QueenZone discussion #1070463

DavidRFuller wrote: Wow I actually agree with you Treasure Moment.

Treasure Moment wrote:

DavidRFuller wrote: Wow I actually agree with you Treasure Moment.

i must admit i have respect for you seeing all your queen videos on youtube, you are a true fan. btw how long is the full version of face it alone?

DavidRFuller wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

DavidRFuller wrote: Wow I actually agree with you Treasure Moment.

i must admit i have respect for you seeing all your queen videos on youtube, you are a true fan. btw how long is the full version of face it alone?

Well thanks, I've only got what has been shared here so I dunno. Hopefully the whole thing will be released some day.

<font color=pink>Poo wrote: You're not even American, TM.

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Certain Ron Paul supporters are the number one reason why Ron Paul's support suffers.

LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity. For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support.

LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity. For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support.

Treasure Moment wrote:

LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity. For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support.

alright but consider this, he will remove the IRS so you dont have to pay income tax, get usa out of iraq, give back people liberties that is slowly being taken away for "security" check out George orwells 1984 and you ll understand what im talking about

LozlanTheMage wrote: A beautiful and deliciously biased breakdown of my very simple statement. Congradulations. Not only did you enforce the elitism of the libertarian mindset by impugning the intelligence of those either incapable or disinterested of comprehending its lofty ideology (indeed, a scant smattering of sarcasm), but you are expressely ignoring Ron Paul's frequent assertions that he is personally intensely pro-life. This proclivity for 'moral' reasoning is opposed to the national security of a woman's right to cleanse her body of a potential parasite - indeed, he maintains that each individual state should individually sanction a woman's rights. This equates to a breakdown of women's rights, since it is a certainty that numerous states would completely abolish abortion, a practice which is currently a sanctioned choice in this nation. Dress it up in lofty, ideological terminology, Ron Paul will dismiss Roe vs. Wade. I do not care if this dismissal is based in some high falutin' ideological claptrap - it is merely a trap. Also...the term 'generally always' doesn't mean what you think it means.

LozlanTheMage wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity. For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support.

check out George orwells 1984 and you ll understand what im talking about

Read Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

<b><font color=007788> ?Freya? wrote: TURRRRNNN AROUND BRIIIIGHT EYES

LozlanTheMage wrote: Was I proposing a simplicity concerning abortion? My dear friend, it is far and away the most complicated of concerns. But I shall come to that in a moment. It is impossible for a politician's political agendas to not be enforced by their personal beliefs. This is the tagline of the Ron Paul front: he is somehow above his own prjudices, a man removed from opinion and thus mightily objective. He strives only for an ideal etc. etc. My answer to this is utter bollucks.

LozlanTheMage wrote: There is a dangerous ideological haze hovering about Ron Paul, and it obscures the basic tenants of political motivation. He is not a supreme being descended from on high; neither is he an infallible uber-politician, driven only by the strength of maverick ideals. Blind optimism drives these perceptions, which I can understand theoretically. We all want a great politician, another Lincoln. But even Lincoln's many faults have merely been erased on the crucible of selective history.

LozlanTheMage wrote: In my humble opinion economics exists only to serve the people. I believe (again, I am purposefully personalizing this view) that universal human rights should stem from widespread socialization of such institutions as health care and college education. The captialist construct of money is a decrepit and self-destructive entity, and has led to the erection of the 'American Dream' as a means of perpetually oppressing a lower class vainly bent on achieving success by the skin of their teeth.

LozlanTheMage wrote: You made broad assertions concerning Libertarianism and offer no proof to back it. I have known several libertarians, and to a man they were selfish, whining black holes, insistent that any gain they achieved in life was based solely in their superiority as human beings. Never mind the obvious boosts supplied by pale skin and vaunted economic status - no. They were veritable supermen, far and away better than the squalling masses.

LozlanTheMage wrote:
This is where our ideologies separate, and why this argument is quite futile. I believe in the abolishment of capitalist stratification. I believe in the dissolution of oppressive class structure. Libertarianism is a selfish economic policy that allows each rich man to remain rich, whilst clearing his consciousness of any responsibility to tho

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:

LozlanTheMage wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights. He has also advocated the dissolution of the UN, preferring a philosophy of national sovereignity. For these two reasons (coupled with his expressely libertarian ideology) he will never have a scrap of my support.

check out George orwells 1984 and you ll understand what im talking about

Read Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

Read "Harry Potter and the Prisioner of Azkaban" by J. K. Rowling and both of you will get it.

yamaha wrote: From what I'm seeing from the possible candidates, I won't be voting. It's not that I don't like the choices. Actually, I can't find any major flaws in anyone that is in the running. For some reason, I can't imagine the country going to hell under the direction of the lizard queen or any of the others. I am getting the impression, though, that we will see our first black president elected in 2008. I see no reason to buy into anything unless distinctly compelled. I'm not voting, and won't complain about the results.

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:

LozlanTheMage wrote: Was I proposing a simplicity concerning abortion? My dear friend, it is far and away the most complicated of concerns. But I shall come to that in a moment. It is impossible for a politician's political agendas to not be enforced by their personal beliefs. This is the tagline of the Ron Paul front: he is somehow above his own prjudices, a man removed from opinion and thus mightily objective. He strives only for an ideal etc. etc. My answer to this is utter bollucks.

So, what you are trying to say, is that there is no such person capable of performing the duties of the office of President of the United States of America from an objective perspective. Therefore, we should vote for the candidate whose subjective beliefs we are most aligned with, and who will thrust these beliefs upon an entire nation.

What you fail to notice is Ron Paul's impeccable track record, where he has consistently and objectively upheld his duties to the Constitution.

LozlanTheMage wrote: There is a dangerous ideological haze hovering about Ron Paul, and it obscures the basic tenants of political motivation. He is not a supreme being descended from on high; neither is he an infallible uber-politician, driven only by the strength of maverick ideals. Blind optimism drives these perceptions, which I can understand theoretically. We all want a great politician, another Lincoln. But even Lincoln's many faults have merely been erased on the crucible of selective history.

LozlanTheMage wrote:
In my humble opinion economics exists only to serve the people. I believe (again, I am purposefully personalizing this view) that universal human rights should stem from widespread socialization of such institutions as health care and college education. The captialist construct of money is a decrepit and self-destructive entity, and has led

LozlanTheMage wrote: Oh yes, I am so ill-informed. Your pedantic tone has never ceased to amaze me; compounded with your implied sneer (what of the millions that have never studied economics as a serious persuit? Are we intellectually doomed to sub-standard living and treatment?) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Regardless of why he is doing so, Ron Paul will abolish Roe vs. Wade. Even if this is act of pure ideology, utterly untainted by his core personal beliefs, it is still a destructive decision that will lead to widespread suffering. That is why I oppose Ron Paul, laying all personal qualms with Libertarian thinking at the wayside.

Widespread suffering? Like I said, the abortion debate is one of the least black and white debates in modern existence. To say, "Women deserve to be allowed abortions no matter what," ignores that debate entirely, and is completely subjective.

LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights.

Micrówave wrote:

LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights.

If he would deprive TM of that same right, then he's got my vote.

Micrówave wrote:

LozlanTheMage wrote: Ron Paul was the recent advocate of the Sanctity of Life Act, which seeks to undermine Roe vs. Wade and deprive women of their basic reproductive rights.

If he would deprive TM of that same right, then he's got my vote.

HistoryGirl wrote: 4) Are we sure this guy is a Republican?

Treasure Moment wrote: "bon jovi is better than queen" hahaha

I got better ones: Freddie Mercury is Iranian. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ron Paul is a good choice. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. There's a chip in my head. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. My band is better than all bands but Queen. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. My music skills are 2nd to Fred's. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Paul Rodgers isn't Queen. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Why don't you go vote for Ace Frehley? I just voted for Bon Jovi again. But I will never ever vote for Queen on that site, just so it cancels out your vote. Then Queen will be just like those other shitty bands: Rolling Stones, Beatles, etc.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: So, basically, what you are saying is that it is possible for a president to be completely neutral in every issue, putting his personal views aside, and judging right from wrong by applying the constitution to every matter? So, essentially, he is a one-man-supreme-court, over and above the parties? Did you know that this view was proposed in the ideology refered to as "Civic Humanism", deemed impossible and surrendered in the early 19th century, revived in the so-called Gilded Age, proven untenable and yet again reverted from? I'll give you a few quotes you might consider. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton (Historian) "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglas "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams To that I wish to add, that anyone who desires power is by definition not to be trusted with it. You argue that it is possible for someone to withstand the temptations of power. That lobby-groups will not bring him/her down. That he/she is in fact CAPABLE of knowing absolute right and wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above implicit suppositions I find in your response has been proven flawed over the years!

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Ah, so he did not in 2001 apologize for racist comments he himself published?

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

Perhaps he is not infallible, but then I have to ask, who is? He's the closest thing to an objective and well-educated politician that we have.

Subjective, unsupported response, avoidance of burden of proof. You have skilfully parried Lozlan rhetorically, yet have done nothing to respond to his credible statement. You should run for office yourself, slippery as you clearly are.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.

Can I be the Best Man?

HistoryGirl wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.

Can I be the Best Man?

*laughes* Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form. But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

LozlanTheMage wrote: And since when are we all prosperous under capitalism? Fallacious argument yet again.

I could write pages on the virtues on capitalism, but there's nothing I could write that the Austrians or the Chicago School (as well as mostly every educated economist) haven't written before. Prosperity is measured by quality of life. Essentially, you could look at the United States, for example. Some of the poorest people in this country have houses with multiple bathrooms and color televisions. Most of them have automobiles as well. You could also compare North and South Korea for a modern example. One is a free market economy that has prospered, and the other is centrally planned and has largely failed. Austrians such as Hayek debunked the virtues of a centrally planned economy over fifty years ago, and it's not exactly a hotly debated topic in the world of economics, so I fail to see what you're getting at.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Not only are you distorting the truth (regarding the 'Founding Fathers', who were not monolithic in views and certainly not libertarian), you also deny any sense of (Christian) morality: you deny responsibility for those who did not have your opportunities, pretending that those are fairly distributed.

I am in no way suggesting that opportunities are currently fairly distributed. The idea of Libertarianism is to fairly distribute opportunities as much as possible, which differs from the idea of Socialism, where everything is distributed equally regardless of anything. I think both ideals are fair. However, only one is effective for quality of life and technological improvement.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

Alright, once again, this reverts to the capitalism vs. socialism debate. Prosperity vs. equality. Under pure capitalism, everyone would be better off than they would be under pure socialism, but the prosperity would not be equally divulged. I suppose the proper balance is entirely subjective.

Unsupported fallacious argument.

I am not arguing that this is the truth. I am assuming it is and explaining it is because this argument has already been settled among economists.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: I've studied economic history. Good enough for ya? Do you have the guts to back up your big mouth? Then let's go!

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

Widespread suffering? Like I said, the abortion debate is one of the least black and white debates in modern existence. To say, "Women deserve to be allowed abortions no matter what," ignores that debate entirely, and is completely subjective.

This is again a fallacy. We are talking about theoretic rights here: does a woman have full rights regarding her own body? If you say yes, then abortion is legalized, and ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION is required to place limitations on this freedom, NOT the other way around. If you say no, you are in violation of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights: by giving a political or judicial body the right to limit a person's rights in regards to their own body, they violate article 1, because women are not given full control over their own bodies when men are, and article 3, because security of person is violated. However, the most important matter here is that, as you know just as well as I, the rhetoric used is less radical than that opinion which it voices: by not outright permitting abortion, it can be effectively forbidden by using "letter of the law"-type legislation and maintenance thereof, much like the "separate but equal" doctrine for a long time violated the 14th amendment. Perhaps you support this, perhaps you fail to notice it. Perhaps you are even so gullible as to believe your own remarks. The point is, history demonstrates otherwise.

HistoryGirl wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.

Can I be the Best Man?

*laughes* Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form. But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*

Mr.Jingles wrote:

HistoryGirl wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.

Can I be the Best Man?

*laughes* Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form. But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*

Awesome! I hope you don't mind me taking Caspar to a wild bachelor party with Dubya's daughters.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Ah, but I would take it that international law should be a basis for every debate on what is just or unjust, is it not? I therefore presented you with a simple two-way choice: either pro-choice in compliance with international law, or pro-life, implying that international law has no validity in the USA. Of course, anyone is free to choose the latter (despite not offering someone *else* a choice), but that choice results in the need to reformulate standards of international law, which is why I brought up the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

HistoryGirl wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: HistoryGirl. Despite the fact that I would consider marrying you.

Can I be the Best Man?

*laughes* Have to admit I was a bit surprised to read that as well. But those who have actually known me realize that what comes across in text as cynicism (while I am fairly cynical I will admit) is more often a dry wit and sarcastic tendency that doesn't come across well in written form. But Dan, if TQ and I were to get hitched, of course you could be the best man *winks*

Now look what kind of trouble a simple bit of rhetoric can get a guy into ;-)