Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Chvez has been undermining the democratic character of Venezuela for eleven years.
The news that Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was removed from his post and spirited out of the country by the Honduran military has elicited official condemnations from the governments of France, Ecuador, Chile, Spain, and Argentina; as well as protests from the Organization of American States and the United Nations. The U.S. State Department called the events an "attempted coup," and demanded that Mr. Zelaya be returned to power in order to facilitate the "restoration of democratic order."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

MURPHY

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Wonder how many of the ballots from Chavez were already marked with the X ??

No coup for you! Come back one year!

Wow! You mean there were two coups?
"She's my little deuce coup...."

Make mine a '34 Ford, Thank You...
I think Chickenfucker's looking for a new place as well-I'd think he'd take a chicken "coup"....

wow, eye-opening indeed. The administration really need to be held accountable to answer for this one, especially since they are in the early stages of the same media blackout campaign here. It will also be interesting as more unfolds about the election fraud.

Bnch of convoluted bull shit attempting to justify the coup that removed a democratically elected president. Right wingers love right wing dictatorships because property rights are more important than human rights to them.

hold on there Danni - you suggesting that term limits mean nothing so long as a populist president can ram through a referendum to change the constitution, against wishes of Judiciary and Congress? Sure he was democratically elected - to serve a single term. Using his popularity to change the consititution is dangerous in this region. I think we need to see what happens next before we label this as a travesty of justice.

Property rights are human rights.

"Property rights are human rights."

And when property rights conflict with other human rights, rtards will side with property every time.

And when property rights conflict with other human rights, rtards will side with property every time.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-06-30 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag Renter

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2009-06-30 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Dipshit

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-06-30 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag keeps getting evicted

Do you have some point, Eberly? Property is not just housing, dummy.

I guess I don't see how you can separate the two. If the government can take my stuff, in just way am I free?

Whatever though. It's not lost on me that Venezuela first took the property from foreign firms. Then it was domestic firms. Then came crackdowns on freedom of speech, assembly, and the press. But the libbies still love him. Anyone with "socialist" in their party affiliation gets a free pass.

I know Nulli. What example would you give that "Rtards" would side with property rights over human rights?

Must be those Pro-Castro pigeons again.

(I know. You don't get it.)

"hold on there Danni - you suggesting that term limits mean nothing so long as a populist president can ram through a referendum to change the constitution, against wishes of Judiciary and Congress?"

It was not a referendum to actually change ANYTHING, it was non-binding, no more really than an opinion pole. The SC and the military used it as an excuse to stage a coup because of the president's leftward lean.
Like I said, righties will lie, mislead, distort, anything it takes to oppose the actual will of the people.

"Whatever though. It's not lost on me that Venezuela first took the property from foreign firms. Then it was domestic firms."

But who did those folks take it away from in the first place....the indigenous people of Venezuela who, under the rule of the aristocracy, lived in abject poverty surrounded by the oil wealth which belonged to them. Ignorant people can't be expected to choose good leaders and Chavez isn't very good but they, at least, realized that they needed to rid themselves of the aristocracy that kept them both poor and ignorant. Most revolutions go through a similar phase, eventually they will seek better leaders but hopefully will not revert to the crony capitalism that ruled efore Chavez.

"What example would you give that "Rtards" would side with property rights over human rights?"

50 million Americans without health care.


"What example would you give that "Rtards" would side with property rights over human rights?"


50 million Americans without health care.

where is the "property" in this example?

Most revolutions go through a similar phase, eventually they will seek better leaders but hopefully will not revert to the crony capitalism that ruled efore Chavez.

#17 | Posted by danni
* * * *

Now it's crony socialism. At least when foreign investment was pouring in, VZ was able to feed themselves, and inflation was in the low single digits.

And they won't get a chance to "seek better leaders". Socialists are like that: you'd better love it, because they own you forever.

I know Nulli. What example would you give that "Rtards" would side with property rights over human rights?

LOL!

Just go thru your posting history there dude and it isn't hard to see, why the coy posting act.

where is the "property" in this example?

Once an ass always an ass, funny how the idiot plays coy to be an asshole later.

What example would you give that "Rtards" would side with property rights over human rights?

That SC decision that gave commercial developer's eminent domain rights.

Wait -- it was the liberal side of the court that made that ruling, while the conservative side opposed.

Never mind.

"And when property rights conflict with other human rights, rtards will side with property every time."
Your contortion misses that basic relationship,human rights are built upon property rights.

Food, clothing, shelter, medical care, are certainly property. The rights named depend on property for their utility. However, sometimes it is the property of others that is involved rather than that of the claimants. If governments establish these rights, they must fulfill the claim. Sometimes they do this by confiscating the property of those who possess it and conferring it upon the claimants. That such action is an assault upon private property there is no doubt.

Once an ass always an ass, funny how the idiot plays coy to be an asshole later.


either answer the question or get back to your shift. I'm sure break is over.

what a pussy. Afraid of me being an asshole later???

"Your contortion misses that basic relationship,human rights are built upon property rights."

That's the propertarian/libertarian ideology in a nutshell. And it's nuts.

There is no conflict between property rights and human rights. Indeed, property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property, and as such, are entitled to the same respect and protection as all other human rights.


Here we get to the foundation of Libertarian (or, more accurately, Propertarian) ideology, as I mentioned. Property. Note how they establish (sans proof) that there is no conflict between property and human rights--thus, if a wealthy landowner's property rights contribute to the abject poverty of the people in a given region, there is no conflict, in the eyes of Libertarians!

Here we see another logical fallacy -- begging the question, in the statement that "property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property; they circle back to their conclusion:

1. Q: What are property rights?
2. A: Property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property.
It doesn't explain what they are! This is fallacious.

Notice how they refrain from enumerating "all other human rights"--what are these other human rights? Anarchists can think of quite a few human rights, all of which clash head-on with property "rights".


a4a.mahost.org

That's the propertarian/libertarian ideology in a nutshell. And it's nuts.

this coming from someone who can't give me an example of what he is talking about.

I might be misunderstanding you Nulli. seriously.

"if a wealthy landowner's property rights contribute to the abject poverty of the people in a given region, there is no conflict, in the eyes of Libertarians!"

Sounds like all of South America.

either answer the question or get back to your shift. I'm sure break is over.

what a pussy. Afraid of me being an asshole later???

It's not hard to spot, play nice in wait to pounce like an AH that you are.

Troll

cry us another river crasswar.

I ask for an example and you absolutely can't give me one.

and you are calling me a troll.

:-(

As the history of Latin America proves, challenging the property rights of the aristocrats and oligarchs frequently means imprisonment, torture, kidnapping and murder by death squads, etc. This is what propertarians defend.

"I might be misunderstanding you Nulli. seriously."

Check out my link, Eberly.

Says the Chief Chavez Chalupa Chomper!

How's the environment?

A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals.

Who should have the authority to determine how a resource is used?

Uh oh. MoneyNulli has shown up. Debate's over.

You don't debate in the first place RIR, you just post far far outfield crap with never ever any substantiation for what you post.

We know where you stand, money is where the heart is.

If the frame of reference here is a South American Country allowing weathly individuals to control "resources" then have at it. I don't see the need to argue that.

Danni references healthcare but can't explain what she means.....neither can Crasswar.

Uh oh. MoneyNulli has shown up. Debate's over.

#37 | Posted by rightisright

Hey dumbfuck, Moneywar is taking your position on the coup. Moron.

Danni references healthcare but can't explain what she means.....neither can Crasswar.

What do you need explained? It is pretty self evident so you need to define where YOUR lack of understanding remains.

What do you need explained? It is pretty self evident so you need to define where YOUR lack of understanding remains.


how is healthcare property? or rather, how does access to healthcare conflict with property rights?

First Zelaya scheduled a national vote on a constitutional convention. After the Honduran supreme court ruled that only the country's congress could call such an election, Zelaya ordered the army to help him stage it anyway. (It would be ''non-binding,'' he said.) When the head of the armed forces, acting on orders from the supreme court, refused, Zelaya fired him, then led a mob to break into a military base where the ballots were stored.

His actions have been repudiated by the country's supreme court, its congress, its attorney-general, its chief human-rights advocate, all its major churches, its main business association, his own political party (which recently began debating an inquiry into Zelaya's sanity) and most Hondurans: Recent polls have shown his approval rating down below 30 percent.

In fact, about the only people who didn't condemn Zelaya's political gangsterism were the foreign leaders and diplomats who now primly lecture Hondurans about the importance of constitutional law. They're also strangely silent about the vicious stream of threats against Honduras spewing from Chvez since Zelaya was deposed.

"Warning that he's already put his military on alert, Chvez on Monday flat-out threatened war against Honduras if Roberto Micheletti, named by the country's congress as interim president until elections in November, takes office.

''If they swear him in we'll overthrow him,'' Chvez blustered. ``Mark my words. Thugetti -- as I'm going to refer to him from now on -- you better pack your bags, because you're either going to jail or you're going into exile.''

Hey, Hillary: What does the Inter-American charter say about that?"

Where did you learn to spell "Chavez" DaveTheIdiot?

"how is healthcare property? or rather, how does access to healthcare conflict with property rights?"

TAxing Americans takes away part of their property, using that tax money to supply health care to other Americans is a transfer of wealth.

Opponents of doing that are content to allow 40-50 million have no health care and thus at risk to disease which those with proper health care can prevent or treat while it is still beneficial.
Thus opponents place their right to their property ahead of the "human right" to health care.

The issue is a question of definition of human rights. Many people believe "health care" is a basic human right and many don't. They believe property rights are superior to the right to "health care."
Hell, health care insurance companies feel that their corporations have a right to a cut of most health care dollars spent in this country and they are using lobbyists, TV ads, well paid right wing radio and TV pundits, etc. to try and "sell" that idea to Americans. I think it will be a tough sell this time though.

My fault. I felt like this was about something else.

This is just about "haves" paying for "have nots".

Opponents of doing that are content to allow 40-50 million have no health care

I know you will argue this is semantics but you are interchanging the terms "health care" with "health insurance"

See the quotations dude? It's funny how when the dr left has their balls sewn into their mouths, they have NOTHING to say except insults (proving their stupidity and hatred)...AS USUAL

www.miamiherald.com

if a wealthy landowner's property rights contribute to the abject poverty of the people in a given region, there is no conflict, in the eyes of Libertarians!
#27 | Posted by nullifidian

Example of the kind of stunning stupidity we can expect from Nulli and his communist friends.

That kind of logic implies that the wealthy, by virtue of being wealthy, got their wealth by stealing from the poor, in effect negating their property rights AND their human rights. Ergo, libertarian have no regard for universal property rights and human rights.

Thus it follows by Nulli's logic, that there can only be property rights and human rights when the people (government) own everything in common. Libertarians know nothing about rights.

Isn't that right idiot?

" Nulli and his communist friends."

Oh good. My favorite propertarian is here. Hi Ray! Wassup, buddy?

Gee he was repudiated by his "own party", which is questioning his sanity. Not to worry dr left, soon Obama will be scheming with chavez on ways to use Vz gorilla's to overthrow their country and return it to the "people".

Does anyone understand what ray is trying to say?

That kind of logic implies that the wealthy, by virtue of being wealthy, got their wealth by stealing from the poor, in effect negating their property rights AND their human rights. Ergo, libertarian have no regard for universal property rights and human rights.

Um.....where did the wealthy get their wealth ray?


Um.....where did the wealthy get their wealth ray?


I know! I know!

The workers???????

boring..........

"Does anyone understand what ray is trying to say?"

He's saying if people stole property a few hundred years ago, like colonists did from indigeneous peoples all across the Americas, their property rights are sacred and beautiful and exist for all eternity.

The whole key to understanding free market is Private Property. Private Property is the material manifestation of the individual's laborthe material value created from the intellectual and/or physical labor of the individual, which may take the form of income, real property, or intellectual property.

When there is taxation of private property, to the regulation of such property so as to reduce its value, it can become in effect a form of servitude, particularly if the dispossession results from illegitimate and arbitrary state action.

Essentially, the federal gov't should raise revenue only to fund those activities that the Constitution authorizes and no others. Otherwise, what are the limits on the Statist's power to tax and regulate the individual's labor and ultimately, enslave him?

Mark Levin--Liberty & Tyranny

You do know, Murphy, that Mark Levin is a certified moron, right?

"that Mark Levin is a certified moron, right?"

Doesn't make him wrong.

"They believe property rights are superior to the right to "health care."

Its not about superiority, its that without property rights, "health care" rights as you call them can't exist.

Again, in simpler terms, in order to pay for human rights, the state MUST take from the individual to normalize the costs/risks associated with the "right", across individuals. (insurance is the same thing)

Eventually as we have seen from Communist Countries, to the Kibbutzium in Isreal, there is a limit as to how much TAKING will be tolerated, before people lower thier productive output.

There fore, its is implied, that property rights maintain the incentive to continue with human rights. It is a balance....

"There fore, its is implied, that property rights maintain the incentive to continue with human rights. "

Yeah, here's a good example of property rights in action.

The peoples of the region, particularly the 500,000 Ogoni people, have begun to resist. The military's response has been brutal. In 1990, the people of Umeuchem village held a peaceful protest against Shell. At the request of Shell management, Nigerian Mobile Police swept in. They killed 80 and destroyed 495 homes.

Led by Ken Saro-Wiwa, president of the Movement for Survival of the Ogoni People, an international campaign was launched. It was described as a "last ditch stand against the government and Shell". The Ogoni people demanded royalties from Shell and compensation for the environmental destruction since 1958. In January 1993, 300,000 marched in support of these demands.

Shell withdrew its staff, costing it 28,000 barrels of oil per day. Soon after, Saro-Wiwa was arrested several times, and large scale protests erupted. In August, September and December military-orchestrated attacks took the lives of more than 1000 people and left 30,000 homeless.


Oil company terrorism in Nigeria
www.greenleft.org.au

"that property rights maintain the incentive to continue with human rights."

Yes, propertarians believe that. I've already responded to that point. See #27.

Now Nulli--you know that is NOT free market practices.

Stay on point.

Now Nulli--you know that is NOT free market practices.

Stay on point.

#60 | Posted by MURPHY


You're naive. That is precisely the practices of corporations operating in the so-called free market. Private companies have been employing goons and murdering opponents for centuries, you ignoramous.

Now Nulli--you know that is NOT free market practices.


Stay on point.

Posted by MURPHY at 2009-06-30 07:17 PM


I think Nulli loves it when you scold him, Murphy. lol

Politicians stray in their ethics also Nulli.

Why is one better than the other? (If that is what you are saying)

#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-06-30 03:04 PM

Do you have some point, Eberly? Property is not just housing, dummy.

Do you have any idea what "property" is, Null? Seemingly not, but that doesn't inhibit your declarations.

There are the uneducable mentally retarded, and there are those who are uneducable because they have been indoctrinated with a belief system that denies them the ability to consider material extraneous to that system.

Property is a "human right," null. Property is the relationship between the subject of property, the "person" holding the right, and the object of property, in which the right is held. I don't feel like elaborating now, but essentially when the term "property rights" is used, the term refers not to the rights of the material property but to the rights of the person to utilize that property in certain ways.

Maybe some of the lawyers posting here can elaborate but even in an in rem action, the real party in interest is the person with a right to that property, who is usually sought to be divested of certain rights in the property.

When you own a lot, the State may limit the uses to which it may be put with say zoning regulations. So, your rights in the property are curtailed.

Later.


Property is a "human right," null.

If the given society declares it so, yes.

Anyone with "socialist" in their party affiliation gets a free pass.

#14 | Posted by rightisright

Stooopid assertion 'O The Day....

So, nully... you said that "health care" is a right... OK... let's try and get you to think for just a minute... (I promise, if it starts to hurt... you can go back to emotions and never try this thinking thing again... promise)...

I have a right to health care... but I don't have any responsibility to do ANYTHING for myself... with me so far... you are describing my RIGHT (health care), but have never mentioned my responsibilities...

So, I decide to eat a box of cupcakes a day, and wash them down with a gallon of coke... heck, might as well smoke a few packs of cigs and do an 8-ball for dessert. Now, for some reason, my health takes a turn for the worse... Jeez, wonder why!

OK... now for the rights... I want a doctor to fix whatever I have broken and send me home, so I can continue to sit on my fat ass and guzzle cupcakes and coke. And you have to pay for it. Get a second job. The gov't is going to demand that you pay the 10's of thousands of bucks for my rehab and the new liver and the gastric bypass...

Meanwhile, I get out of rehab and, you guessed it... get home in time for another 8-ball dessert. Damn, Nully, you may have to get a 3rd job now...

Whew... if you survived that much thinking... you are only a few million more thoughts away from being a libertarian.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-06-30 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag Renter

#10 | Posted by eberly

Living in parents basement.

Coup Coup Ca Chew


Property is a "human right," null.


If the given society declares it so, yes.

#65 | Posted by nullifidian


Did you know that the Constitution originally said Property but changed it pursuit of happiness?

#70 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-07-01 11:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Can't tell the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution.

"50 million Americans without health care." #18 | Posted by danni

As usual your facts are a fantasy. Look up the numbers and see how many "Americans". While you are at it notice how many do not want health care. You might even notice how many that can afford it but choose not to. But that is not the kind of choice you can tolerate, is it. And you might also notice how many "Americans" and non-Americans receive health care and yet have no insurance. Educate yourself before you speak.

KBM, how about a link talking about these people who do not want health care? I'm very interested in reading about them.

#71 | Posted by Zatoichi

Oops!

Is the point understood though?

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable