Thank God, we haven't hit rock bottom yet.

Deputies refuse to evict 103-year-old woman


http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...year-old-woman


Reminds me of Cool Hand Luke...

Boss: Sorry, Luke. I'm just doing my job. You gotta appreciate that.
Luke: Nah - calling it your job don't make it right, Boss.

I'm also surprised you aren't using your famed "slippery slope" argument. If they don't evict 103 yo women then it'll be 93 yo women until sooner or later it'll be 19 yo women.

I'm also surprised you aren't using your famed "slippery slope" argument. If they don't evict 103 yo women then it'll be 93 yo women until sooner or later it'll be 19 yo women. Originally Posted by gnadfly

That is just silly to say. Everyone knows you can work a deal with a 19 year old woman! Look I was talking about the workers sent there to evict her. I'm sure you would of had no problem loading up her shit and throwing her out along with her 83 yr old daughter but I sure the fuc hope me and the folks I hang out with would have turned that job down

You're right! Your "Slippery Slope" argument is SILLY!

...Like you've done an honest day's work in your life. Now Richard Sandusky that you hang out with may be another story.

Deputies refuse to evict 103-year-old woman


http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...year-old-woman


Reminds me of Cool Hand Luke...

Boss: Sorry, Luke. I'm just doing my job. You gotta appreciate that.
Luke: Nah - calling it your job don't make it right, Boss. Originally Posted by WTF

God Bless those Sheriffs I bet every thing they were Democrats- thanks goodness they weren't republican sheriffs.

You're right! Your "Slippery Slope" argument is SILLY!

...Like you've done an honest day's work in your life. Now Richard Sandusky that you hang out with may be another story. Originally Posted by gnadfly

pray do tell ... just wtf you are talking about with this slippery slope bs. Next you don't know me from adam. You have no idea who has done an honest days work. ...... you are just like all the other tea sippers.

Thinking you know what is honest and what isn't. I identify with cool hand luke you identify with that cock sucking sheriff. To each his own.


btw...who the fuc is Richard Sandusky and why are you saying I hang out with him?

WTF-That article is very cool, thank you for sharing.

gnadfly- Why all the hate?

wellendowed- Us republicans have a heart too, thank you.

God Bless those Sheriffs I bet every thing they were Democrats- thanks goodness they weren't republican sheriffs. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

What if they were libertarians? How does that work?

WTF-That article is very cool, thank you for sharing. Originally Posted by Tiffany Cums

Thanks Tiffany.

gnadfly- Why all the hate? Originally Posted by Tiffany Cums

He just hates what he sees in the mirror every day and projects that out onto others. Poor fella needs a hug!

wellendowed- Us republicans have a heart too, thank you. Originally Posted by Tiffany Cums

I will agree with ya there. I gotta a bunch of friends on the right that would not be kicking a 104 year old woman out of her house.

That is PR nightmare for Chase Bank.

What if they were libertarians? How does that work? Originally Posted by Boltfan

No self respecting libertarian is working for the Sheriff Department!

Not that there is anything wrong with working for the PoPo but you rarely see these PETA fuc'ers working in a Fur Coat store. It just ain't natural.

Libertarian hate rules. Let that Banl CEO come throw granny out is WTF a libertarian would say.

WTF, you are an encyclopedia of ignorance. Libertarians aren't anarchists. Libertarians aren't heartless. We love freedom, and it is doubtful that any Libertarian would evict that woman. The ones pressing it are the banks, and Libertarians have no more faith in banks than you do.

Libertarians support laws that protect a person's life liberty or property from being taken or harmed by force or fraud. This woman was likely screwed over by the bank, which a LIbertarian would not support. The deputies, regardless of their personal political persuasion, did the right thing.

You'd want to have Libertarians on the police force. They won't care if you're hobbying, but if you rob someone, or beat someone up, you will pay for it.

She was probably moving so slow in that walker the sheriff gave up and went home.

WTF, you are an encyclopedia of ignorance. Listen you ignorant SOB, I am about tired of you calling me ignorant! Libertarians aren't anarchists.*** Libertarians aren't heartless. I never said they were and if you weren't so God Damn ignorant you'd see that I didn't. In fact had you half a brain you'd know that there all a whole spectrum of Libertarians! We love freedom, and it is doubtful that any Libertarian would evict that woman. The ones pressing it are the banks, and Libertarians have no more faith in banks than you do. Many libertarians think that private charity would/should take care of that old woman. You need to study up on just WTF you believe in.

Libertarians support laws that protect a person's life liberty or property from being taken or harmed by force or fraud. This woman was likely screwed over by the bank, which a LIbertarian would not support. You have no basis in saying that. This woman may be behind on her house note but that was not the point of me posting this. I liked how these people handled it. They would not do it and it gives me a sliver of hope in humanity. The deputies, regardless of their personal political persuasion, did the right thing. Agreed. I wasn't the one that brought up politics.

You'd want to have Libertarians on the police force. They won't care if you're hobbying, but if you rob someone, or beat someone up, you will pay for it. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Maybe, maybe not....you are saying a sweeping thing as fact.



***The statism / anarchism distinction
Libertarians differ on the degree up to which the state can be reduced. Two groups can be distinguished, statists, who support states, and anarchists, who favor stateless societies and view the state as being undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful [47][48] while others have defined anarchism as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.[49]
Supporters of government argue that having defense and courts controlled by the market is an inherent miscarriage of justice because it turns justice into a commodity, thereby conflating justice with economic power.[citation needed] Libertarian anarchists argue that having defence and courts controlled by the state is both immoral and an inefficient means of achieving both justice and security. They argue that a state is coercive by its nature and therefore violates the non-aggression principle. [50][51] Another argument is that private defense and protection firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[52] Murray Rothbard agrees with this argument, however add that it is self-defeating to fight potential concentration of power by concentrating power in the hands of the state.[53] Furthermore these anarchists claim that a market system is the best Checks and balances system known to man.[54]
Anarchists are divided according to their proprietarian or non-proprietarian definition of liberty. The proprietarian libertarian philosophy of anarchism is called Anarcho-capitalism.[55] Non-proprietarian libertarian philosophies of anarchism include anarchist collectivism, anarchist communism, social anarchism) and anarcho-syndicalism. Anti-property anarchists hold that liberty is incompatible with state action based on a class struggle analysis of the state.[56]
Anarcho-capitalists generally argue government is aggressive by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen private property, vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud.[57] Many also argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient.[58] Murray Rothbard argued that all government services, including defense, are inefficient because they lack a market-based pricing mechanism regulated by the voluntary decisions of consumers purchasing services that fulfill their highest-priority needs and by investors seeking the most profitable enterprises to invest in.[59] Pro-property anarchists also argue that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business.[60] Murray Rothbard agrees with this argument. However, he argued that one cannot justify a concentration of power out of a fear of a concentration of power, and that a market system is the best checks and balances system.[61] Furthermore, Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market[62] and that a government's citizenry can’t desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

pray do tell ... just wtf you are talking about with this slippery slope bs. Next you don't know me from adam. You have no idea who has done an honest days work. ...... you are just like all the other tea sippers.

Thinking you know what is honest and what isn't. I identify with cool hand luke you identify with that cock sucking sheriff. To each his own.


btw...who the fuc is Richard Sandusky and why are you saying I hang out with him? Originally Posted by WTF

Good question. Here's two of you many posts on slippery slope:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=19

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=98274&postcount=13

I meant Jerry Sandusky, the guy you spent 40 or so posts "defending"

BTW, I love how when you are pinned in a corner you resort to homosexual remarks and disparaging the tea party.

I meant Jerry Sandusky, the guy you spent 40 or so posts "defending"

. Originally Posted by gnadfly

I never defended Jerry Sandusky you Gay Rod Tea Sipping Cocksucker

BTW, I love how when you are pinned in a corner you resort to homosexual remarks and disparaging the tea party. Originally Posted by gnadfly

You Gay guys love me. I have never understood why, maybe because I do not judge you Log Cabin tootise pops to harshly.

Good question. Here's two of you many posts on slippery slope:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=19

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=98274&postcount=13
Originally Posted by gnadfly

The Slippery Slope was used in context of what was good TV and wtf was bad TV and whether we should censor it. I argued that a slippery slope. Should cable TV be allowed to brodcast Paris Hilton in a stupid reality tv show...or any other stupid Snookie/Jersy Shores crap?

You compare that to me posting a link congratulating sheriff deputies for not tossing and old woman out of the home she has lived in for 60 years?

I am not sure where you are trying to go with that but I am pretty sure you are fuc'd in the head for trying to compare the two.

btw...I do not think you should be sensored for showing us your fuc'd in the head-a-ness. To Slippery a Slope.