Conservative Reaction to Communist MSNBC commerial!

[rightwinger]

As someone who does not have children and does not want them, it's not my responsibility to care for your brats. You raise them. It's enough that I pay for schools I will/would not ever use and the dozens of other flunky programs your favorite protection racket has set up.

Be responsible for your own children. It's not my responsibility to care for, or invest in them.

Libertarian heaven

Individual rights heaven, moron. I'm not your ******* slave or serf.

**** you...I got mine

Libertarian Heaven

 

[jknowgood]

IMHO: Maybe the reporter mispoke or was misinterpreted as some say. But what came out of her mouth plays right into to the idea that many on the far left would like to take parental responsibilty away from parents who raise their children with right-wing values.

As a parent myself, I welcome the assistance of my family, my neighbors, and my community - as long as they can respect the fact that I am the parent and they don't seek to undermine my parental responsibilities.

If she only meant to say that communities have a vested interest and should assist parents (without usurping them) then perhaps she chose her words poorly and I can see past that. But if she is promoting communalizing parental responsibility, I could not disagree more.

So you would be okay if you had an underage daughter and she got pregnant. You would be okay with the community getting her an abortion without your knowledge?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

As someone who does not have children and does not want them, it's not my responsibility to care for your brats. You raise them. It's enough that I pay for schools I will/would not ever use and the dozens of other flunky programs your favorite protection racket has set up.

Be responsible for your own children. It's not my responsibility to care for, or invest in them.

I agree that other people's children are not your "respojnsibility." But to suggest that everyone in the community does not have a vested interest in all our children is very short-sighted. You are going to pay, one way or another. Either on the law enforcement/penal side of things, or on the social services end, or (best option imho) on the education/mentoring end.

Great. Another "you will pay for this, whether you like it or not." person.
If the transaction of me vesting interest in YOUR children is not voluntary, it's not legitimate. If I wish to perform charity voluntarily in whaich ever way I see best to "invest" in my community, then I'm helping. If you elect some professional psycopath to have his goons put a gun to my head and extract "payment" for what YOU think i should pay for for your children, YOURE being a despot. Whether it is just you, or you and 25 of your neighbors.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Libertarian heaven

Individual rights heaven, moron. I'm not your ******* slave or serf.

**** you...I got mine

Libertarian Heaven

That's right, asshole. My life belongs to me, not you or you and your neighbor who want to use a protection racket to bully others into submission with force/violence. Being that I own myself, I own the results of my labor and MY time.

If you want to sacrifice your time and fruits to a cause, that is your business and I advocate that. If someone puts a gun to your head and forces payment for something you dont use or want, I'd fight arm in arm with you over it.

It's called freedom. We shoudl try it again some time.

 

[nodoginnafight]

IMHO: Maybe the reporter mispoke or was misinterpreted as some say. But what came out of her mouth plays right into to the idea that many on the far left would like to take parental responsibilty away from parents who raise their children with right-wing values.

As a parent myself, I welcome the assistance of my family, my neighbors, and my community - as long as they can respect the fact that I am the parent and they don't seek to undermine my parental responsibilities.

If she only meant to say that communities have a vested interest and should assist parents (without usurping them) then perhaps she chose her words poorly and I can see past that. But if she is promoting communalizing parental responsibility, I could not disagree more.

So you would be okay if you had an underage daughter and she got pregnant. You would be okay with the community getting her an abortion without your knowledge?

Not at all. I don't think they should give my daughter (if I had one) the morning after contraception pill without my consent either. What in the world did I write to lead you to believe that might be acceptable to me?

 

[rightwinger]

Individual rights heaven, moron. I'm not your ******* slave or serf.

**** you...I got mine

Libertarian Heaven

That's right, asshole. My life belongs to me, not you or you and your neighbor who want to use a protection racket to bully others into submission with force/violence. Being that I own myself, I own the results of my labor and MY time.

If you want to sacrifice your time and fruits to a cause, that is your business and I advocate that. If someone puts a gun to your head and forces payment for something you dont use or want, I'd fight arm in arm with you over it.

It's called freedom. We shoudl try it again some time.

The main reason why no society on earth is run by Libertarians

 

[nodoginnafight]

Individual rights heaven, moron. I'm not your ******* slave or serf.

**** you...I got mine

Libertarian Heaven

That's right, asshole. My life belongs to me, not you or you and your neighbor who want to use a protection racket to bully others into submission with force/violence. Being that I own myself, I own the results of my labor and MY time.

If you want to sacrifice your time and fruits to a cause, that is your business and I advocate that. If someone puts a gun to your head and forces payment for something you dont use or want, I'd fight arm in arm with you over it.

It's called freedom. We shoudl try it again some time.

I believe that goes beyond freedom into a "survival of the fittest" jungle mentality. Whether you choose to recognize the benefits and opportunities that society provides for you - you get them. You don't want them? Fine - go move to a deserted island or something. But if you stay here and reap the benefits, you are going to have to pay your fair share to provide them. And you are going to have to accept the fact that people are going to have differences of opinion on what benefits should be offered and how much we are going to have to pay. And the majority will decide.

Having said that, I do believe we have gone too far and that the benefits we seek to provide have to meet at least one criteria - we have to be able to afford it without going into debt. If it can't pass that test, then sure, it might be a wonderful thing, but we can't offer it.

Just MHO.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As someone who does not have children and does not want them, it's not my responsibility to care for your brats. You raise them. It's enough that I pay for schools I will/would not ever use and the dozens of other flunky programs your favorite protection racket has set up.

Be responsible for your own children. It's not my responsibility to care for, or invest in them.

I agree that other people's children are not your "respojnsibility." But to suggest that everyone in the community does not have a vested interest in all our children is very short-sighted. You are going to pay, one way or another. Either on the law enforcement/penal side of things, or on the social services end, or (best option imho) on the education/mentoring end.

Great. Another "you will pay for this, whether you like it or not." person.
If the transaction of me vesting interest in YOUR children is not voluntary, it's not legitimate. If I wish to perform charity voluntarily in whaich ever way I see best to "invest" in my community, then I'm helping. If you elect some professional psycopath to have his goons put a gun to my head and extract "payment" for what YOU think i should pay for for your children, YOURE being a despot. Whether it is just you, or you and 25 of your neighbors.

I believe you are wrong - whether you choose to recognize it or not, you benefit from the education of other people's children. So you have to pitch in or move out.

 

[Pogo]

Agitator, since you're logged on, I've haven't gotten a single liberal to answer this question for me; perhaps you would clarify for us confused "righties."

I'm trying to understand their reaction and interpretation of the transcript:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, she states a problem: We're not investing enough/correctly into education.

Then she diagnoses the problem,

Then she proposes the solution.

She says her solution will better our investments into education.
---------------------------

Would you care to tell me, in your own opinion, what her diagnosis was (from the ad)? Cite which line of the transcript contains the diagnosis of the problem.

Will you then tell me, in your own opinion, what her solution was? Cite which line in which she tells us how to solve the problem.

Again, here's the transcript:

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we have always had a private notion of our children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We never had a collective notion that these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents, or that kids belong to their families.

5. We must recognize that kids belong to the WHOLE COMMUNITY;

6. Once it is everyone's responsibility, and not just the household, we start making better investments.

Dontcha know. We lefties just read penumbras into stuff.

I don't know how to answer this with any seriousness. it isn't a political platform,
IT'S A F*****G CABLE NEWS PROMO!

Thank you. I was coming to break the news to him, you got there first.

"Commercial". Sheesh.

Some of y'all seem to spend an awful lot of time (and several threads) on this station promo. When you're not wailing about how nobody watches that channel.

Oh by the way 2A...
Are we sure this "story" is "real"? Or is this a post from Nosebook?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I agree that other people's children are not your "respojnsibility." But to suggest that everyone in the community does not have a vested interest in all our children is very short-sighted. You are going to pay, one way or another. Either on the law enforcement/penal side of things, or on the social services end, or (best option imho) on the education/mentoring end.

Great. Another "you will pay for this, whether you like it or not." person.
If the transaction of me vesting interest in YOUR children is not voluntary, it's not legitimate. If I wish to perform charity voluntarily in whaich ever way I see best to "invest" in my community, then I'm helping. If you elect some professional psycopath to have his goons put a gun to my head and extract "payment" for what YOU think i should pay for for your children, YOURE being a despot. Whether it is just you, or you and 25 of your neighbors.

I believe you are wrong - whether you choose to recognize it or not, you benefit from the education of other people's children. So you have to pitch in or move out.

Well, you're entitled to your belief. But the reality remains that the two "choices" you are offering me are both built on an act of aggression. You're not offering me any choice at all, really. it's no different than if a robber came into my home and said "open the safe, or I'll shoot you."

I can comply, or attempt to fight my way OUT of the situation. Composing a society based on acts of aggression for compliance violates the right to self ownership and free will. Whether you want to recognize that or not.

 

[hortysir]

IMHO: Maybe the reporter mispoke or was misinterpreted as some say. But what came out of her mouth plays right into to the idea that many on the far left would like to take parental responsibilty away from parents who raise their children with right-wing values.

As a parent myself, I welcome the assistance of my family, my neighbors, and my community - as long as they can respect the fact that I am the parent and they don't seek to undermine my parental responsibilities.

If she only meant to say that communities have a vested interest and should assist parents (without usurping them) then perhaps she chose her words poorly and I can see past that. But if she is promoting communalizing parental responsibility, I could not disagree more.

So you would be okay if you had an underage daughter and she got pregnant. You would be okay with the community getting her an abortion without your knowledge?

Not at all. I don't think they should give my daughter (if I had one) the morning after contraception pill with my consent either. What in the world did I write to lead you to believe that might be acceptable to me?

Nothing.

Nogood has reading comprehension issues

 

[nodoginnafight]

Great. Another "you will pay for this, whether you like it or not." person.
If the transaction of me vesting interest in YOUR children is not voluntary, it's not legitimate. If I wish to perform charity voluntarily in whaich ever way I see best to "invest" in my community, then I'm helping. If you elect some professional psycopath to have his goons put a gun to my head and extract "payment" for what YOU think i should pay for for your children, YOURE being a despot. Whether it is just you, or you and 25 of your neighbors.

I believe you are wrong - whether you choose to recognize it or not, you benefit from the education of other people's children. So you have to pitch in or move out.

Well, you're entitled to your belief. But the reality remains that the two "choices" you are offering me are both built on an act of aggression. You're not offering me any choice at all, really. it's no different than if a robber came into my home and said "open the safe, or I'll shoot you."

I can comply, or attempt to fight my way OUT of the situation. Composing a society based on acts of aggression for compliance violates the right to self ownership and free will. Whether you want to recognize that or not.

I disagree - your choice and exection of a decision to live in a place that more closely resembles your point of view comes completely without violence. And the level of violence included in meeting your responsibilities is completely up to you.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So you would be okay if you had an underage daughter and she got pregnant. You would be okay with the community getting her an abortion without your knowledge?

Not at all. I don't think they should give my daughter (if I had one) the morning after contraception pill with my consent either. What in the world did I write to lead you to believe that might be acceptable to me?

Nothing.

Nogood has reading comprehension issues

I have my bad moments too

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I believe you are wrong - whether you choose to recognize it or not, you benefit from the education of other people's children. So you have to pitch in or move out.

Well, you're entitled to your belief. But the reality remains that the two "choices" you are offering me are both built on an act of aggression. You're not offering me any choice at all, really. it's no different than if a robber came into my home and said "open the safe, or I'll shoot you."

I can comply, or attempt to fight my way OUT of the situation. Composing a society based on acts of aggression for compliance violates the right to self ownership and free will. Whether you want to recognize that or not.

I disagree - your choice and exection of a decision to live in a place that more closely resembles your point of view comes completely without violence. And the level of violence included in meeting your responsibilities is completely up to you.

No, it does not. If i was born here, as a natural creature, I have the right to be left here unmolested. You're simply using an age old logical fallacy. The idea you're trying to pass off is that I have no self ownership, and that it is a collective of others who wish to claim that ownership with the use of violence if necessary.

Telling me I can either pay or leave is the same choice offered in the example above. there is nothing different about it.

 

[Pogo]

Fox Noise video backthread: "Wow, another attack on the nuclear family"

Leave it to Fox Noise to bait the gullible by dumbing down to neanderthal verbage. Wtf?
Oh, they call it an "ad" too, which as broadcasters they know is bullshit.

This is not a new concept btw...

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable. -- Khalil Gibran

 

[nodoginnafight]

Well, you're entitled to your belief. But the reality remains that the two "choices" you are offering me are both built on an act of aggression. You're not offering me any choice at all, really. it's no different than if a robber came into my home and said "open the safe, or I'll shoot you."

I can comply, or attempt to fight my way OUT of the situation. Composing a society based on acts of aggression for compliance violates the right to self ownership and free will. Whether you want to recognize that or not.

I disagree - your choice and exection of a decision to live in a place that more closely resembles your point of view comes completely without violence. And the level of violence included in meeting your responsibilities is completely up to you.

No, it does not. If i was born here, as a natural creature, I have the right to be left here unmolested. You're simply using an age old logical fallacy. The idea you're trying to pass off is that I have no self ownership, and that it is a collective of others who wish to claim that ownership with the use of violence if necessary.

Telling me I can either pay or leave is the same choice offered in the example above. there is nothing different about it.

Again, I disagree. I lament your misfortune in being born into the United States of America. But no one will threaten you with violence if you decide to leave.

Maybe you would be happier in one of those nations that has found libertarianism as a workable, practical model.

oh ....

wait ....

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You have no argument. You're running in the same circle pretending your logical fallacy isn't a fallacy. I've done this waltz before.

If my choices are to either leave, or comply, those choices are built on acts of aggression. Period. It's no different than if a robber came into my home and said "open the safe or I'll shoot you." Actually, it is a little different. it's different in that the robber has the ******* HONESTY about him to do the deed himself. Where as folks like you will secretly vote to have your neighbors property confiscated by a 3rd party "authority".

So really, I view your perspective as worse than a robber.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Making a false assertion over and over again won't make it true. No matter how many times you waltz it out - it is still a false premise.

But you are entitled to cling to whatever you choose. Just don't act surprised that you've never been able to convince more than about 7%. I'm sure it's because everyone else is intellectually inferior.

Whatever gets you through the night.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, that was a well thought out and very convincing argument. Much like the rest of them I've encountered when people refuse (or have a cognition failure).

If the choices are to leave, comply or have force used against you. All of the choices are acts of aggression. Perhaps you should figure out what aggression means and then come back to the table with a better formulated argument. The "you cant convince statists of that and good luck" is pretty weak. Even for someone with your mental fortitude.

Here, i can help you though (assuming you have comprehension skills.

ag·gres·sion noun \ə-ˈgre-shən\
Definition of AGGRESSION
1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration


See that? Comprehend?


OK, lets provide the same exact example again. I was born here. I am a natural citizen of this country and any attempt to remove me, or apply force for noncompliance, is an act of aggression. Being a "backseat robber" who says that I can either pay for the things you demand, have force/violence used against me or I can GTFO of my environment are all choices built on the premise of aggression.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Your kids belong to the collective!

MSNBC deleted their own video in the OP so I added link to a different mirror.