Floyd Brown is just picking up the slack where the mainstream media has failed to do it's job. Big Media is so biased against Republicans (look at their campaign contributions to Democrats) that the only way people are gonna find out about the flaws in Democratic candidates is through grassroots movements and alternative media. Stick your head in the sand if you want to, but I want to see the pros AND cons of both parties candidates. A well informed electorate is important to me.
That's funny, because a MISINFORMED electorate is important to republicans. It's drama crap meant to divert attention from the issues that actually effect people.
I agree with your statement. I also expand on it by saying that a MISINFORMED electorate is important to democrats. Liberals touting Bristol Palin's pregnancy is drama crap. Conservatives touting Obama's philandering alcoholic father is drama crap. Neither side has a monopoly on drama crap. Big Media has that monopoly clinched.
I assume you're talking about abortion and creationism in schools? Her views there bother me too. Creationism should be taught in school as humanities like Greek mythology; not as science. Abortion is a moral judgement for the people to make on thier own; not through government mandate. However, the federal government belongs in neither issue since they're not in the Constituion but the 10th Ammendment is. The Communist Manifesto allows government to control those issue.
Constitutionally speaking; states can set their own definitions about civil rights. That's why it took an ammendment to outlaw slavery. If an issue's not in the constitution then the federal government has no authority to legislate regarding it other than to propose a new constitutional ammendment.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (morally just) is unconstitutional since the constitution doesn't address the issue of segregation.
States shouldn't but legally can violate certain civil rights.
I beg to differ. The 9th amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The 10th states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You HAVE to admit that is open to interpretation. The states do not have the final say on rights.
The final say on rights comes from the one who endowed us with them, the Creator, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The only part of that open to interpretation is what the rights endowed by the Creator are, beyond the ones spelled out in our founding documents.
Those ammendments were described by Thomas Jefferson as the lynchpin of the Constitution, in summary he said, "Anything we forgot to say the US government can't do...IT CAN'T DO!", but left it open to the states to do it.
It confers RIGHTS to persons, it delegates POWERS to the state. A right is by definition a boundary by which power is not allowed to cross. Those self evident rights are by definition (if you read the entirety of the DofI) the protections from the abuse of power that prevent men from otherwise overthrowing their government. The fact that such a government exists that protects human rights is evidence that rights exist.
If something that is self evident needs to be defined then how is it 'self evident'? Your definition of 'self-evident rights' is simply one of the self evident rights.
The Constitution grants power to the federal government, puts certain limits on the states whilst leaving the states free to do anything that's not prohibited in the Constitution, and declares more self-evident rights (free speech, right to bear arms, etc.).
Again, it depends on what you consider to be a person's right. I usually go for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Denying service to someone in an establishment open to the public is denying someone's right to access those services.
Consider a case where someone buys a ring around a neighborhood, or town, and denies people access to their own homes. He owns the property, theoretically he can do what he wants with it, but he can abuse that power (thereby violating civil rights).
The Declaration of Independence declares 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' to be among the inalienable rights endowed to all men by their Creator.
In your property case:
The 5th ammendment allows the government to confiscate part of that ring to construct a road allowing passage for the public (eminent domain).
Consider the school busing fiascos of the 1970s. It was a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Brown vs. Board of Education. Students suffered as a result.
Jefferson specifically left out Locke's property clause. There is more than one kind of property. There are natural resources and real estate, which begin as public property and taken from the public domain through war and human conflict. Then there is the product of labor which man creates and no other man should have claim to. Property haa complex combination of the two types. A person has a right to the property he creates, not the property he has stolen from the public.
He did not leave out Locke's property clause. He included it in 'pursuit of happiness'. Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours:
"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings."
Your notion of natural resources and real estate as public property seems to reference the first pillar of communism.
One remedy to discrimination is to confiscate the real estate aspect of the property, so that someone who discriminates is not allowed to own real estate. Recompense him at market value, but take it away just the same.
I lived in Boston in the 1970's so I got to see the bus issue up close. I will agree it was a fiasco, mostly because the added hardship made things worse for everyone. It also stirred up a lot of justified anger. It was an obvious mistake.
Your remedy taken literally would prohibit anyone from owning real estate. Who can truly claim to be free of bigotry? I for example discriminate against racists and terrorists.
