Crap for brains

Someone has their tin-foil hat on too tight and is asking if the NRA funds the Brady Campaign.


The answer is no.


I would like to point out that the NRA people have lots of things to do besides get involved in politics. They have instructors to train, classes to create and teach, they have events to put on, they have ranges to help design and build. If gun control activists and politicians were to go extinct the NRA would have lots of things to do that probably would be a lot more fun that wading through the mud with the politicians.


On the other hand–if the Brady Campaign were to get a universal ban on firearms in this country they would have to move on to knives and sharp sticks. So if they had millions of members and were in fear of their money drying up they would be more likely to fund the NRA (or some other pro-freedom group) as their boogieman.


While I’m pointing out people with crap for brains–Here are a couple more examples:


dissentus:



The more important matter here, however, is the fact that these people have the guns. The mistake that we on the Left make is our advocacy for gun control. Make no mistake about it, when the working class rises up to take their rightful place as the ruling class, there will be people on the Right with guns, and they will not hesitate to shoot. Wisdom would therefore dictate that the Left not be left with only rakes and hoes to defend themselves.


Most of the people I know with guns or are activists for gun owner rights just want to be left alone. They want the government to back off to it’s constitutionally authorized limits. The constitution does not create or grant that there should be a “ruling class”. There are public servants and not much more.


7514328:



Congressmen, Senators, HMO’s and health insurance companies have profited for far too long. They are the causation of the current health care crisis. Get rid of the health insurance companies and the millions of illegal aliens and problam fixed. Free health care for all US citizens. Its a moral right. Not to be profited by anyone. Its genocide by the health insurance companies. They need to pay for their racketeering scheme for turning ours healths into national profits.


“A moral right”? If they had said “A Human Right” or a “Natural Right”I would have known what they were talking about and been able to tell them they didn’t know what they are talking about. But a moral right is meaningless to me so I guess have to address them at that level.


There is no such thing as a free lunch. You no more deserve free health care than you do free food. And that’s not just because I derive profits from a farm and a wife who works in the health care field. Do you demand the grocery stores to give you food for free? Isn’t food a more basic need than health care? Until you demand free food you are nothing more than a hypocrite. And the instant you demand free food you expose yourself as a communist. If you believe communism is the appropriate political philosophy then go join or create a commune. There is nothing in the laws of this country that will stop you and your friends from doing the same test (and achieving the same result) as millions of other people have done over the last 150 years. And if you are smart enough you will avoid killing yourself and a few tens of millions of people in the process.

32 thoughts on “Crap for brains

  1. While I tend to agree with the first comment, I don’t think lack of success has to do with smarts, it has to do with the basic human nature that has been pointed out before that for Communism to work everyone has to have the same amount of altruism and that altruism has to be all pervasive, not even Communism’s (or Socialism’s for that matter) progenitors were that altruistic. That alone should have given them pause. What might be equally perplexing is that the proponents of Marxism were also proponents of Darwinism, whose driving force is the survival of the fittest and the extinction of all those who are not fit enough…oh, wait, there was a movement to exterminate all those who didn’t fit the Communist mold…my bad.

  2. On a large scale equal altruism is required, as the population is too small to self-regulate. A small village can easily run on a communist system because if one member starts to slack or abuse the altruism of others they can be scolded, and if that doesn’t work, punished, or banished/executed. Once the system becomes so large that each individual no longer has the ability to oversee and interact with every other individual in the system regulation starts to become a full-time job, and quickly a police and government force is created, these people can be bribed, or simply abdicate their duties for a life of sloth, and then the system begins to collapse.

  3. Food and water are basic human rights. I can’t believe anyone would argue that they aren’t.

  4. Ubu will you agree to mail me this gift package?
    http://tinyurl.com/34g8cwr

    How about giving me a spare key to your place so I may help myself to your pantry?

    How about if your neighbor buys a 1,000 gallon swimming pool, will you allow them to fill it off your tap?

    When walking through a neighborhood if you see a vegtable garden with ripe crops do you think you can go harvest some without fear of prosecution?

    Strawman stupidity again from you. Nobody EVER has a right physical property, it just can’t be done, just like the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean the government hands out guns and ammo to people who request them. Nor do any of us call for that.

    You most certainly have a right to food, water, defensive arms, and health care…you can make or acquire your own, or you can buy or trade for it, and the government or other 3rd parties have no right to intervene.

    But in no way does that entitle you, or anybody else to the food in my kitchen, nor the food in the grocery store, nor does that require a doctor to treat you without compensation.

  5. Yeah, try putting a prisoner in jail and depriving him of food and water because “it isn’t a human right and no one deserves free food and water.” Just see how far that gets you.

    I can’t believe that people are retarded enough to think that arguing that someone can’t help themselves to the stuff in their kitchens means it isn’t a human right.

  6. Ubu52, when you are put in jail, your liberty is infringed. Granted, it’s up to the infringer to provide food, water, medication, and protection–but if an inmate isn’t getting enough food, he doesn’t have the right to take it from a fellow inmate! He doesn’t even have that right, if it’s clear that the fellow inmate has more than enough for himself.

    At this point, he still has to beg, trade, or find some other means to get more food. And, given that prisoners can obtain all sorts of things, up to and including guns, trade seems to be, not only a natural right, but an unsupressable one as well.

  7. Food and water are basic human rights.

    No, they are not, any more than access to computers, a car, or a wife/husband/significant other are “basic human rights”.

    Now, you certainly have the right to establish some sort of commerce with another entity and trade/purchase said food and water, or, conversely, you have the right to use whatever property you have to obtain/grow your own food and water. But you, as a sole, solitary, individual human being, have no “right to food and water”.

    Your rights stop at another person’s nose, and demanding food and water from them involves a hell of a lot more than their nostrils.

  8. Food and water are basic human rights. I can’t believe anyone would argue that they aren’t.

    Really? So if my lazy neighbor decides he has a “basic human right” to water and food he has the “right” to take whatever food & water he wants from me by force?

    I think not. The right to self-defense and property rights (the basic tenets of a civilized society) are paramount to “human rights”

  9. He doesn’t even have that right, if it’s clear that the fellow inmate has more than enough for himself.

    At this point, he still has to beg, trade, or find some other means to get more food.

    Exactly. The two inmates my deal with eachother rationally to further the interests of both parties. That does not mean that the plunderer has a “right” to the goods or property of the person he chooses to plunder. Reason is the only legitimate means of social interaction. Force is not.

  10. Look at Ubu smashing her square-peg ideology into the round-hole of reality. Crap-for-brains indeed.

    I’m curious, Ubu, what are you attempting to accomplish here showing up, dropping some foolishness then quickly abandoning it and beating a retreat?

  11. Health care is not a physical object to be bartered with, it is a service provided by a trained professional. No doctor, no health care.
    So, where does that leave us, vis a vis the rights argument?
    Well, if one is to argue that health care is a right, then what you are really saying is that a person has the right to the labor and expertise of another.
    We have a word for that, and it is slavery.
    I call anyone arguing that health care is a right a slaver, and don’t let them squirm out of it.

  12. Hi Uby. Please don’t think the disagreement with your principles means we don’t think you have rights. Inalienable rights given by God if you are religious, or by laws of nature otherwise. But your rights do not entitle you to my labor, goods (e.g., food), or person — for that would violate my rights.

    One of the inalienable rights is to self defense (from private or government criminals, or dangerous animals). Why do you think the rose has thorns? Self protection is a fundamental law of nature. If you do not believe it, why are you emitting CO2 with every breath?

    You confuse rights with freedom from infringement of your rights. Your “right to food and water” does not entitle you to take mine. What does your claim mean? What?

    (Joe, “Live Comment Preview” is fubar)

  13. Mark of course hit the nail right smack dab on the head. I was hoping someone would.

    “…when the working class rises up to take their rightful place as the ruling class…”

    That’s a full-blown communist/enemy of the state/enemy of Mankind talking, right there. That’s right out of the American Communist Party rhetoric.

    Lets have ubu explain to us how she would force someone else to provide me food. How does that work, ubu– gun point, threats of jail, or fines? Who would you make the slave, providing my food for me? Good grief, woman– get a grip.

    There is no right that demands anything from any person, other than non interference. Period. OK? All true rights work like that. You have the right to purchase medical care, food, etc., and others have the right to provide it. It means you may do what you wish, so long as you refrain from violating the rights of others, and there’s not a hing anyone else can do to stop you without becoming a criminal.

    That, right there, is the most radical, extreme, new, progressive stroke of genius in all of human history. To the admittedly limited extent that it has been put into practice (which mostly means that government simply stays out of the way) it has resulted in the most exuberant, vibrantly successful period in all of history, and as such it is one of the most hated ideals ever.

    And therein lies the rub. The successful are the objects of hatred, not because other people have less as a result (the rich benefit virtually everyone around them). They’re hated because they appear to have so much. They are the objects of envy and jealousy. That is what pisses you off. The regular, obviously imperfect human being, just like you, that has ten thousand times more than you ever imagined you could have, while you think you struggle. Boasting, possibly bragging, acting like they have the answers, seeming to have things easy when so many others seem to be suffering, doing large things– nothing results in more hatred from those who fail to understand the beauty of it. Admit it. You. Fucking. Hate. The Rich. Stop lying to yourself. As a result you’re willing to flush whole civilizations down the drain while you pretend to be acting out of compassion. You’ve convinced yourself of it, with help from the communist agitators, that you’re more compassionate than those “greedy” capitalists, and so it’s OK, even good, to hate them. What bitter, ugly, putrid, disgusting, deadly, murderous nonsense!

    The way out of this spiral of hatred and destruction is of course to acknowledge that some people will succeed to heights that dazzle, not because they are thieves in the night, but because they perform better—they serve the wants and needs of their fellow Man in the most clever or efficient ways, else, in a free society, they’d never make it to such heights (that’s why you want no free society). You see this beauty, this near magic—the creative, adaptive human mind, and think it ugliness. You can flip to other side. Just let go of your envy. Stop listening to the sweet voices that tell you your envy and rage is a good thing.

  14. “An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” –Col. Jeff Cooper

    One of my favorite Jeff Cooper quotes on gun ownership and defensive violence. That being said, one can look a little deeper into it so show Ubu’s debating technique.

    Ubu why are you interested enough on this subject to comment on several blogs…but not enough to be bothered to educate yourself so you can actually support your claims?

    It seems you come here just to run from us…and as Col. Cooper notes, that really doesn’t get much of anything done.

  15. I see to continue the discussion you must ignore all rebuttals given.

    You are being intentionally dishonest, and should be feeling shame. The question is why aren’t you ashamed of your juvenile behavior?

  16. Ubu, the United Nations also wants to ban all small arms owned by civilians. We don’t like the UN, nor are they a valid entity as far as we are concerned. The day they march down my street is the day you see on the news a picture of a blue helmet with a hole in it. They’re hardly someone we take notes from.

  17. “I see to continue the discussion you must ignore all rebuttals given.”

    I see that you fail to acknowledge facts. If I say “blue is blue,” you’ll say “no, blue is pink.” Food is a basic human right. I proved my point. You have not proven to me that food is not a basic human right. (And there is nothing that says “stealing food is a basic human right.” I never said that. Neither did the UN.)

  18. ubu52,

    I read the UN’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” ten years ago. They are based on Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms. They are socialist/Orwelling redefinitions of words to meet their desires.

    Two of those four are not freedoms because they can only be achieved by the taking of services or property of others. That is not freedom. That is at best a heavy tax and at worst slavery.

    Please do some research on positive and negative freedom/liberty. We are not as ignorant as you might think we are.

  19. I proved my point.

    No, you did not. You appealed to authority – look it up. You did, however, prove that you can find other people with equivalently socialistic mentalities as you. Congratulations for that.

    By the way, repeating your position over and over again does not make it any more true, either…

  20. She will now run away, and return days later on a new thread like nothing happened.

    You are being intentionally dishonest, and should be feeling shame. The question is why aren’t you ashamed of your juvenile behavior?

  21. “Please do some research on positive and negative freedom/liberty. We are not as ignorant as you might think we are.”

    I never said I thought you were ignorant. I made a statement: “Food is a basic human right” and I backed it up. It has nothing to do with freedom or liberty. It’s like saying “blue is a color” or “five is a number.” The people throwing in stuff like “access to computers and cars” are merely here for the argument.

    I have other things to do today so if people want to argue, do it amongst yourselves. (Weer’d: If I had all the time in the world to post on a computer, I’d have a blog, just like you do — but I don’t.)

  22. I made a statement: “Food is a basic human right” and I backed it up.

    You backed this statement up using the so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” which refuses to acknowledge self-defense–one of the most basic of rights–yet demands things like food, health care, employment, education, and protection as “rights”. These last things are most definitively not rights. We have responsibilities to find work that needs to be done (and the right to contract with others to do that work); to educate ourselves to the best of our ability (no one can guarantee that you’ll be educated, especially if you’re determined not to be); to seek out the best food and health care for yourself, and for your families, that you could afford; and to be prepared to defend your life and the lives of the innocent when threatened.

    When we reshape responsibilities as rights, funny things happen: we demand them from government. We plead for them from government. When government fails miserably at providing these things, we plead with the government to make them better. And sometimes, government makes things a little better…but sometimes, government just makes things a little worse instead. Yet we continue to plead for government to take care of us. (I’m at this moment doing my best to leave “retirement” off that above list of duties.)

    When government is providing lousy services, we shouldn’t be demanding more. We should be demanding that government should get out of the way and then we should get off our butts and provide for those services ourselves.

  23. Also note that she does not make any stipulations on how one EXERCISES those rights, which is the key point of contention. I personally agree that people should not be denied food they have claim to, or be able to have their food confiscated. You have a right TO food, just like you have the right to arms. The UN claims that the government has the right to force people to supply food to others.

    You continue to conflate these things as the same. You are claiming Blue is Yellow. and then casting diversions.

  24. ubu52,

    You said:

    Some of you appear to be unfamiliar with the UN’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

    I may have worded things a little more forcefully than you would have liked but that is a declaration that you believe some of us to be ignorant.

    I’m beginning to wonder if you have the same problem as MikeB302000. How is it that you determine truth from falsity?

    “Proof by appeal to authority” only works if that authority can demonstrate they know what they are talking about. “Proof by vigorous assertion” never works.

  25. The people throwing in stuff like “access to computers and cars” are merely here for the argument.

    Ahh, and now UBU52 continues with her, “I am going to ignore you… except when I can obliquely insult and attack you!” For being as old as you claim to be, kindergartener-level tactics are somewhat… sad. But, what can I expect from someone who attacked not only me, but my parents, over a piece of sushi that you misidentified?

    At any rate, your statement is patently false, though that is not any great surprise to anyone paying attention. Food (with the exception of whatever food you grow yourself on land you already own using equipment you likewise possess) is a material good, produced by other person(s), transported by yet other person(s), stored by still yet other person(s), and purchased by you, at a previously agreed-upon price. Saying you have a “right to food” is no different than saying you have a “right to X material good”, which is, thus, identical to saying you have a “right to a car”.

    Worse still, produced material goods, whether they are automobiles or frozen hamburger patties, are generated through the actions and efforts of other people – other people whose time you are now claiming a “right” to. As other people have previously articulated, that is slavery, pure and simple, and it becomes somewhat immaterial what the slaves in question are producing.

    And now that the absurdity of your argument, and the fallaciousness of your logic, has been exposed to the world to see, you fall back on the time-honored, “I do not have the time to debate you, so I am going to run away and hide,” excuse. It is a true shame that you lack the courage to back up your apparent convictions, UBU; and, yet, despite supposedly not having the time to back up your statements (which, by the way, you have not, as we have now-repeatedly pointed out to you), you seem to have all the time in the world to backhandedly insult people, and leave your trollish droppings all over the intertubes. Perhaps you should consider employing a time-management system appropriate for your age, rather than your current methodology?

    Joe beat me to the crux of the matter, though: I am starting to wonder if this entire furball is simply a byproduct of UBU having an erroneous definition of “rights” stuck in her head, regardless of what other modifiers or adjectives are prepended to the word. Like Alpheus indicates, we could, very well, be talking about very different things due to her misusing a word.

  26. Ubu,

    Reread Joe’s original statement.

    You no more deserve free health care than you do free food.

    Notice what’s missing? Here’s a hint: what’s missing is any assertion that anyone doesn’t have the right to food.

    You have the right to food. You have the right to buy it at the grocery store, or direct from a farmer, or even to grow it yourself.

    What Joe is saying is that you don’t have the right to force anyone to give you food.

    You see, food takes effort (i.e., labor) to gather or produce. Health care is a service – i.e., labor performed by another for your benefit. If you have the right to force someone to provide you with food or health care without you having to provide them with compensation or against their will (i.e., for lower compensation than what they are willing to do it for), that means you have the right to force them to perform labor for you against their will. That is called slavery.

    Do you support slavery? Because that seems to be what you are arguing for.

    But, of course, when people start poking holes in your arguments, you suddenly don’t have time to support those arguments, so I don’t really expect that you’ll respond.

  27. And off she runs!

    ‘I see that you fail to acknowledge facts. If I say “blue is blue,” you’ll say “no, blue is pink.” Food is a basic human right. I proved my point. You have not proven to me that food is not a basic human right.”

    And then when we present our facts Ms. Smarmy-pants high-tails out of dodge. And as with her predictable MO, she will later return to a different thread pretending this inconvenient reality never happened.

    I dunno about anybody else, but I have deep suspicions she is nothing more than a troll.

Comments are closed.