No if he went after my "twinkies" that would be a different matter, no one eats my Twinkies

So, BL, other than spamming... what would be your point here?

Are you a LEFTIST like IXT, who lacks the intellectual means to discern a distinction between Human Rights and government protection of those rights?

Are you an atheists that is jealous that God has the authority to endow humanity with human rights and that absent God human Rights is a Concept without meaning... so from frustrated ignorance you rationalize that human rights are a fantasy (and to avoid adhering to the OP... which is kinda my favorite part...)

Or... is all this line of reasoning you're posting something far more unenviable that anything even in that farce?

You have "Spam" in the US, I like it grilled with an and a nice cup of Tea "Earl Grey"with lemon of course.

All comments in context.
Again, you appear to be suffering from massive reading comprehension.
There should have been ZERO doubt as to what kind of Protectionism I was referring to.

Since you apparently don't know anything about the US economy, I guess I will provide examples.

1) Anti-Dumping - The USA currently has over 1000 AD laws on the books.
Some examples include - Mirrors from the UK, Flowers from Peru, Sweaters from Hong Kong, and about 500 different steel products from every steel producer in the world.

2) The 40+ Counterveiling Duties that the Republican Congress passed and Bush signed. Includes but not limited to: Wheat, Uranium, Steel, and Lumber.

3) Price Supports. In addition to using other protectionist measures, on steel, cotton, wheat, corn, and a variety of other products, We use price supports to prop up failing industries. Passed by your Republican Congress and Signed by your Republican President.

I believe you call this communism. Using government money to allow inefficant companies to produce and sell goods below cost.

I wonder how you will work into your "everyone who disagrees with me is a Marxist" response to everything.

Being that I am a hardcore to the bone, free trade supporter, with economic beliefs to the right of Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter.

The only difference between D's and R's on this issue, is that the D's are honest about their beliefs where R's only pay lip service. And I always respect people that say what the believe, even if I disagree with them. (Its why I respect billybob more than Blade in some bizarre way)

Im sorry, are we talking about my views, or you will just insert any person who ever lived views in my place and hope you are correct?

I don't remember advocating the great society.

I realize that your only basic argument strategy is to put all of your critiques into one iconic image that you created. But as you clearly demonstrate time and time again, you are always wrong.

You might ask your buddy on this thread, Senax, where I stand. Being that I defended Bush in one of his old threads.

Now the leftists, your catch all boogyman phrase you use to describe all the Americans that you hate (50+%), supposedly don't believe in Human rights.

Yet, it is the left of this country is arguing against torturing people, granting due process to random people picked up in foreign nations, and a host of other "human rights" being denied to a wide swath of human beings.

Conservatives = I see no genocide in Darfur.
Liberals = stop the genocide in Darfur.
Bush after 6 years = There is a genocide in Darfur, I promise to yell at someone.

If there was such a thing as human rights, it looks as if it is the Left fighting for them and the conservatives trying to deny them.


Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Coming late to the thread:

"Rights" is a useful concept that helps men live together peacefully and to their mutual benefit.

Rights is not "thing" that exists separately in the universe. The concept only makes sense in relation to certain concrete things that do exist separately - human beings. (The term for mistaking a concept as something with independent reality is to "reify.")

BTW, "animal rights" is an example of a "stolen concept" - one that has been lifted from a particular context where it has meaning and applied to a different context where it does not.

"God" is an entirely separate issue. The existance of the concept of "rights" does not necessarily follow from the existance of a God, and if there is no God the concept still exists - and still is useful and worth honoring.

Communism? ROFLMNAO... No I wouldn't say that nor can I see why anyone that understands what Communism is, would... since one has nothing to do with the other...

But to suggest that these are Conservative policies is absurd. Conservative Policy would have in terms of deficit spending, gutted all social spending; completely removed the means of the legislature to add earmarks to pending bills... substantially reduced regulatory liabilities on those industries, advanced substantial tax cuts, nullification of Union Contracts which impart additional counterproductive liability, offered tax cuts to those consuming the products of those industries, etc, etc...

But where Leftist policies force massive liabilities onto industry, assuming one wants to continue enjoying the benefits inherent in having such industries, it is incumbent upon the government which forces those massive liabilities onto those industries to protect them from the industries of other nations which are not subject to such...

But I do love to see a leftist crying about 'protectionist' policy... I wonder how far back I would have to go to find you blaming Bush for 'allowing' US industry to move offshore, taking the celebrated high paying, good jobs' with them...

I've never taken any position which could lead any reasonably intelligent person to the inference that I believe that anyone who disagrees with me is a Marxist...

So you're a free trader? SUPER! Then you'd advocate cutting OSHA, Environmental and other such Regulations which explode the cost of doing business; which would necessarily include federal legislation which would nullify any state law requiring that business must adopt Union Labor... this to provide that US industry is free to compete with offshore industries that do not suffer under such?

It's been my experience that left-wing 'economic conservatives' usually fall out right around here...

ROFL... Oh GOD! Now that' precious... there is no such thing as an honest leftists...

Yet that policy and other leftist bilge of like kind is wholly responsible for the deficit spending of the last 50 years... So as an unmitigated economic conservative, you would by default HAVE to denounce such policy and I've nothing on my screen suggesting ya do... Again in my experience, most leftist, such as yourself, deeply rationalize the necessity of social spending, regulation on industry, even as they lament deficit spending and 'exporting jobs..."

That's what makes the closest held 'feelings' of the left such a joke.

Oh I hear ya sis...

Well here's the thing... I count leftist sympathizers in with leftists... I consider you people 'carriers.' In a lot of ways, you're worse than the crazies...



Yeah... I'm familiar with your position; You don't believe in God, nor human rights. You believe that Human Rights are an invention of the species... this due to you being unable to understand the distinction between human rights and government protections of human rights... All boiling down to your atheism; since God doesn't exist, the greatest authority on earth is Government; thus Human Rights is whatever Government says they are.

In effect you've repeatedly adhered to my position, admitting that human rights is in the absence of God, a concept without meaning... but despite my best efforts to patiently wait for you to admit it; it is a point which continuously escapes you...


By 'random people' you mean terrorist suspects... It’s Ok to admit it Scooter... such thinly vieled obfuscation doesn't fool anyone. As a leftist you had no intellectual choice but to turn to the promotion of the interests of the enemy...


ROFLMNAO... Darfur? So you feel we should 'stop the genocide' in Darfur do ya?

How do you suggest we do that? Should we invade Darfur? I don't recall that Darfur has attacked us... are you suggesting the US preemptively invade Darfur to kill the Marxist Islamic Radicals executing the genocide?

What if 'stopping the genocide' requires 'torturing' some of those Marxist Islamic Radicals? What then? What if it requires dressing the Islamic Men in granny panties, naked Islamic Radical pyramids and treating them to some good old fashion HUMILIATION... ? Would you still support that?

Can you cite the national interests Darfur represents to the US? If not, what would be a valid moral basis that would support the US invading that nation and preventing the popular majority in Darfur from 'reasoning the moral values' that it feels is right, against an unpopular minority? Why should the US risk life and treasure to stop the 'will of the people?

If the US had to increase the military by 2 million troops to 'stop the genocide' and hire another 250,000 private contractors... Should we THEN pursue 'Stopping the Genocide?'

Looking forward to your response.

Love,

PI


Friends, what would be different in the US invading Darfur to 'stop Islamic Radicals from killing innocent people and the US Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to stop Islamic Radicals from killing innocents?


Answer: There is no US national interests in going to Darfur... The left doesn't give a darn about genocide in Darfur and they don't give a red rats rear about torture... did you see any of them get bent out of shape when Dan Pearls head was sawed off? Remember the left's response to the Contractors that were murdered in Fallujah before the Corps settled that score 10,000 fold? They said that they were "MERCINARIES..." and 'American "MERCINARIES" deserved being hung and burned...'

Darfur and torture are absurd red herrings the left trots out to provide the color of principle.

Could we stop the Genocide in Darfur? Hell yes we could... but to do so, we'd have to do everything the left has cried about in Iraq. There'd sure enough be innocent people being accidently killed by US munitions, there'd be major infrastructure damage, the government, if it contested the US would be dispatched, requiring us to establish an interim democratic government, elections to form a new government, a new constitution...

Hey IXT... do ya have an exit strategy?

The sole authority of human rights is their divine origin; thus their eternal scope...

Absent God, the authority which determines what human rights are, is Government... which changes as the paradigm of power changes.

"Rights" however can mean anything to anyone... at issue here is human rights, of the Jeffersonian variety... The divine right to life, inalienable, an endowment from the creator to man, thus entitling him to his life and that which brings fulfillment to that life; a right which comes with the sacred responsibility to maintain that right through exercise which does not infringe on the rights of others... and the duty to defend it from unjustified usurpation.

Uh-huh . . .

"Rights" is a concept that has different definitions. That's fine, so long as when we discuss the concept we agree on a single definition.

One definition that does not require shared religious faith - a good thing in a multicultural society and world - is "conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." That leads to the question of what is man's "proper survival."

I think we can agree that it's not to be a well tended slave. Most of us would agree that it's not a life of self abnegation either, like medieval Christians may have believed.

I find the most useful characterization to be Aristotle's discussion of The Good Life; it's basically an examination of what constitutes human flourishing. (A nice wiki article on the subject.)

Back to "rights." They are a useful concept that allows men to live together in peace and to their mutual benefit, that is, allows individuals in a human society to flourish and live The Good Life. There is no concrete thing you can point to and say, "this is a right." It's a concept that only has meaning in the context of human beings living in society.

Whose God gets to decide what those rights are?

No, absent God it is *humans* that determine what human rights are. Through reason. A given government may or may not agree, and may have the power to suppress certain rights within its jurisdiction. But government is not the final arbiter of what constitutes a "human right."

Can humans disagree on what fundamental rights are? Of course. Indeed, that definition has changed throughout history. That's where the marketplace of ideas comes in. But it is humans, not governments, that make the arguments and win the philosophical battles. All a government can do is subscribe, or not.

Jefferson was human. And while he used "endowed by the Creator" to place the source of rights above the power of any government to *legitimately* infringe, the actual rights themselves were reasoned out by humans. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are nowhere spelled out as rights in the Bible or any other holy book. They sprang from the pen of Jefferson, informed by spirited human debate over the centuries.

__________________
Man up.

Good post.

Jefferson's words paraphrase Locke's Second Treatise (? - I'm rusty) very closely. It's fun to read Locke for this reason (and others).