I'm too young to remember the 70s but I do like to read history. I've read about the bus fiascos in Denver (needed integration but never had legalized segregation?) and NC specifically. Classic examples of the failure of discriminating to end discrimination. I can't say I know specifics about it's effects on Boston.
There is a difference between choosing your friends (in which the right to free association IS the right to discriminate in your personal life) and barring individuals from access to your business (that exists to serve the public). Certainly one can make the case that anything that might conceivably require some kind of licence can be dependent to a principle of non-discrimination. I think there is a marked delineation between private life and public business.
As an aside, thanks for turning me on to Daniel Dennett. I'd never heard of him before. I've been checking out the links on his Tufts University homepage and have found them thought provoking. He sounds like someone I could sit down with so I could pick his brain. I love a good philosophy debate :)
I put videos like this out because I cower at the thought of some random guy intimidating me with his claimed superior argument. When you're done with the trash talk, I'm waiting.
There are two components to property: The first is the raw material or resources which were put on earth by nature and evolution. The second is the "improvements" made to the first type of property through the sweat of your own labor. You are entitled to the second, but not the first. How do you plead?
Well...my first thought is, what the H*** are you talking about. Not that I wouldn't have an opinion on what you were trying to get at here, but to be honest, I prefer clarity to agreement.
I'm not sure if you're attempting to set the stage for some sort of crazy non-sequitur or what?
But to at least entertain your question at some level.....resources were not put on earth by nature..they were put on earth by God.
So, if you'll also agree that clarity is important, we can then proceed.
Listen, we have our own beliefs. Let me know when your science proves me wrong.
I want to know why liberals are they way the are. What I see when I hear or meet a liberal is someone who wants to remove any kind of distinctions between people, values, nations...etc. I see people who are say "damn the consequences" then don't want to be accountable for them.
Let start with Life/Choice. Speaking as a former embryo, I'm pro life. I believe most women had their choice 10 months earlier.
Science has already proven most of what is in the bible wrong. Liberals are very aware of the consequences. In fact, it is conservatives who tout a certain ideology that does not consider consequences. Free market fundamentalism deregulated the banking industry which directly led to the current mortgage meltdown. Who among the ideologists had never heard of the Great Depression? They went ahead and fucked us anyway.
Science has PROVEN? Really? WOW! You'd think that would have made the rounds by now. Well, thanks for setting us all straight. Its a good thing you're around to save us from our own destructive ways. Mortgage meltdown. Nice choice of words. It's amazing that 94% of Americans are still paying their mortgage on time. Don't the borrowers bear some responsibility. Use your brain, don't sign something your not familiar with and use a little common sense. If you cant afford it, WAIT.
You really think the earth was created in 6 days? You really think a great flood wiped out all life except for what could be carried in a boat?
If all these people were doing was screwing themselves then I really couldn't care less. The fact that they have collectively tanked the market on account of their poor choices means they have ROBBED me. Who do I go to to get my money returned? I want RULES that keep these idiots from ruining MY life. Got it?
As far as choice goes, I think there are many mitigating circumstances, the health or the ability of the mother, rape, incest, many reasons why it is morally wrong to force the woman to carry the child. I do not believe women make this choice lightly, and I do not believe the state is in the position to make the distinction in court. It is the woman's body, she is the final arbiter. She should not have to bear the burden of proof.
You forget that all of this "smear" as you portray it, is protected speech my friend. You can deride it all you want, but it is a fundamental right. Or would you have that right suspended sir?
Well, then you admit that your side will suffer perpetual defeats, since you don't propose to stop any of this speech. You admit that if you want to win, you spend all of your money on smears. You either engage in what you dislike and call unfair, or you consign yourself to the losing side.
"smear" is outright lies. I don't know who Floyd brown is, but if his website is trying to show the dark side of Obama, then good for him. People need to know who they are electing. Open a anti-McCain site too. I want to know exactly how full of shit they ALL really are, OR how good they are , and mostly if they have any integrity, like doing the right thing even when it hurts or is inconvenient.
FACTUAL accusations are not "smear"! Do you not want to know who the person you are voting for really is? I mean, why make excuses for any of them? Do research, then take the factual info that should disgust you and add it up.
Remember what your grandfather taught you... Judge a tree by its fruit. Show me your friends and I'll show you who you are. It amazes me that you would be so blindly supportive of a POLITICIAN -who are just about the lowest form of life these days!
I want to know how they perform. I don't care for speculation about whether a candidate is hiding something about his childhood. Your impression that politicians are the lowest form of life tells me a lot about you. You have adopted the cynical republican mantra. The republicans love the smear games because they WANT you to hate government. They want the government to get out of the way so that your life can be run by corporations. They systematically destroy all other social organizations.
???Government is the solution to Corporations??? Your reply shows exactly your political position. You are a Communist. I am not saying that as an insult, or as a strike back, but honestly, you ARE a communist! Communists have NO place in the USA, and you would be MUCH happier, as would I if you move to China, North Korea, Vietnam, or one of many other countries who follow Marx's "manifesto"
I am not a communist. Your insistence shows how little you understand about communism. I disagree with Marx's conclusions, although I have to agree with some of his observations. I am someone who believes there is a balance between public and private property. As such the market can not be expected to solve ALL problems. Corporations left to their own devices systematically destroy public property. Ask yourself why there is a market for bottled water. Ask yourself if you want to buy air.
Hey John... you talk like a homo. What's up with that?
Bompins 2 years ago
Then you won't mind if I spend a little time with your girlfriend.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Floyd Brown is just picking up the slack where the mainstream media has failed to do it's job. Big Media is so biased against Republicans (look at their campaign contributions to Democrats) that the only way people are gonna find out about the flaws in Democratic candidates is through grassroots movements and alternative media. Stick your head in the sand if you want to, but I want to see the pros AND cons of both parties candidates. A well informed electorate is important to me.
starforce74 3 years ago
That's funny, because a MISINFORMED electorate is important to republicans. It's drama crap meant to divert attention from the issues that actually effect people.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
I agree with your statement. I also expand on it by saying that a MISINFORMED electorate is important to democrats. Liberals touting Bristol Palin's pregnancy is drama crap. Conservatives touting Obama's philandering alcoholic father is drama crap. Neither side has a monopoly on drama crap. Big Media has that monopoly clinched.
starforce74 3 years ago
Personally I couldn;t care less about Bristol Palin. What gets me is her ignorant right wing crazy christian anti science policies.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
I assume you're talking about abortion and creationism in schools? Her views there bother me too. Creationism should be taught in school as humanities like Greek mythology; not as science. Abortion is a moral judgement for the people to make on thier own; not through government mandate. However, the federal government belongs in neither issue since they're not in the Constituion but the 10th Ammendment is. The Communist Manifesto allows government to control those issue.
starforce74 3 years ago
If you are talking about civil rights, NO, states are not allowed to violate civil rights.
As an aside, Daniel Dennett has suggested exactly what you suggest, that schools teach religion, with one caveat, they must teach more than one.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Constitutionally speaking; states can set their own definitions about civil rights. That's why it took an ammendment to outlaw slavery. If an issue's not in the constitution then the federal government has no authority to legislate regarding it other than to propose a new constitutional ammendment.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (morally just) is unconstitutional since the constitution doesn't address the issue of segregation.
States shouldn't but legally can violate certain civil rights.
starforce74 3 years ago
I beg to differ. The 9th amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The 10th states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You HAVE to admit that is open to interpretation. The states do not have the final say on rights.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
The final say on rights comes from the one who endowed us with them, the Creator, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The only part of that open to interpretation is what the rights endowed by the Creator are, beyond the ones spelled out in our founding documents.
Those ammendments were described by Thomas Jefferson as the lynchpin of the Constitution, in summary he said, "Anything we forgot to say the US government can't do...IT CAN'T DO!", but left it open to the states to do it.
starforce74 3 years ago
It confers RIGHTS to persons, it delegates POWERS to the state. A right is by definition a boundary by which power is not allowed to cross. Those self evident rights are by definition (if you read the entirety of the DofI) the protections from the abuse of power that prevent men from otherwise overthrowing their government. The fact that such a government exists that protects human rights is evidence that rights exist.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
The DofI does not confer any rights or powers.
If something that is self evident needs to be defined then how is it 'self evident'? Your definition of 'self-evident rights' is simply one of the self evident rights.
