat or Republican, because they understand both parties are the same, both corrupt and they want issues discussed, not party bantering.

Ok? Thanks.

[Rushtrdamus]

WTF? When did the T-bagging movement begin?

It didn't start under Bush.

It didn't start under Clinton.

It started under Obama.

You should say that they were smart enough not to label themselves what they are.

The T-baggers didn't protest Bush because he was their guy. Bush was just like them. Bush was a christian and a rebulican.

Don't pretend that the protesters are smarter than the rest of us, cause MOST of the 1% of america that call themselves T-baggers are DIPSHITS.

[freesk8]

I'm a "teabagger."

I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist.

I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libertarian.

I DID protest Bush. Bush was not "my guy." I never voted for him.

I protested the Iraq war and the USA PATRIOT Act many times since 2002.

Just as in any movement, a minority of teabaggers are racists or "dipshits."

But you are attempting to marginalize all of us by confusing all of us with the inevitable wacky minority.

You are engaging in a smear campaign, and it doesn't work.

[Rushtrdamus]

You weren't until this year.

Good for you.

Remains to be seen.

Again, good for you.

Awesome!

Correct!

I did use the word MOST.

No need for me to marginalize any T-baggers, they're doing a fine job themselves.

If by "smear campaign" you mean telling the truth, you are correct again.

Point out one thing I lied about.

[freesk8]

You called most teabaggers dipshits.

If this was not a lie, it is almost certainly wrong, and is definitely ad hominem.

It is a smear, and beneath you, my friend.

[Rushtrdamus]

ANYONE that believes that "death panels" were in the bill is a dipshit. Since most T-baggers do, it was the truth. It is however my oppinion, and I have a right to it.

Don't talk to me about "smears" while a large portion of the T-baggers are carrying signs that are "false" at best and flat out slander at worst.

[freesk8]

Bureaucrats will decide which treatment is cost effective in terms of the amount of life saved for the cost. This means they will decide whether to deny treatments to classes of individuals. Calling these bureaucrats members of "death panels" is sensationalist, but essentially accurate.

I decry smears from the right as well as the left, so I agree with you, but most protest signs I saw were not smears.

Mine read "We have a RIGHT to a FREE MARKET in health care." No smear there.

[Rushtrdamus]

Allright, let's test your integrity.

Question 1. Do we already have panels that get to decide whether a person recieves treatment or not?

Question 2. Did the "death panels make any decisions about treatment or denying care?

Yes or no would be awesome.

Your sign was a lie. We've never had a right to free-market healthcare.

[freesk8]

1) Yes, it is called the FDA. But in a true free market, anyone with the money could buy any treatment. No one could prohibit it.

2) Yes, the FDA denied access to experimental drugs to millions of Amertcans, some of whom were battling cancer. My first wife, who died in 2005 was among them.

Our natural rights are to life, liberty and property. They come from self-ownership. Liberty and property together equals the free market. We have a right to buy what anyone is willing to sell us.

[opiumthoughts]

I think you just owned Rushtrdamus. lol

[Rushtrdamus]

You lying asshole.

Bureaucrats at INSURANCE companies make life and DEATH decisions everyday based on cost and patient "worth". AND YOU KNOW IT.

Insurance compamys DENY treatment everyday, and NOT JUST FOR EXPERIMENTAL drugs.

IF one of our rights is life, how can denying healthcare to help us stay alive, wrong?

You're mixing "natural" rights with "economic" rights.

Really, do I have a right to buy POT?

How about Yelowcake uranium?

[freesk8]

Please avoid calling me names. It only makes you look bad.

Ins cos would have LESS power if they weren't in bed with govt. With a true free market, small startup ins cos could better compete with the biggies, and we'd have better ins at lower prices.

You have no right to force OTHERS to pay for your healthcare. You only have a right to your property, not that of others. That's theft.

[freesk8]

Our ownership of our bodies gives rise to the right to the fruits of our labor.

Yes, you have a right to buy pot and yellowcake.

But both are bad for you.

You own your body, so you have a right to poison yourself. Ending the drug war would greatlly reduce gun violence in our cities, and reduce corruption of our police and politicians.

If the average dude went ahead and bought yellowcake, he'd probably die of cancer in a few years. He would also lack the tech to refine it.

So I'm not worried.

[Rushtrdamus]

What fucking planet do you live on?

Purchasing pot AND yellowcake is ILLEGAL. If it's against the law, it isn't a right.

You're not worried because you can't think straight. You don't know the difference between legal or illegal, rights, laws or reality.

[freesk8]

Everything illegal is immoral? That's just silly, my friend.

If the government outlawed free speech would it be immoral to speak out against the law? Of course not.

Not all laws are just. Breaking an unjust law (while harming no one) is good civil disobedience.

You don't know the difference between illegal and immoral.

You don't know what rights are, nor where they come from.

It's you, my friend, who has lost touch with reality.

And swearing and calling me names makes you look bad, my friend.

[Rushtrdamus]

I know that if something is ILLEGAL it's ILLEGAL.

Since when did buyimg pot and yellowcake become MORAL??

Rights come from the Govt. If they didn't, then EVERYONE would have thexact same rights.

You prove my point everytime you try to show how the constitution ensures that we all have certain rights.

The constitution was written by MEN! Men who were forming a Govt.

I swear and call you anmes because you can't learn, and it's frustrating.

[freesk8]

A tautology.

Buying pot and yellowcake is totally moral. There is nothing wrong with either.

Rights exist BEFORE governments. Govt's only legit purpose is the defense of our pre-existing rights.

Everyone DOES have the same rights. Our rights are equal: life, liberty, property and self-defense.

The Constitution DEFENDS rights, it does not grant any.

[freesk8]

The men writing the Const believed we had inalienable rights, and wanted to prevent future politicians from violating them.  So they limited govt power.

Control yourself and you will appear smarter.

[Rushtrdamus]

Of course they did, and they went about defining what rights those were.

You seam to have a hard time understanding that WE determine our destiny.

Our forefathers gave us our freedom AND our rights. If they had chosen to give us the right to kill adulterers, That would be a right.

Why is this so hard to understand? GOD didn't write the Bill of Rights, MAN did.

[freesk8]

I'm an atheist.

I believe that rights come from self-ownership, and that self-ownership is a self-evident truth.

US Founders did not give us any rights. They set up a Const that was designed to preserve our rights from the biggest threat to those rights: govt.

This is why the bill of rights is a list of things prohibited to govt. "Congress shall make no law..." is how many amendments begin.

Man wrote the B of R, but our rights are natural, and come from logic, not god, and not govt.

[Rushtrdamus]

Man has the rights it's controling authority GIVE them. Every country has a different set of rules.

I don't care about the philosophical bullshit. ANY govt. can take away your rights at ANY time. Ask the millions of american boys TAKEN in the draft.

No matter how you slice it. Our constitution spells out what rights we have anf what rights we don't.

[freesk8]

No. If a nation restricts freedom of speech in peaceful situations, especially free political speech, it is violating the natural rights of it's citizens, and is therefore less legitimate and less moral.

When a govt violates your rights it does not take them away, it merely violates them and does wrong.

The draft is a good example of a bad law and a govt doing wrong by violating our rights.

Check out the 9th amdmt. The const establishes the defense of rights by prohibiting actions to govt.

[Rushtrdamus]

There are NO "natural" rights to free speach. Free speach is a man-made concept. Nothing more.

I love how you point to a man-made document to prove how the Govt does not give rights.

THAT is irony.

[freesk8]

Your natural right is to liberty. Liberty is your right to do whatever you like as long as you are not violating the rights of others. This comes from self-ownership. I ask you again: do we own our own bodies? If so, the logical consequence is natural rights. Free speech is part of our right to liberty.

Read carefully: the govt does not give natural rights. It can defend them, as it does in our const, or it can violate them, but never create them.

There is no irony if you understand.

[Rushtrdamus]

As I said before, Humans are animals, Smart animals but animals nonetheless. Liberty is doing whatever you like, PERIOD! N o aslong as, no if you only's

[freesk8]

We have capabilities that animals do not possess. We are smarter, and more creative, and more conscious. We can see right and wrong. These differences may only be of degree, and other animals may do one or more of these, but none do all. This sets us apart from them. Humans are animals, but we are unique and special and more valuable. I'd sacrifice any individual animal to save any individual human if I had to. Wouldn't you?

We have no right to violate the rights of others.

[Rushtrdamus]

Really? How is it that frogs can live under mud for 20 years? How is it that a shrimp can use sound waves to knock out it's prey? How is it that bats can use sonar to see in the dark? How is it that some animals KNOW north from south and east from west?

The fact is, as smart as we are, we are NOT the end all be all of the animal kingdom.

I'm not that arogant, I guess you are.

I guess it depends on the Human we're talking about. This world would be a better place without some humans.

[freesk8]

With the aid of our technology, which is merely an extension of our minds and bodies, and evolves with us, we can do all of these things better, and more things too.

I'm not arrogant. I know there are many smarter, stronger, better looking than I. But it is obvious that we are the most valuable and capable species.

With your last sentence I am in agreement. But I do not advocate the death penalty, since I don't trust the govt with the power to kill. Too much incompetence and corruption.

[Rushtrdamus]

WTF?

Then how is it that people in other countries do NOT have the same rights as the U.S.?

Our Constitution is what gives us our rights. Those rights did not exist until we broke free of England and CREATED our own land.

The govt's only legit purpose is whatever WE THE PEOPLE decide it is.

Where the fuck did you go to school?

Ever hear of "the bill of rights"? If there were no "bill of rights", how would we know what rights we have?

[freesk8]

So if rights come from govt, then the people of N Korea have no rights. This means their govt is not violating any rights? That's absurd! All people have the right to free speech, etc, because we are all individuals, and we each own our own lives.

We had a revolution from England because the king was violating our rights. Read the Decl of Indep., which existed before the US const or govt.

We the People are not dictators. The tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.

[Rushtrdamus]

You got it. Rights in each nation come from the leaders of that nation.

I believe in Darwin's Theory. I then should have the "right" to kill anyone that presents a challenge to the prosperity of my offspring. The only rule that matters is the strong shall win. If rights truely come from nature, then I'll take my ques from nature and compete to the death with my foes.

We are not meant to have man-made rules stopping natural selection.

[freesk8]

No. Rights are defended by good govts and violated by bad ones.

Rights come from the dignity and value of individual humans. If they had no value, and did not own their own lives, then killing them would not be immoral. But it is immoral not because of some stone decalogue from on high, but because of self-ownership and human dignity. Do you question these ideas? If so, you are a strange man.

I am an atheist and a Darwin and Dawkins fan. But you have no morals. Good atheists have morals.

[Rushtrdamus]

Is it immoral for a lion to kill another lion? NO, because LIONS don't create rules to live by. Humans are animals. NOTHING can change that fact. Humans create laws in order to better control natural behaviors. Sometimes we choose not to live by those rules and sometimes we do.

I don't kill, and I'm willing to bet that I as an atheist have more morals than you. But that realy doesn't matter in this debate.

But thanks for appointing yourself THE judge of GOOD atheists. LOL

[freesk8]

Humans are animals, but we are rational animals, and far more mentally capable and valuable than other animals. This is why we are said to own our own lives.

Lower animals can not exercise such ownership, and so lack rights.

Because we are rational, we know we would rather live in a world where people did not kill or be killed, or live according to the law of the jungle, which you advocated in another post.

So I am convinced that as bad as my morals are, they must at least be better than yours.

[Rushtrdamus]

You give very little credit to animals. Some of which can fly and do things human's can only dream of. How sad.

Morals are MAN-MADE. Morals did not exist 10,000 years ago. Our closest relatives in the animal world STILL kill each other at will, and for no reason.

This world has ONE law. KILL OR BE KILLED.

If you are correct, why isn't PETA? They take morals and extend them to every animal. Hell, there are some people that want plants to have the same rights as human.

[freesk8]

We can fly too. Better. Our technology is an extension of our minds and bodies. We are evolved machines. Our technology evolves with us.

Good morals are logical conclusions based on the reality of the world and the human condition. They are discovered relationships, not invented fictions, as bad moral systems are.

There is no immorality in lions killing gazelles, but it IS immoral for people to murder peaceful people.

And you really advocate living by the law of the jungle?  Pathetic.

[freesk8]

Many animals have no sense of what "tomorrow" is. Fish, chickens, cows. If you kill them with minimal pain, you deprive them of little. If they are raised for food, then they owe their existence to the system that feeds them and kills them.

Chimps and whales etc. may be different. They are sophisticated enough that killing them is wrong. But they cannot own property or have free speech. Grey area.

But animals do not have the same rights as people. They are not as capable and valuable.

[Rushtrdamus]

Thank you for explaning that men have rights because man gave us rights. Let's also note that animals do have rights. WE gave them rights by drafting laws to protect them.

And if animals don't have rights because they don't think like humans, why not kill every human with a mental handicap? After all, if their worth is dependant of their sophistication we should treat them as animals, right?

You're talking in circles, We are born with NO rights, in fact we don't get most rights until 18.

[freesk8]

I never said that. Humans have rights because of our value and our self-ownership. Good governments defend those rights. Bad ones violate them. Governments may grant privileges, and maybe civil "rights," but never natural rights.

We DO treat mentally disabled people as though they have fewer rights. They can't make legal contracts, and they have guardians, often the state or their parents. We don't treat them as animals because we respect their dignity as human beings.

[Rushtrdamus]

There you go again with the "good's" and "bad's". WHO gets to decide a "good" or "bad" Govt.? In 1938, the German's were sure that Hitler was a "good" leader.

We do the same for animals. We will put down a family dog if it's in pain, we'll put down an injured deer we just hit on the road. Why is it that we can't do the same for people dying of ALS, or Cancer? It seams wierd that we extend our respect to animals friends, but refuse our human friends.

So much for your natural rights.

[freesk8]

WE all have the responsibility to determine, to the best of our ability, what we think good and bad are. There is a correct answer, and I will admit that I am often wrong, but good and bad are discoverable.

The difference between animals and humans on the issue of euthanasia is that you have to get consent from a human before you kill him or her. Not so for animals because such consent is not possible.

I am in favor of the right to suicide. It is part of our right to life. Why bring it up?

[Rushtrdamus]

Why is our way better? Butterflies can travel thousands of miles for nothing more than food. And when they do it, polution is not a by-product. I also notice the wording of your questions. You use kill when talking about lions, and you use murder when talking about humans. Murder is a LEGAL word. Funny how you use a legal term when talking about morals. I thought morals exist without man.

You don't read too well, do you?

I live by the rule of law.

[freesk8]

We can fly faster, with more control, slower, higher, further and smoother. But the point is that individual human beings are all worth more than individual butterflies, and any other animal.

Murder is a moral term, as well as a legal one. I meant it in that sense. A lion can't murder because killing is not a moral issue for it. It is for us.

I never said morals existed without man. I said they are a logical result of the human condition and reality.

You don't read too well either.

[freesk8]

As for the rule of law, do you comply with immoral laws? If the law told you you had to kill an innocent person, or lie in certain ways, or steal things, would you comply?

No, you are better than that, my friend. You know the Neuremburg defense is bogus. You would engage in civil disobedience, even if it meant prison.

I believe in the rule of rational law, if any.

I believe we always maintain our individual responsibility to be moral even when it is illegal.

I live by the rule of natural law.

[Rushtrdamus]

We all do that all the time. We already comply with immoral lwas. We turn people in for growing pot, we throw people in jail without a lawyer and we will continue to do so.

Then why not die by it? It seams that you want it both ways. You want to live by natures rules, then you claim superiority over all other living beings on the planet.

It's kinda like watching a punk kid playing basketball at the playground. If people don't let you do what you want you'll take YOUR ball and go home.

[freesk8]

I personally never turn people in for growing pot. So what do you mean by "we?"

I do claim that humans are superior to all other species on the planet. Isn't that obvious? It is natural that we are. We are the dominant species, much like dinosaurs used to be. I just call it like I see it.

How have I said that if you don't let me do as I want I will take my ball and go home? I don't get it. Name specifics, please.

[Rushtrdamus]

It's not obvious, it's arrogant. We are weaker than all other primates, we're slower than most and have nowhere near the stamina of most, yet because we have thumbs and a lager brains, you assume that we are superior.

[freesk8]

Were stronger than all animals via our technology. We're faster and have more stamina for the same reason. Humans are a technological animal. To consider us naked is to ignore an important part of what we are.

It's no assumption that we are superior.

Our superiority is manifest.

It is wisdom for us to be benevolent towards other species.

A species can not be arrogant. Arrogance is an attitude, and groups can not have attitudes, only individuals can.

[Rushtrdamus]

On what basis are we "worth more"?  Muder is a legal term, NOT a moral term. Morals are man-made.

You can't be charged MORALLY with muder, only legally. And even then you aren't a murderer until found guilty, allegedly. LOL

[freesk8]

I think that you also believe that we are worth more.

If one of two beings had to die, and one of them was a human and the other was a squirrel, which would you pick? If you pick the squirrel, I think you are quite odd.

Now substitute any other individual animal or plant for "squirrel" and look for one you would choose over a random human being.

If you find one, please tell me.

Murder is both a moral and a legal term.

I can claim or accuse someone of murder any time I like. Murder is an act.

[Rushtrdamus]

Life is NEVER that simple. What if the person was Hitler, would you then choose the squirrel to die.

We can't always set up our choices so perfectly. You act as though our choices are so easy. They rarely are.

[freesk8]

You are right, they are seldom easy.

There is always uncertainty about the ultimate result of one's actions.

But the thought experiment I gave you was designed to make you think about your values. If you do not know the identity of the person, and you do not know the identity, or even the species of the animal, almost everyone would save the person instead of the animal.

Hitlers are the rare exception. I would say it proves the rule.

Admit it: you value people over animals too.

Don't you?

[Rushtrdamus]

I value smart people over animals. When a story about some dipshit getting killed by a mountainlion, in the MOUNTAINS comes on the news, I laugh my ass off. Cause I know that the dipshit that was killed's family will ask HOW this could have happened.

I know how it happened, a dipshit thought he was the superior animal in the mountains.

He was wrong.

So no, I do not value all people over animals.

Darwin was right.

[freesk8]

I asgree that Darwin was right, but his theory is descriptive, not prescriptive or normative. Social or moral Darwinists are morally bankrupt. Just because natural selection and killing for food happens, does not mean it is moral or good when it happens to people.

I agree that it is foolhardy and even stupid when people get in to situations that kill them, but I still list it as a tragedy.

You seem to welcome it, and that is heartless.

And what about the developmentally disabled vs animals?

[Rushtrdamus]

I don't welcome someone else's stupidity, I avoid it.

What about it? Should the world stop simply because a disabled person crosses paths with an animal?

The fact is that I accept the fact that humans are simply smart animals, you however want tp place us on a throne. Humans are responcible for most of the worlds pain and suffering. Yet you still place us above other life forms. Very sad.

WE will be the earths undoing.

[Rushtrdamus]

Then avoid lying. How does lying make you look?

You KNOW that Insurance Cos. make those decisions NOW, yet you played like you didn't, THAT'S lying.

You ever heard of a little thing called THE DRAFT? Don't hand me any bullshit about forcing others to pay. The Draft FORCED others to PAY for your liberty.

Funny how THAT fact makes bitching about healthcare look silly.

[freesk8]

I never lied. Lying is telling an untruth. If I had to describe all that was true in order to avoid being a liar, then I could not fit within 500 characters.

I oppose the draft. I agree that the draft forces others to pay for my defense. It is immoral.

Milton Friedman and Reagan abolished it.

I oppose all injustice, whether big or small.

Nationalized health care and the draft are both big injustices.

Your lack of education is a small injustice.

I'll bet you went to a government school.

[Rushtrdamus]

"Yes, you have a right to buy pot and yellowcake."

"We have a RIGHT to a FREE MARKET in health care."

BOTH lies.

Unless NOW lies are the same as the truth, like legal is the same as illeagl.

You need to figure out some basics before you atart debating.. Throwing statements out threr just to do it, doen't help youe case.

You said it was legal to buy URANIUM!

[freesk8]

Please tell me under which moral principle it is moral to make buying pot illegal.

I never said it was LEGAL to buy uranium. I said it was not immoral. You still seem not to know the difference between illegal and immoral.

And slow down on the keyboard. You are starting to make a lot of spelling mistakes.

[Rushtrdamus]

"Yes, you have a right to buy pot and yellowcake."

They're both ILLEGAL, therefore you do NOT have a "right" to buy either. Our laws dictate what we can and cannot do.

I know the difference between a "right" and a "crime" Morallity has no place in either.

There arelimits to every right. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre and you CAN'T buy yellowcake uraniun.

[freesk8]

OK, so if kissing your spouse were illegal, would it be immoral? Of course not! They can pass any stupid law they want, but that does not change what is right.

Buying pot is illegal, but it is not immoral, because it violates no one's rights. Same with yellowcake. No individual has the centrifuges to refine it in to fissionable material anyway.

All good laws prohibit something immoral.

Bad laws create victimless crimes.

Violating rights should be illegal, and nothing else should be.

[Rushtrdamus]

I agree that morality should be the only reason a law is created. Right now we have many laws created to stop things that churches want to stem what THEY dislike.

I too feel that if a person wants to drink drano then they should be allowed as long as it doesn't affect another person.

However, the TRUTH is that we don't live in that society, we live in the real world, where we have a shit load of stupid laws.

[freesk8]

The only laws that are acceptable are laws that defend our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property, and to our equality before the law.

Laws that create victimless crimes are wrong.

This is the mistake that religionists make when they attempt to legislate their "moral codes." One can drink and dance on Sunday while hurting no one else, so they should not be illegal.  Stealing and killing do violate rights, and so should be illegal.

Simple.

Most stupid laws stem from corruption.

[Rushtrdamus]

AGAIN, you decide what laws are acceptible and which aren't. You seam to have a superiority complex.

I'd work on that before someone that acts on Darwin's theory. The fact that I see every side in this debate shows that it is you that has "dumped" your rational faculty.

[freesk8]

We all must make judgments about what we think right and wrong are. I have a right to do so. Also, it is pretty clear to me that when someone proposes the law of the jungle, or says something contradictory, that they have to be wrong. I feel pretty confident pointing our their error if they do so.

You seem not to see my side of the debate, whereas I seem to be able to see yours well enough to point out it's flaws.

I grow weary of this.

Tell me your view of self-ownership or I'm done.

[Rushtrdamus]

Here's my view of self-ownership.

I own what's mine and you own what's yours. You don't get to dictate to me what I can or cannot do, I don't get to tell you what you can or cannot do. Yopu have the right to live as long as someone else will follow the laws we have and not kill you. NOTHING inside our heads tells us that murder is wrong, we are taught it.

Your "morals" are new to this world, and ONLY exist to humans. Explain how THAT is wrong?

[freesk8]

WHY do you own what's yours?

I agree that you do, but you never answered the question about self-ownership.

This is why you own your justly-acquired property.

Liberty is your right to do what you want as long as you violate no rights of others. This comes form self-ownership.

Next you talk about the right to life (no ref. to abortion) yet you do not tell me where that comes from. Again, self-ownership is the answer.

You're right that these only exist for humans. Only humans own themselves.

[Rushtrdamus]

Do you want to see how humans and animals are alike? Watchj the vids about the t-baggers. They act just like chimps. One starts yelling and the rest follow suit.

We don't even own opurselves. You admited that a bad law like the draft can steal a man's life, how is that self-ownership?

True liberty means doing what you want , period! no as long as or if only's. Show me where it says that all men have the same rights. You can't because it doesn't exist.

Man created rights.

[freesk8]

Your first paragraph is just name-calling. I won't dignify it with a direct response.

You wrote that the draft is stealing a man's life. I agree. But for it to be a theft, it must first be property of the self. You assume my position without knowing you do.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

Rights flow from the self-evident fact of self-ownership, Ownership by govt, humanity, god, the community are all absurd.

It is the only possible answer.

[Rushtrdamus]

Wow, you think that's name-calling??

Nice try. That would be correct if I hadn't already shown that I believe that Darwin's theory is what we should be living by. I believe in true freedom, not moral freedom.

Dude, you just used a Govt. issued document to prove how govt. doesn't grant rights, don't you find that ironic?

There are no IMPOSSIBLE answers, only closed minds.

[freesk8]

Yes. It was a smear. It contributed nothing to the conversation, and just made you look bad.

Darwin's theory is almost certainly correct, but that does not imply that we should apply Darwinism to the field of morality. That is what gives rise to things like Nazism.

Read very carefully: the government does not GRANT rights. It merely DEFENDS rights that we already have. Our rights come from something that happens BEFORE govt: self-ownership.

Why is your mind closed to that fact?

[Rushtrdamus]

I said "Show me where it says that all men have the same rights.". You jump straight to the DOI. It doen't say that at all, in fact that line was written at a time when WE enslaved our fellow human, so THATY really is ironic.

And what does self-evident mean? I think therefore I am? The sky is blue? Explain what self-evident means, and then explain how a group of great men MISSED the fact that they were granting equailty to SOME not all.

[freesk8]

The DOI shows one important plays where it says that all of our rights are equal, and it is right, even though most of the founders did not live up to their own observation.

Yes, cogito ergo sum is an example of a self-evident truth. A self evident truth yields an absurdity when you attempt to deny it. Works for "I don't exist" as well as "I don't own myself." Both absurd.

[Rushtrdamus]

FREESK8:

You got any more gems of wisdom?

Like maybe how it's a right to kill your neighbor, but also ILLEGAL?

Or maybe how it's ILLEGAL to manufacture meth, but also a right?

LOL, just bustin your chops.

[freesk8]

It is wrong to kill your neighbor because it violates his or her right to life. This is why it is good for it to be illegal.

It is morally acceptable to manufacture, sell and use meth because one can do so without violating any rights. It is therefore wrong to make doing so illegal.

You missed my chops.

[epiphany4z]

lol bag the tea bagger

[OhioDemocrat]

So much for being compassionate, Pete Olson and republicans sure arent.

[rhabdoviridae]

Olsen, the dickless, brainless wonder. What does that say about those who voted for him?

[bigjaytexas]

No wonder congress's ratings are in the toilet.

[zimalmighty]

Pete Olson is a tool and a hypocrite.

[Froward69]

Pete Olson is a propagandist tool