The Constitution grants power to the federal government, puts certain limits on the states whilst leaving the states free to do anything that's not prohibited in the Constitution, and declares more self-evident rights (free speech, right to bear arms, etc.).
starforce74 3 years ago
Again, it depends on what you consider to be a person's right. I usually go for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Denying service to someone in an establishment open to the public is denying someone's right to access those services.
Consider a case where someone buys a ring around a neighborhood, or town, and denies people access to their own homes. He owns the property, theoretically he can do what he wants with it, but he can abuse that power (thereby violating civil rights).
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
The Declaration of Independence declares 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' to be among the inalienable rights endowed to all men by their Creator.
In your property case:
The 5th ammendment allows the government to confiscate part of that ring to construct a road allowing passage for the public (eminent domain).
Consider the school busing fiascos of the 1970s. It was a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Brown vs. Board of Education. Students suffered as a result.
starforce74 3 years ago
Jefferson specifically left out Locke's property clause. There is more than one kind of property. There are natural resources and real estate, which begin as public property and taken from the public domain through war and human conflict. Then there is the product of labor which man creates and no other man should have claim to. Property haa complex combination of the two types. A person has a right to the property he creates, not the property he has stolen from the public.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
He did not leave out Locke's property clause. He included it in 'pursuit of happiness'. Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours:
"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings."
Your notion of natural resources and real estate as public property seems to reference the first pillar of communism.
starforce74 3 years ago
One remedy to discrimination is to confiscate the real estate aspect of the property, so that someone who discriminates is not allowed to own real estate. Recompense him at market value, but take it away just the same.
I lived in Boston in the 1970's so I got to see the bus issue up close. I will agree it was a fiasco, mostly because the added hardship made things worse for everyone. It also stirred up a lot of justified anger. It was an obvious mistake.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Your remedy taken literally would prohibit anyone from owning real estate. Who can truly claim to be free of bigotry? I for example discriminate against racists and terrorists.
I'm too young to remember the 70s but I do like to read history. I've read about the bus fiascos in Denver (needed integration but never had legalized segregation?) and NC specifically. Classic examples of the failure of discriminating to end discrimination. I can't say I know specifics about it's effects on Boston.
starforce74 3 years ago
There is a difference between choosing your friends (in which the right to free association IS the right to discriminate in your personal life) and barring individuals from access to your business (that exists to serve the public). Certainly one can make the case that anything that might conceivably require some kind of licence can be dependent to a principle of non-discrimination. I think there is a marked delineation between private life and public business.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
As an aside, thanks for turning me on to Daniel Dennett. I'd never heard of him before. I've been checking out the links on his Tufts University homepage and have found them thought provoking. He sounds like someone I could sit down with so I could pick his brain. I love a good philosophy debate :)
starforce74 3 years ago
It does take an idiot to post a video like this. You won't want to debate me because I would absolutely destroy you.
Obama is a HACK!
craigasbach 3 years ago
I put videos like this out because I cower at the thought of some random guy intimidating me with his claimed superior argument. When you're done with the trash talk, I'm waiting.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Alright...where do you want to start? Let's go!
craigasbach 3 years ago
There are two components to property: The first is the raw material or resources which were put on earth by nature and evolution. The second is the "improvements" made to the first type of property through the sweat of your own labor. You are entitled to the second, but not the first. How do you plead?
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Well...my first thought is, what the H*** are you talking about. Not that I wouldn't have an opinion on what you were trying to get at here, but to be honest, I prefer clarity to agreement.
I'm not sure if you're attempting to set the stage for some sort of crazy non-sequitur or what?
But to at least entertain your question at some level.....resources were not put on earth by nature..they were put on earth by God.
So, if you'll also agree that clarity is important, we can then proceed.
craigasbach 3 years ago
What is this thing you call god? Can you show it to me?
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Well, it makes sense to me that if something was created, the earth, the universe, there must be a Creator.
I can look at everything everything around me and see God.
craigasbach 3 years ago
That is a mighty big "IF". If the universe was created, and if it was "god" who did it, who created god?
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Listen, we have our own beliefs. Let me know when your science proves me wrong.
I want to know why liberals are they way the are. What I see when I hear or meet a liberal is someone who wants to remove any kind of distinctions between people, values, nations...etc. I see people who are say "damn the consequences" then don't want to be accountable for them.
Let start with Life/Choice. Speaking as a former embryo, I'm pro life. I believe most women had their choice 10 months earlier.
craigasbach 3 years ago
Science has already proven most of what is in the bible wrong. Liberals are very aware of the consequences. In fact, it is conservatives who tout a certain ideology that does not consider consequences. Free market fundamentalism deregulated the banking industry which directly led to the current mortgage meltdown. Who among the ideologists had never heard of the Great Depression? They went ahead and fucked us anyway.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Science has PROVEN? Really? WOW! You'd think that would have made the rounds by now. Well, thanks for setting us all straight. Its a good thing you're around to save us from our own destructive ways. Mortgage meltdown. Nice choice of words. It's amazing that 94% of Americans are still paying their mortgage on time. Don't the borrowers bear some responsibility. Use your brain, don't sign something your not familiar with and use a little common sense. If you cant afford it, WAIT.
craigasbach 3 years ago
You really think the earth was created in 6 days? You really think a great flood wiped out all life except for what could be carried in a boat?
If all these people were doing was screwing themselves then I really couldn't care less. The fact that they have collectively tanked the market on account of their poor choices means they have ROBBED me. Who do I go to to get my money returned? I want RULES that keep these idiots from ruining MY life. Got it?
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
As far as choice goes, I think there are many mitigating circumstances, the health or the ability of the mother, rape, incest, many reasons why it is morally wrong to force the woman to carry the child. I do not believe women make this choice lightly, and I do not believe the state is in the position to make the distinction in court. It is the woman's body, she is the final arbiter. She should not have to bear the burden of proof.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
you have BAD BREATH!
chrisw40 3 years ago
You jump to conclusions.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
You forget that all of this "smear" as you portray it, is protected speech my friend. You can deride it all you want, but it is a fundamental right. Or would you have that right suspended sir?
buickgn1897 3 years ago
The only cure for free speech is more free speech. I thought I made that clear in the video.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Well, then you admit that your side will suffer perpetual defeats, since you don't propose to stop any of this speech. You admit that if you want to win, you spend all of your money on smears. You either engage in what you dislike and call unfair, or you consign yourself to the losing side.
buickgn1897 3 years ago
That is the difference between propaganda and education. An educated person is immune to propaganda. An ignorant person is never immune to facts.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
"An ignorant person is never immune to facts"
??
buickgn1897 3 years ago
Once a person finds the truth, there is no going back.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
"smear" is outright lies. I don't know who Floyd brown is, but if his website is trying to show the dark side of Obama, then good for him. People need to know who they are electing. Open a anti-McCain site too. I want to know exactly how full of shit they ALL really are, OR how good they are , and mostly if they have any integrity, like doing the right thing even when it hurts or is inconvenient.
jmurphy914 3 years ago
FACTUAL accusations are not "smear"! Do you not want to know who the person you are voting for really is? I mean, why make excuses for any of them? Do research, then take the factual info that should disgust you and add it up.
Remember what your grandfather taught you... Judge a tree by its fruit. Show me your friends and I'll show you who you are. It amazes me that you would be so blindly supportive of a POLITICIAN -who are just about the lowest form of life these days!
jmurphy914 3 years ago
I want to know how they perform. I don't care for speculation about whether a candidate is hiding something about his childhood. Your impression that politicians are the lowest form of life tells me a lot about you. You have adopted the cynical republican mantra. The republicans love the smear games because they WANT you to hate government. They want the government to get out of the way so that your life can be run by corporations. They systematically destroy all other social organizations.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
I resent your assumptions that:
1. I'm a lover of corporations and
2. I am a "Republican"
???Government is the solution to Corporations??? Your reply shows exactly your political position. You are a Communist. I am not saying that as an insult, or as a strike back, but honestly, you ARE a communist! Communists have NO place in the USA, and you would be MUCH happier, as would I if you move to China, North Korea, Vietnam, or one of many other countries who follow Marx's "manifesto"
jmurphy914 3 years ago
I am not a communist. Your insistence shows how little you understand about communism. I disagree with Marx's conclusions, although I have to agree with some of his observations. I am someone who believes there is a balance between public and private property. As such the market can not be expected to solve ALL problems. Corporations left to their own devices systematically destroy public property. Ask yourself why there is a market for bottled water. Ask yourself if you want to buy air.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago