PDA

View Full Version : These are the Top 10 Signs You Might Not Be A Libertarian




clb09
08-30-2009, 05:41 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/30/773243/-Top-10-Signs-You-Might-Not-Be-A-Libertarian


Notice a propensity of newly minted Libertarians showing up lately? Perhaps it's just coincidence their ranks swelled in inverse proportion to George Bush's approval rating, ditto that so many are mouthing traditional conservative talking points. But what about the everyday gun toting townhall screamers and taxcutters and deficit hawks we see on cable news: are they really libertarian as so many claim, or just conservatives in glibertarian clothes?

Mike4Freedom
08-30-2009, 05:49 PM
Does he even know what a libertarians beliefs are?

Austin
08-30-2009, 05:53 PM
He is right to an extent.. Remember Tucker Carlson calling out pseudo-libertarians? People are just looking for a label to identify themselves as "fed up with the government" but those same people are completely inconsistent with their beliefs...

Liberty Star
08-30-2009, 05:58 PM
It's not nice to make lists about labeling people.

But if one had to make a list :)


1. Supports elective bloodhsed like Iraqi civilians freedom
2. Supports budget deficit for Iraqi freedom
3. Supports anti Comstitution measures like Patriot Act and does not treat Constitution as a sacred document
4. Supports bailouts
5. Supports massive foreign occupations, interventions
6. Supports massive foreign aid to despots, dictators, parasite states
5. Opooses Liberty movement

.....
......

Vessol
08-30-2009, 06:05 PM
Wow. DailyKOS has been coming out with some good stuff lately.

Before people attack them. If anything this is praising Libertarians, or at least pointing out the snakes in our ranks(neocons)

That was actually a pretty damn good and funny list.

I especially liked

"If you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you're not even consistent, much less a Libertarian, and you may be Michele Bachmann."

FSP-Rebel
08-30-2009, 06:13 PM
He is right to an extent.. Remember Tucker Carlson calling out pseudo-libertarians? People are just looking for a label to identify themselves as "fed up with the government" but those same people are completely inconsistent with their beliefs...
What ever happened to ole Tuck?

tonesforjonesbones
08-30-2009, 06:17 PM
Here's my list:

1. If you hang onto the words of Huffington Post and Daily Kos you might not be a libertarian.
2. If you hate christians...you are not a libertarian.

TONES

emazur
08-30-2009, 06:20 PM
That was actually a pretty damn good and funny list.


That's what I thought, pretty accurate as well, though I'd change maybe a couple things. Not sure why OP is giving it thumbs down

tonesforjonesbones
08-30-2009, 06:23 PM
I give everything that comes from Huffington Post and Daily Kooks a thumbs down...they are not our friends folks. tones

PaulaGem
08-30-2009, 06:26 PM
I don't trust Daily Kos any more.

I posted my "simple argument against government controlled healthcare" on their site in an appropriate thread and it was removed.

The argument is simply:

Look at the government healthcare provided to the Native Americans and the Vets. Ask yourself if that is what you want for your personal healthcare plan.

The answer has to be NO!!!

heavenlyboy34
08-30-2009, 06:26 PM
It's not nice to make lists about labeling people.

But if one had to make a list :)


1. Supports elective bloodhsed like Iraqi civilians freedom
2. Supports budget deficit for Iraqi freedom
3. Supports anti Comstitution measures like Patriot Act and does not treat Constitution as a sacred document
4. Supports bailouts
5. Supports massive foreign occupations, interventions
6. Supports massive foreign aid to despots, dictators, parasite states
5. Opooses Liberty movement

.....
......

3 and 5 is flawed. The Constitution is not libertarian in nature (it is Federalist), though some libertarians try to advance liberty with it. The "Liberty Movement" tends to revolve around saving a minarchist-type State. The libertarian does not support this. Some aspects of the liberty movement are good tho, such as awareness campaigns and such.

(I assume this is a list of criteria for being a libertarian, unless I read too fast..I'm busy)

Vessol
08-30-2009, 06:26 PM
Here's my list:

1. If you hang onto the words of Huffington Post and Daily Kos you might not be a libertarian.
2. If you hate christians...you are not a libertarian.

TONES

Who said anything about hating Christians?

Nice strawman there.

The DailyKOS is plenty fine. Just because they are left-leaning doesn't mean "OMG EVIL", unless you're a Republican or a neocon of course. They've been very anti-war, even now they critisize Obama's foreign policy.

I can't find the article, but they also published an article from that FBI Translator earlier this month about how Osama was working with the U.S up until 9/11.

What's funny though is I think that their article is pointed at -you- sir, how does it feel to be in the spotlight?

tonesforjonesbones
08-30-2009, 06:30 PM
The Daily Kos NOR Huffington Post were kind to Ron Paul and they continuously labled him a racist. All of you who fell in love with Olberman and Bill Mahr, John Stewart..er...they only agreed with Ron Paul because they hate the republicans...and he spoke against what they were doing...they hate Ron Paul now..they hate libertarians. They are socialist/Marxists and they are not our friends. tones

Vessol
08-30-2009, 06:35 PM
The Daily Kos NOR Huffington Post were kind to Ron Paul and they continuously labled him a racist. All of you who fell in love with Olberman and Bill Mahr, John Stewart..er...they only agreed with Ron Paul because they hate the republicans...and he spoke against what they were doing...they hate Ron Paul now..they hate libertarians. They are socialist/Marxists and they are not our friends. tones

Huffington Post is a joke usually, but have a good article all the times.

And you're starting to talk like the Republicans.

"Either you're with us, or you're against us"

Republicans and Neocons are hijacking the liberty movement.

lynnf
08-30-2009, 06:41 PM
What ever happened to ole Tuck?


according to Wikipedia:

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

...

He currently writes for Esquire, The Weekly Standard, The New Republic and The New York Times Magazine and The Daily Beast.
...

Fox News Channel

On May 16, 2009 Carlson was introduced as a member of the 'Fox Family' while appearing on the Fox & Friends Weekend edition with no mention what he would be doing for the network.

heavenlyboy34
08-30-2009, 06:59 PM
Here's my list:

1. If you hang onto the words of Huffington Post and Daily Kos you might not be a libertarian.
2. If you hate christians...you are not a libertarian.

TONES

In regards to 2., you're right, but it needs clarification. The collectivist hatred of anyone calling themselves Christian is un-libertarian. Some libertarians reject organized religion as collectivist, etc., but embrace the principles of Yeshua.

Sorry to belabor this, but I felt you oversimplified. Thanks for your patience, Tonesy. ~hugs~ :cool:

Objectivist
08-30-2009, 07:03 PM
Does he even know what a libertarians beliefs are?

Yeah! Leave me the F alone and I'll leave you the F alone.

Or my rights end at the tip of your nose, and your rights end at the tip of mine.

tajitj
08-30-2009, 07:07 PM
It is doing well on Digg
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Top_10_Signs_You_Might_Not_Be_A_Libertarian

paulitics
08-30-2009, 07:15 PM
I agree with most of the article.

Vessol
08-30-2009, 07:15 PM
In regards to 2., you're right, but it needs clarification. The collectivist hatred of anyone calling themselves Christian is un-libertarian. Some libertarians reject organized religion as collectivist, etc., but embrace the principles of Yeshua.

Sorry to belabor this, but I felt you oversimplified. Thanks for your patience, Tonesy. ~hugs~ :cool:

Rather. I thought I'd comment on this in more depth.

I'm agnostic, however I believe anyone should be allowed to practice their religion, any religion and any beliefs, as long as it causes no harm or takes away the freedom of others.

However, many fundamentalist Christians whom ARE latching onto this movement, believe that we are ONLY a Christian nation and that the government has a right to legislate in morality(birth control and abortion), yet is not allowed to touch health services or gun rights. It's hypocritical is what it is.

Fundamentalist Christians endanger America just as much as socialists and fascists.

linux
08-30-2009, 07:15 PM
Dailkos is a bunch of liberals. Modern liberals are incompatible with libertarians. If you call yourself a libertarian and don't realize this then you don't know what a libertarian is.

t0rnado
08-30-2009, 07:17 PM
Here's my list:

1. If you hang onto the words of Huffington Post and Daily Kos you might not be a libertarian.
2. If you hate christians...you are not a libertarian.

TONES

If you state that hating a religious group isn't libertarian, you don't know what the word libertarian means.

Light
08-30-2009, 07:22 PM
Rather. I thought I'd comment on this in more depth.

I'm agnostic, however I believe anyone should be allowed to practice their religion, any religion and any beliefs, as long as it causes no harm or takes away the freedom of others.

However, many fundamentalist Christians whom ARE latching onto this movement, believe that we are ONLY a Christian nation and that the government has a right to legislate in morality(birth control and abortion), yet is not allowed to touch health services or gun rights. It's hypocritical is what it is.

Fundamentalist Christians endanger America just as much as socialists and fascists.

No, they aren't. The culture of traditional Christians is being attacked on a daily basis by the media and the schools, and are basically one of the few groups in this country that is "free-game" to mock and insult.

We should be capitalizing on disgruntled Christian activists, and explain to them how a massive government is the cause for cultural woes and decline. If we don't, big government "conservatives" like Huckabilly will.

Heck, Ron Paul's article on the "War on Religion" on Lew Rockwell will convince many Christian activists as to why big government is actually harmful to the change they wish to make on society.

Flash
08-30-2009, 07:24 PM
What ever happened to ole Tuck?

The whiney little Tucker Carlson is now on FOX. He is the guy that called Ron Paul racist a day before New Hampshire primaries, and at the Rally for the Republic, his gig was to introduce the speakers-- and he quit his job at the end of the show because of the john Birch Society being there. For a guy with such thin-skin, I wonder how he kept his low-rated show as long as he did. Well whatever, I would bet he won't ever get a TV show again.

Vessol
08-30-2009, 07:26 PM
No, they aren't. The culture of traditional Christians is being attacked on a daily basis by the media and the schools, and are basically one of the few groups in this country that is "free-game" to mock and insult.

We should be capitalizing on disgruntled Christian activists, and explain to them how a massive government is the cause for cultural woes and decline. If we don't, big government "conservatives" like Huckabilly will.

Heck, Ron Paul's article on the "War on Religion" on Lew Rockwell will convince many Christian activists as to why big government is actually harmful to the change they wish to make on society.

Fair enough. But when you look at polls, you find that atheists are the #1 most distrusted and hated group in America. However I disagree that the culture of traditional Christians is under attack. How is allowing people who don't share your beliefs to have rights, attacking a culture? Now if the government made the Bible illegal and arrested Christians, then you might have a point, but that isn't happening. As for school, schools are a secular institution, and being run by the government are under the seperation of church and state. If you don't want your kid learning about evilution, then put them in a private school.

And disgruntled Christian activists are just as bad as some of the liberal idiots. They won't give a shit what you tell them. They want the government to enforce THEIR morality.

Light
08-30-2009, 07:27 PM
Fair enough. But when you look at polls, you find that atheists are the #1 most distrusted and hated group in America. However I disagree that the culture of traditional Christians is under attack. How is allowing people who don't share your beliefs to have rights, attacking a culture? Now if the government made the Bible illegal and arrested Christians, then you might have a point, but that isn't happening. As for school, schools are a secular institution, and being run by the government are under the seperation of church and state. If you don't want your kid learning about evilution, then put them in a private school.

And disgruntled Christian activists are just as bad as some of the liberal idiots. They won't give a shit what you tell them. They want the government to enforce THEIR morality.

You don't get it. Go watch TV, or go to a public school. The teachers deliberately try to brainwash and lie to you about Christian principles, and heck, try to get you to support leftist politicians at a young age. Might I remind you of forum-goer Mrs. Joe's experiences about her kids being taught the OBAMA acryoynm?

In my generation, I was attacked plenty of times for my beliefs and convictions. Also, its no coincidence that it is also the most socialistic and brainwashed one yet.

Vessol
08-30-2009, 07:32 PM
You don't get it. Go watch TV, or go to a public school.

In my generation, I was attacked plenty of times for my beliefs and convictions.

And I was beaten bloody by a crowd of my "friends" when I went to my Youth Group when I was 13 and told them I had doubts about the Bible.

I'm constantly told that I'm going to "Burn in Hell forever!" and that I'm a worthless piece of shit that God should murder. A few years ago my very religious teacher gave my research paper and 'F' without even writing anything, my paper was on why public schools should remain secular, I've never before got below a B on any essay or paper. My own father refuses to talk to me because of my disbelief in any deity, and has written me out of his will. He told me he "wished I was a ******" because then I could still ask for forgiveness in front of God.

You want to bitch about being persecuted, try stepping in my shoes.

I'm even attacked by those of my own political beliefs, so-called libertarians who claim to cherish personal freedoms, yet believe that Christianity is the only allowed faith.

Light
08-30-2009, 07:34 PM
And I was beaten bloody by a crowd of my "friends" when I went to my Youth Group when I was 13 and told them I had doubts about the Bible.

I'm constantly told that I'm going to "Burn in Hell forever!" and that I'm a worthless piece of shit that God should murder. A few years ago my very religious teacher gave my research paper and 'F' without even writing anything, my paper was on why public schools should remain secular, I've never before got below a B on any essay or paper.

You want to bitch about being persecuted, try stepping in my shoes.

I'm even attacked by those of my own political beliefs, so-called libertarians who claim to cherish personal freedoms, yet believe that Christianity is the only allowed faith.

I have had the same experience, only with secular people. I can't even find a woman today because my values are so different from most people.

Also, most people who belong to a religion believe their religion to be the "only one", so don't just single out Christians.

Vessol
08-30-2009, 07:36 PM
I have had the same experience, only with atheists.

Atheists physically assault you and your atheist father disowned you?

Man, I want to know where you live. I've only met a few other atheists in my life in person.

You do know that 85% of the country is Christian and 45% are Fundamentalist Christians. So you must be pretty damn unlucky.


Also, most people who belong to a religion believe their religion to be the "only one", so don't just single out Christians.

I'm not singling out Christainity. I believe all Christians should be allowed to worship in any way they want however much they want, as long as they don't force their faith on me. As far as I'm concerned, fundementalist Christians are just as dangerous as those fucked up Fundamentalist Muslims and the Zionists who use their religion as a political tool.

The problem is they are trying to force their beliefs on me, through legislation.

And before you bring up "secular people are assaulting my beliefs". Secularism is not a religious belief, it's rather what the Founding Fathers intended.

Light
08-30-2009, 07:38 PM
So sounds like you're pulling shit out of your ass.

You need to grow up.

I am not arguing with a child. Once you get the angst out of your system, maybe we can have an adult conversation.

Also, not all the founding fathers were secular, heck the least religious ones were only deists.

I am done arguing with you. Its intolerants like you that made me leave other polical forums. and looks like I will be leaving this one as well.

Good bye. I hope you look at people as indivuals instead of being a collectivist.

Vessol
08-30-2009, 07:41 PM
You need to grow up.

I am not arguing with a child. Once you get the angst out of your system, maybe we can have an adult conversation.

Also, not all the founding fathers were secular, heck the least religious ones were only deists.

I edited it out. It was improper. My apologies.

Regardless, I'd like you to read the rest of my arguement.

I am in no way against Christainity or any other faith. I just don't want a religion I don't believe in ruling my life.

NYgs23
08-30-2009, 07:41 PM
many fundamentalist Christians whom ARE latching onto this movement, believe that we are ONLY a Christian nation and that the government has a right to legislate in morality(birth control and abortion)


There's a libertarian argument against abortion, which is that the fetus is a human being with human rights.

Vessol
08-30-2009, 07:45 PM
There's a libertarian argument against abortion, which is that the fetus is a human being with human rights.

Of course. There's also the debate about when life begins, which is a moral argument and perhaps even scientific.

It's not an easily settled debate.

My personal belief is that abortions for very early pregnancies(within the first month) for medical reasons and personal reasons(teenage pregancy for example), it shouldn't be used as a contraceptive though. However after that, I'm completely against any late term abortions.

But we ire off topic.

Bucjason
08-30-2009, 07:55 PM
Daily Kos fears a liberty moving that is growing , so it stands to reason they would try and divide the ranks....wake up people , the Kos's only objective is too push Marxist agenda....

Smitty
08-30-2009, 08:00 PM
You'll find that most leftist blogs are heavily moderated and allow no deviation from the message they're pushing.

There is nothing of value to be found on the left for libertarians.

All leftist ideologies are about control of the people through government--not liberty.

Bucjason
08-30-2009, 08:00 PM
Of course. There's also the debate about when life begins, which is a moral argument and perhaps even scientific.

It's not an easily settled debate.

My personal belief is that abortions for very early pregnancies(within the first month) for medical reasons and personal reasons(teenage pregancy for example), it shouldn't be used as a contraceptive though. However after that, I'm completely against any late term abortions.

But we ire off topic.

Actually it IS settled. It's as simple as science can get. Science tells us that life begins at conception , otherwise life wouldn't begin at conception. Something else would need to happen before a lifeform began to grow. It doesn't, so that is where it begins.

Vessol
08-30-2009, 08:02 PM
Daily Kos fears a liberty moving that is growing , so it stands to reason they would try and divide the ranks....wake up people , the Kos's only objective is too push Marxist agenda....

You should try a taste of your own kool-aid ;).

Those who the DailyKOS described are NOT Libertarians are what we call NEOCONSERVATIVES. Whom are hi-jacking the libertarian movement.


Actually it IS settled. It's as simple as science can get. Science tells us that life begins at conception , otherwise life wouldn't begin at conception. Something else would need to happen before a lifeform began to grow. It doesn't, so that is where it begins.

Source? By your logic, sperm is also the logical sequence to conception and wasting it by masturbation is destroying potential life. As are a woman's period.

Slutter McGee
08-30-2009, 08:08 PM
Actually, I thought that was pretty accurate. Number eight referencing medicare was a dumb point to try and make, and there are libertarian arguments for and against abortion. Take those out of the list and I might agree with everything.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Vessol
08-30-2009, 08:13 PM
Actually, I thought that was pretty accurate. Number eight referencing medicare was a dumb point to try and make, and there are libertarian arguments for and against abortion. Take those out of the list and I might agree with everything.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Agreed, I think the most shining example is that many people at these rallies against Obamacare if you asked them if they thought the War on Terror was wrong or the War on Drugs, they'd just stand there with their mouth open.

I love how just years ago Fox was saying anyone whom is against the war is anti-American, now they are hosting fucking tea parties.

A Shanghai if I ever knew one.

Bucjason
08-30-2009, 08:23 PM
You should try a taste of your own kool-aid ;).

Those who the DailyKOS described are NOT Libertarians are what we call NEOCONSERVATIVES. Whom are hi-jacking the libertarian movement.



Source? By your logic, sperm is also the logical sequence to conception and wasting it by masturbation is destroying potential life. As are a woman's period.

Bullshit ...no one is hijacking anything. Why would anyone want to hijack a party that has been as politically impotent as the Libertarian party?? They've never even won any office of significance in ANY election. What you really have is alot of people realizing that the policies they once supported didn't work , and/or the people they voted for didn't govern like they promised they would , so they are looking for a new political home.
Many of you libertarians are just too stupid to welcome them in . You're too busy trying to protect your "secret club" from any "outsiders" and reading marxist smut like the daily Kos.

On abortion:
No life has EVER been concieved from a sperm alone, nor is it possible . You don't have to be a scientist to figure that one out , Einstien. This is not even up for debate, and anyone who denies this is just trying to rationalize the fact that they endorse "murder of convience" in order to soothe thier conscience. True libertarians, like Ron Paul, are Pro-life.

Vessol
08-30-2009, 08:26 PM
Bullshit ...no one is hijacking anything. Why would anyone want to hijack a party that has been as politically impotent as the Libertarian party?? They've never even won any office of significance in ANY election. What you really have is alot of people realizing that the policies they once supported didn't work , and/or the people they voted for didn't govern like they promised they would , so they are looking for a new political home.
Many of you libertarians are just too stupid to welcome them in . You're too busy trying to protect your "secret club" from any "outsiders" and reading marxist smut like the daily Kos.

On abortion:
No life has EVER been concieved from a sperm alone, nor is it possible . You don't have to be a scientist to figure that one out , Einstien. This is not even up for debate, and anyone who denies this is just trying to rationalize the fact that they endorse "murder of convience" in order to soothe thier conscience. True libertarians, like Ron Paul, are Pro-life.

Whatever. Continue slurping away. Neo-con.

What you have are a bunch of people whose party has lost all respect and are now desperate to try to push for something else. Your ilk are not for freedom, nor are you for the rights of all humans. Rather you just wish to push your own government agenda.

Bucjason
08-30-2009, 08:39 PM
Whatever. Continue slurping away. Neo-con.

What you have are a bunch of people whose party has lost all respect and are now desperate to try to push for something else. Your ilk are not for freedom, nor are you for the rights of all humans. Rather you just wish to push your own government agenda.

I'm not a neo-con , I'm just smart enough to realize that the left is by FAR our biggest enemy . Neo-cons we can work with on everything except foriegn policy. According to a recent poll , in EVERY state in the Union , more people still call themselves "conservative" than any other political title. So , Neocons would have no motive to take over a piss-ant libertarian party when they could just continue to hijack the movement of the "True Conservative" instead.

I DO support rights for all humans, you however, don't support our most important and basic right, "life", for all humans. You are trying to rationalize that inconsistency ( and doing a poor job of it , by the way.)

Vessol
08-30-2009, 08:45 PM
I'm not a neo-con , I'm just smart enough to realize that the left is by FAR our biggest enemy . Neo-cons we can work with on everything except foriegn policy. According to a recent poll , in EVERY state in the Union , more people still call themselves "conservative" than any other political title. So , Neocons would have no motive to take over a piss-ant libertarian party when they could just continue to hijack the movement of the "True Conservative" instead.

I DO support rights for all humans, you however, don't support our most important and basic right, "life", for all humans. You are trying to rationalize that inconsistency ( and doing a poor job of it , by the way.)

You're right.

I hate babies. Death to all babies.

And yes, NeoCons are not at all against restricting freedoms. They never supported the Patriot Act!

Who the fuck do you think lead us down this road? It wasn't just them damn evil godless socialist democrats! It was equally the fucking neocon republicans.

Keep on drowning yourself. All you are doing is trying to hijack this movement.

heavenlyboy34
08-30-2009, 08:49 PM
You'll find that most leftist blogs are heavily moderated and allow no deviation from the message they're pushing.

There is nothing of value to be found on the left for libertarians.

All leftist ideologies are about control of the people through government--not liberty.

This has been my experience thus far as well.

Imperial
08-30-2009, 08:53 PM
The Daily Kos NOR Huffington Post were kind to Ron Paul and they continuously labled him a racist. All of you who fell in love with Olberman and Bill Mahr, John Stewart..er...they only agreed with Ron Paul because they hate the republicans...and he spoke against what they were doing...they hate Ron Paul now..they hate libertarians. They are socialist/Marxists and they are not our friends. tones

I am pretty sure the HuffPo brought on a libertarian blogger or two lately...many progressives don't like it as much anymore. Myself, I think it provides a nice perspective and they often acknowledge what goes on in our circles. I have seen good articles from them now too.

DailyKos actually does have a decent-sized cadre of libertarians on the forums. I did a poll once on there and barely a majority were Democrats. You can work the others on there, including the outright socialists on some issues and the libertarian bloc on others. Besides that, you can argue stuff like drug legalization and antiwar and civil liberties, where not all have kow-towed to President Obama.



Daily Kos fears a liberty moving that is growing , so it stands to reason they would try and divide the ranks....wake up people , the Kos's only objective is too push Marxist agenda....

Nah, ive been on DKos awhile. The ones who run it actually have two goals- push the progressive wing of the Democratic Party while demonizing Republicans. This is all with the overriding goals of electing a reformed Democratic Party. However, there are few limits on the rank-and-file on the site. Regularly there are threads expressing disappointment with the President. The front-page top of the site won't let outright shilling for the Republican Party, but if you phrase your rhetoric right you can build bridges.

And HeavenlyBoy, who made you arbiter of libertarianism to say no real libertarian can accept the state?

Bucjason
08-30-2009, 08:54 PM
You're right.

I hate babies. Death to all babies.

And yes, NeoCons are not at all against restricting freedoms. They never supported the Patriot Act!

Who the fuck do you think lead us down this road? It wasn't just them damn evil godless socialist democrats! It was equally the fucking neocon republicans.

Keep on drowning yourself. All you are doing is trying to hijack this movement.

You don't hate babies , you just refuse to grant them the same rights the rest of us enjoy. What a brave "libertarian" that makes you....

Both parties are definitely at fault , no doubting that . But when King Barry tells you the "failed policy of the past" that caused the recession was " de-regulation" of the free market....then you had better know your real enemy. Neocons have no power right now , the marxists do.

linux
08-30-2009, 09:16 PM
What the fuck would you want to associate with daily kos? These people are the enemy. Some of you are confused. Probably you are the same dumbasses that wanted kucinich to be pauls running mate. Buy a clue.

heavenlyboy34
08-30-2009, 09:33 PM
What the fuck would you want to associate with daily kos? These people are the enemy. Some of you are confused. Probably you are the same dumbasses that wanted kucinich to be pauls running mate. Buy a clue.

I check out people like the kos sometimes-it's called "opposition research" in business and politics. ;):cool: It's terrible quality, but can be useful in planning counter attacks.

Imperial
08-30-2009, 09:33 PM
What the fuck would you want to associate with daily kos? These people are the enemy. Some of you are confused. Probably you are the same dumbasses that wanted kucinich to be pauls running mate. Buy a clue.

Because many of the posters on there actually respect the rights of people terrorized by our foreign intervention, respect the civil liberties of our citizens, and are opposed to the illogical drug laws of the United States.

Besides that, they are people who can be reached out to over the internet. We have to share the Internet with progressives as one of the two powerful poll-spammers and annoyances. I'd rather live alongside them peacefully.

BTW, shills for Democrat and Republican parties would love for you to label someone "the enemy". It creates us vs. them and facilitates the garnering of supporters through fear.

JeNNiF00F00
08-30-2009, 09:42 PM
You're right.

I hate babies. Death to all babies.

And yes, NeoCons are not at all against restricting freedoms. They never supported the Patriot Act!

Who the fuck do you think lead us down this road? It wasn't just them damn evil godless socialist democrats! It was equally the fucking neocon republicans.

Keep on drowning yourself. All you are doing is trying to hijack this movement.

QFT! Neocons are WORSE imo. They are big government, that restrict personal liberties, and promote war. They ARE for socialism, they just support it by giving our tax dollars to other countries such as Israel, so THEY can have the same health care that they are so against giving to the American people. Now don't get me wrong, I dont advocate socialism of any kind, however we don't need to be spending any money on other countries. If we MUST tax for socialism, then it needs to stay HERE.

Bucjason
08-30-2009, 09:46 PM
QFT! Neocons are WORSE imo. They are big government, that restrict personal liberties, and promote war. They ARE for socialism, they just support it by giving our tax dollars to other countries such as Israel, so THEY can have the same health care that they are so against giving to the American people. Now don't get me wrong, I dont advocate socialism of any kind, however we don't need to be spending any money on other countries. If we MUST tax for socialism, then it needs to stay HERE.



If we must tax for socialism it needs to stay here ??? Well that does explain why you prefer the marxists...

We don't aid Israel to pay for thier health care , we aid them to protect them from MASS genocide . I guess you were all for allowing the holocoust also , huh?? What a liberty-minded thought....

Bucjason
08-30-2009, 09:49 PM
Because many of the posters on there actually respect the rights of people terrorized by our foreign intervention.


But suddenly now that Obama is prez they have no problem with the war in Iraq still going on and the war in afghanistan being escalated.

Ha ! I call bullshit....

Smitty
08-30-2009, 09:54 PM
<cough> anti-semite <cough>


Call Abe Foxman and tell him what a good boy you are.

AutoDas
08-30-2009, 10:05 PM
I didn't find anything objectionable in that article. It defended libertarianism from the influx of so called "conservatarians" who are looking for a voice that can credibly criticize socialism after supporting GWB.

revolutionary8
08-30-2009, 11:16 PM
as far as I can tell, and I can agree with a whole helluva lot of it- save the usual under cuts... but of course,

Check out the diarist....


First off, "he" is a dailyCIAda front pager (DKfreeper)

http://darksyde.dailykos.com/

specsaregood
08-30-2009, 11:40 PM
I
We don't aid Israel to pay for thier health care , we aid them to protect them from MASS genocide . I guess you were all for allowing the holocoust also , huh?? What a liberty-minded thought....

Why do my tax dollars go to Israeal at all? WTF do I care about Israel, let them fend for themselves. If they are in constant threat of "mass genocide" then they should move away, I didn't tell them to move there.

revolutionary8
08-30-2009, 11:44 PM
Why do my tax dollars go to Israeal at all? WTF do I care about Israel, let them fend for themselves. If they are in constant threat of "mass genocide" then they should move away, I didn't tell them to move there.

nm :o

revolutionary8
08-30-2009, 11:52 PM
If we must tax for socialism it needs to stay here ??? Well that does explain why you prefer the marxists...

We don't aid Israel to pay for thier health care , we aid them to protect them from MASS genocide . I guess you were all for allowing the holocoust also , huh?? What a liberty-minded thought....

Buc,
tell us who are aiding the Palestinians.

Tell us who are aiding the Israelis.

We'll go from there?

Bman
08-31-2009, 12:15 AM
I didn't find anything objectionable in that article. It defended libertarianism from the influx of so called "conservatarians" who are looking for a voice that can credibly criticize socialism after supporting GWB.

Yup, like the suggestion of Palin joining the Libertarian Party. Just utter nonsense.

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 06:55 AM
Why do my tax dollars go to Israeal at all? WTF do I care about Israel, let them fend for themselves. If they are in constant threat of "mass genocide" then they should move away, I didn't tell them to move there.

Because total isolationism does not work, especially in the modern world. Everytime we've tried it we've ended up in World Wars. Do you really , in hindsight , think it was smart to stand idolly by while Hitler murdered thousands of Jews and built up a military strong enough to overrun several of it's neighboing countries, and then threaten ours??? Stopping him earlier would have saved THOUSANDS of lives.

There is a difference between nation-building that includes unnecessary interventionism , and SMART foriegn policy that includes limited aid and support for allies around the world . Having NO foriegn policy would result in ripple effects that in the long run would hurt us all ,and accomplish NOTHING for the cause of "liberty"

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 07:23 AM
It seems the people over at DailyKos have struck a chord. If the truth hurts, stop pretending.

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 07:35 AM
It seems the people over at DailyKos have struck a chord. If the truth hurts, stop pretending.

The only criteria I match of the Daily Kos's is that I am Pro-life...oh and #8:

"If you think the government should stay the hell out of Medicare, well, you have way, way bigger problems than figuring out if you're really a Libertarian." - I take it since you agree with this article, and the lefties who wrote it , you think Libertarians should be huge fans of Medicare ?? #8 should be your clue that they have more disdain for us than they do for Neocons...

I'm simply arguing that the commies that frequent the Kos are bigger enemies than any former Neocon who may be considering becoming a libertarian. A divided right helps the left , and that is thier only motivation for writing that article...

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 07:47 AM
The only criteria I match of the Daily Kos's is that I am Pro-life...oh and #8:

"If you think the government should stay the hell out of Medicare, well, you have way, way bigger problems than figuring out if you're really a Libertarian." - I take it since you agree with this article, and the lefties who wrote it , you think Libertarians should be huge fans of Medicare ??

I'm simply arguing that the commies that frequent the Kos are bigger enemies than any former Neocon who may be considering becoming a libertarian. A divided right helps the left , and that is thier only motivation for writing that article...

If you think the government should stay the hell out of Medicare, rather than arguing that Medicare should never have been created and is only useful for demonstrating why having the fedgov in your health care is a terrible thing, you do have way, way bigger problems than figuring out whether you're really a libertarian. Simple fact, and funny too.

A divided left helps us, too, Bucjason. In many ways, the article helps us and disaffected 'lefties' who are not being represented by these warmongers in the White House reach out to each other. Nothing but nothing helps the people of this nation more than for people they try to divide reaching out to each other in spite of their attempts to convince us that we are enemies to each other. The sooner we stop worrying about their definition of 'left' and 'right' and start worrying about 'disaffected' vs. 'corrupt' the sooner we can get out of this $#%@ mess we're in.

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 08:00 AM
If you think the government should stay the hell out of Medicare, rather than arguing that Medicare should never have been created and is only useful for demonstrating why having the fedgov in your health care, you do have way, way bigger problems than figuring out whther you're really a libertarian. Simple fact, and funny too.



What?? That is not what that means at all . It means; if you think government should not FUND medicare at all, or have anything else to do with it , you are some crazy person who has bigger problems than a neocon. "Stay the hell out" means it would no longer exist....


Do you really think the lefty who wrote this thinks government shouldn't be involved in medicare?? LOL....no wonder you like this article...

It is condoscending to us , and you don't even see it...

fisharmor
08-31-2009, 08:03 AM
Neo-cons we can work with on everything except foriegn policy.

Wow, I'm really surprised that this slipped by.... Below is your neocon domestic policy.
The Largest Street Gang in America Video by BoilingFrogs - MySpace Video (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=54162036)

Bucjason, you're hucking the same old saw that tried to get McCain elected.
We're not buying it anymore.
It's not about winning anymore. It's about truth.

You're telling us the same crap we all grew up with: that a couple lies are a-ok as long as they aren't as many or as big as the lies the other side is telling.
The same crap about how it's not about liberty, it's not about freedom, it's not about self determination: it's about beating the other side.

Get lost. We're not buying it anymore.

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 08:03 AM
What?? That is not what that means at all . It means; if you think government should not FUND medicare at all, or have anything else to do with it , you are some crazy person who has bigger problems than a neocon. Stay the hell out means it would no longer exist....

Do you really think the lefty who wrote this thinks government shouldn't be involved in medicare?? LOL....no wonder you like this article...

It is condoscending to us , and you don't even see that...

Dude, how the $#@% can the government stay out of Medicare? It was a joke already. Humor arr arr? Hello?

It's condescending to you, Bucjason. It's not condescending to me.

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 08:07 AM
Dude, how the $#@% can the government stay out of Medicare? It was a joke already. Humor arr arr? Hello?

It's condescending to you, Bucjason. It's not condescending to me.


Yes , it's a joke on YOU , and anyone who thinks we should allow poor people and old people to die without health care.

wow, what a funny joke . Keep hanging out at the Kos , you obviously belong there....

fisharmor
08-31-2009, 08:11 AM
It's condescending to you, Bucjason. It's not condescending to me.

Actually, every time I get a phone poll I make sure to tell them that their questions are crap.
I'll make a million dollar bet that what was presented was:

Q: Do you think the federal government should stay out of medicare?
A: Your question is absurd, since the government is already in medicare and can not therefore stay out.
Q: Well, I don't write these questions, can you just give me a yes or no?

So you can give a yes and be dubbed an idiot, or you can refuse to answer and then conservatives get labeled as having no opinion on medicare.

There's been more than one occasion now that I've had to tell someone I won't answer a question and will end the survey if they can't guarantee my non-answer won't be used in the results.

LibertyEagle
08-31-2009, 08:12 AM
Yes , it's a joke on YOU , and anyone who thinks we should allow poor people and old people to die without health care.

wow, what a funny joke . Keep hanging out at the Kos , you obviously belong there....

What are you talking about, Buc? Are you arguing for federal government involvement in health care? :confused:

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 08:13 AM
Bucjason, you're hucking the same old saw that tried to get McCain elected.
We're not buying it anymore.
It's not about winning anymore. It's about truth.

And the truth is, Bucjason (in case you're really interested in the stuff), I don't 'hang' over at DailyKos. I hang here, and work my ass off trying to show that we're reasonable, principled and well grounded. And it seems to be helping a little bit.

And, yes, I'm glad of that. We need more allies and less manufactured enemies.

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 08:15 AM
Bucjason, you're hucking the same old saw that tried to get McCain elected.

We're not buying it anymore.

LOL! As bad as McCain sucked , and he did, we will ALL be wishing he got elected by the time King Barry's reign is over. Mark my words.....


I will not get lost, thanks.

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 08:18 AM
What are you talking about, Buc? Are you arguing for federal government involvement in health care? :confused:

No , I was speaking from the perspective of the guy who wrote #8 ....that is what he meant by it....I think the total opposite !! Medicare should be abolished as unconstitutional.

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 08:18 AM
LOL! As bad as McCain sucked , and he did, we will ALL be wishing he got elected by the time King Barry's reign is over. Mark my words......

Actually, I'm kind of grateful those %$#@s are turning up the heat too fast. The frogs are jumping; McCain might have had enough sense to keep up the more gentle pace. Besides, these characters over at Kos and all over the country would still be saying 'oh, the Democrats will fix everything if only we can get them elected' if the arrogant bastard had won. People on both sides of the manufactured aisle are realizing they're disaffected now. Is that worth nothing to us?

Bitter medicine can sometimes lead to a quicker and more complete cure. You don't solve the problem by treating the symptoms. That said, functionally I can't see any other difference but melanin content, and that means less than nothing.

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 08:22 AM
<delete> posted the same thing twice

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 08:23 AM
And the truth is, Bucjason (in case you're really interested in the stuff), I don't 'hang' over at DailyKos. I hang here, and work my ass off trying to show that we're reasonable, principled and well grounded. And it seems to be helping a little bit.

And, yes, I'm glad of that. We need more allies and less manufactured enemies.

So, you work to make allies with communists , and to alienate and ridicule neocons. It seems to me if these former neocons were looking to join us , THEY would be the potential allies , not the other way around. Which is the basis of my entire argument here...

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 08:25 AM
So, you work to make allies with communists , and to alienate and ridicule neocons. It seems to me if these former neocons were looking to join us , THEY would be the potential allies , not the other way around.

I want to make allies with everyone who is getting bent over and screwed, and that covers a whole wide range. And what's more, I don't consider your 'communists' to be incorrigible so long as they have enough sense to be sick of the screwing. But ignorant allies can't help us much; they're more likely to cause harm than good. And you still can't keep the government out of Medicare, no matter how hard you try. The government's DNA is as much an integral part of Medicare as in any other parent and child. So, what can you do but let loose an embarassed chuckle?

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 08:32 AM
Actually, I'm kind of grateful those %$#@s are turning up the heat too fast. The frogs are jumping; McCain might have had enough sense to keep up the more gentle pace. Besides, these characters over at Kos and all over the country would still be saying 'oh, the Democrats will fix everything if only we can get them elected' if the arrogant bastard had won. .

That is a good point .

Only problem I have is that once a social program is in place , like uiniversal health care, it's almost impossible to overturn because it is then seen as an entitlement
It's like social security ....no one likes it in it's current state , but try and touch it , and consider your political career over.

If King Barry suceeds in force-feeding us this , it is already too late...

LibertyEagle
08-31-2009, 08:36 AM
We don't aid Israel to pay for thier health care , we aid them to protect them from MASS genocide . I guess you were all for allowing the holocoust also , huh?? What a liberty-minded thought....

You are free to empty out your entire bank account and send it to whomever you choose. But, if you are "liberty-minded", please keep your hand out of my pocket.

Not Yours to Give
http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Not%20Yours%20to%20Give.pdf


Because total isolationism does not work, especially in the modern world.
You are confused. Isolationism is not the same thing as non-interventionism.


The Original Foreign Policy, by Ron Paul

Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.

But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?

I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”

Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image. -- Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm

Everytime we've tried it we've ended up in World Wars. Do you really , in hindsight , think it was smart to stand idolly by while Hitler murdered thousands of Jews and built up a military strong enough to overrun several of it's neighboing countries, and then threaten ours??? Stopping him earlier would have saved THOUSANDS of lives.
If you want to argue about WWII and its causes, we can certainly do that. But, it should be done in another thread, so this one is not taken off-topic. But, when we do, we will also go back and revisit WWI.


There is a difference between nation-building that includes unnecessary interventionism , and SMART foriegn policy that includes limited aid and support for allies around the world .
I used to believe this way too. But then I realized that this is pure fallacy, as this is what is used to accomplish the nation-building that you admit is unnecessary. Look at what we have done in the name of aiding our allies. We prop up some tin horn dictator, thinking he will fight off someone we hate worse, then when the tin horn dictator becomes a problem, and they always do, we come back and fight him, while we are shot at with the weapons that we gave him in the first place. And I haven't even mentioned how funding some nations, makes us hated by the other nation's enemies. If we truly cared about our national security, as so many of the neoconservatives claimed, we wouldn't risk American lives and treasure by involving ourselves in another nation's affairs.

Have you read George Washington's Farewell Address lately? He made it quite clear that we should not entangle alliances.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp


Having NO foriegn policy would result in ripple effects that in the long run would hurt us all ,and accomplish NOTHING for the cause of "liberty"
What??? A foreign policy of non-interventionism IS a foreign policy. Travel to other countries, talk with other countries, trade with other countries. Be well-wishers to all.

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. - George Washington

fisharmor
08-31-2009, 08:39 AM
LOL! As bad as McCain sucked , and he did, we will ALL be wishing he got elected by the time King Barry's reign is over. Mark my words.....

What did he suck at?
You just agreed with what I said. You obviously believe that the only thing he sucked at was winning.
Where's all that pro-life blather about a man who authored the bill that silenced the right-to-life movement in Wisconsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission_v._Wisconsin_Right_to_ Life,_Inc.)?

We don't see a substantial difference between King Barry and King George. Stop trying to tell us who the new king should be and help us concentrate on overthrowing the monarchy already!

LibertyEagle
08-31-2009, 08:41 AM
Stop trying to tell us who the new king should be and help us concentrate on overthrowing the monarchy already!

Ooooohhh. That was good. :)

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 08:42 AM
You are free to empty out your entire bank account and send it to whomever you choose. But, if you are "liberty-minded", please keep your hand out of my pocket.

Not Yours to Give
http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Not%20Yours%20to%20Give.pdf


You are confused. Isolationism is not the same thing as non-interventionism.


http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm

If you want to argue about WWII and its causes, we can certainly do that. But, it should be done in another thread, so this one is not taken off-topic. But, when we do, we will also go back and revisit WWI.


I used to believe this way too. But then I realized that this is pure fallacy, as this is what is used to accomplish the nation-building that you admit is unnecessary. Look at what we have done in the name of aiding our allies. We prop up some tin horn dictator, thinking he will fight off someone we hate worse, then when the tin horn dictator becomes a problem, and they always do, we come back and fight him, while we are shot at with the weapons that we gave him in the first place. And I haven't even mentioned how funding some nations, makes us hated by the other nation's enemies. If we truly cared about our national security, as so many of the neoconservatives claimed, we wouldn't risk American lives and treasure by involving ourselves in another nation's affairs.

Have you read George Washington's Farewell Address lately? He made it quite clear that we should not entangle alliances.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp


What??? A foreign policy of non-interventionism IS a foreign policy. Travel to other countries, talk with other countries, trade with other countries. Be well-wishers to all.

Actually , you are right . I retract most of what I said and concede to your points.

But at the same time , I don't have a problem with some of my tax dollars going towards some LIMITED and SELECT foriegn aid , if it is promoting someone else's liberty , and/or saving thousands of lives .

Do you?

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 08:49 AM
Ooooohhh. That was good. :)

You're a master of understatement. That was magnificent!

fisharmor
08-31-2009, 08:53 AM
But at the same time , I don't have a problem with some of my tax dollars going towards some LIMITED and SELECT foriegn aid , if it is promoting someone else's liberty , and/or saving thousands of lives .

Do you?

Yes, I have a problem with it and am not ashamed to admit it.

1) "tax" = "involuntary". I am not willingly giving money to this cause.

2) No tax was ever taken to promote an evil cause. In every single case, taxes were raised and spent ostensibly to serve the public good.

3) Therefore the argument that taxes are being raised in this case for a public good is specious. Even Hitler's ovens were doing a public service.

4) I'm sure you've already gotten there: the public "good" the taxes were raised for is entirely subjective, and therefore it is improper to involuntarily take money in support of it.

5) Remember that the public good is also not usually attained....

6) ... that in most cases private efforts can be shown to be more effective ...

7) ... and that the end result is invariably that the project in question is declared "underbudgeted", and grows over time into orders of magnitude more money than would be necessary if the system even came close to working.

LibertyEagle
08-31-2009, 08:55 AM
But at the same time , I don't have a problem with some of my tax dollars going towards some LIMITED and SELECT foriegn aid , if it is promoting someone else's liberty , and/or saving thousands of lives .

Do you?

Yes, I would have a problem with it. Let me explain why. If you agree that what I said in the previous post was valid with regard to the large scale interventionism that we have going on now, why do you think it would be ok to do with select countries? How would it be any different? Seriously.

Here's the thing, Buc. When we stick our noses in other countries' affairs, we entangle alliances. Their enemies become our enemies, which results in threatening our national security, risking American lives and treasure. You see that, right? So no, as a general rule, I do not think our government should get involved with these things. Our government should be in the business of defending the liberty of Americans. However, if individuals want to risk their own lives and treasure to support another country whom they think should be helped, they are free to risk their own lives and money to do so.

I won't say that there will never be an exception, Buc, but I darn sure don't think it should be our policy to stick our noses into other nations' affairs.

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 08:55 AM
6) ... that in most cases private efforts can be shown to be more effective ....

...and not only because private efforts eliminate the middleman, but also because the donor vets the 'victim' to determine if the need is real (rather than being motivated by the size of the kickback).

So, Buc. We're having problems right now. Does that mean Putin should come over and start telling us what to do 'for our own good'? Would that piss you off? Quite right, and so it should. So, what kind of subhuman do you imagine inhabits the rest of the world that they wouldn't have the sense to be pissed about this level of arrogance?

Conza88
08-31-2009, 08:58 AM
There's a libertarian argument against abortion, which is that the fetus is a human being with human rights.



Of course. There's also the debate about when life begins, which is a moral argument and perhaps even scientific.

It's not an easily settled debate.

My personal belief is that abortions for very early pregnancies(within the first month) for medical reasons and personal reasons(teenage pregancy for example), it shouldn't be used as a contraceptive though. However after that, I'm completely against any late term abortions.

But we ire off topic.







Actually it IS settled. It's as simple as science can get. Science tells us that life begins at conception , otherwise life wouldn't begin at conception. Something else would need to happen before a lifeform began to grow. It doesn't, so that is where it begins.


Evictionism (Abortion) by Walter Block (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/block8.mp3)

= Winner. :cool:

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 08:59 AM
Yes, I have a problem with it and am not ashamed to admit it.

1) "tax" = "involuntary". I am not willingly giving money to this cause.

2) No tax was ever taken to promote an evil cause. In every single case, taxes were raised and spent ostensibly to serve the public good.

3) Therefore the argument that taxes are being raised in this case for a public good is specious. Even Hitler's ovens were doing a public service.

4) I'm sure you've already gotten there: the public "good" the taxes were raised for is entirely subjective, and therefore it is improper to involuntarily take money in support of it.

5) Remember that the public good is also not usually attained....

6) ... that in most cases private efforts can be shown to be more effective ...

7) ... and that the end result is invariably that the project in question is declared "underbudgeted", and grows over time into orders of magnitude more money than would be necessary if the system even came close to working.

Well it is voluntarily , to a degree , because we live in a Republic. If we don't like the taxes our leaders place upon us , in theory, we can vote them all out of office for people that will repeal them. That is what "taxation with representation" means.

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 09:04 AM
I won't say that there will never be an exception, Buc, but I darn sure don't think it should be our policy to stick our noses into other nations' affairs.

Well I agree with that. I don't think it should be standard policy either, but there are some cases in which we should.

I think any sane person would agree that the nations of the world should have stepped in much sooner to put a stop to what hitler was doing. Let's say , for example , that North Korea suddenly nuked South Korea , then Nuked Japan , then began talks of nuking other countries besides us. Don't you think it would be wise to step in in some way at that point ? lol

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 09:06 AM
Well I agree with that. I don't think it should be standard policy either, but there are some cases in which we should.

I think any sane person would agree that the nations of the world should have stepped in much sooner to put a stop to what hitler was doing. Let's say , for example , that North Korea suddenly nuked South Korea , then Nuked Japan , then began talks of nuking other countries besides us. Don't you think it would be wise to step in in some way at that point ? lol

Do you know the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism? There is, indeed, a difference...

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 09:12 AM
Do you know the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism? There is, indeed, a difference...

Yes :

"Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense."

So , my analogy still applies to the argument....

LibertyEagle
08-31-2009, 09:13 AM
Well I agree with that. I don't think it should be standard policy either, but there are some cases in which we should.

I think any sane person would agree that the nations of the world should have stepped in much sooner to put a stop to what hitler was doing.
Again, if you want to discuss this, start a new thread. Because we are going to have to go back and review WWI and how Hitler came to power in the first place and how our own interventionism helped it happen.


Let's say , for example , that North Korea suddenly nuked South Korea , then Nuked Japan , then began talks of nuking other countries besides us. Don't you think it would be wise to step in in some way at that point ? lol

If America is attacked, or an attack is impending (can't think of the right word here), then yes, I think we should step in. But, I fail to see how North Korea and South Korea are putting America at risk. In fact, I think we have no business being in South Korea. If South Korea wishes to remain independent from North Korea, they need to man up and do so, with their own military and their own money.

You might enjoy reading this book, Buc:
http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/0307405168/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251732878&sr=8-1

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 09:16 AM
Yes :

"Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense."

So , my analogy still applies to the argument....

Not completely. Diplomacy is a legitimate tool of non-interventionism; not so in the case of isolationism. What about my Putin question? Does that make no sense to you? How would you react? Would you shout, 'Imperialist!'?

Do you really see a way to make a positive impact by pissing the natives off and driving them into the arms of their very own tinhorn dictatorial psychopath?

Not that this thread isn't off on a whole different rail or anything...

LibertyEagle
08-31-2009, 09:19 AM
"Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations." -- Ron Paul

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 09:24 AM
Ok so let me define my position: I think I am non-interventionist except in extreme circumstances that require an exception.

I can't believe any of you would actually argue that if North Korea started randomly nuking other countries , that we should stand idolly by simply because they hadn't nuked us yet....

There are exceptions were action should be taken, when it is passed the point for diplomacy !

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 09:26 AM
I can't believe any of you would actually argue that if North Korea started randomly nuking other countries , that we should stand idolly by simply because they hadn't nuked us yet....

Why would anyone stand around while someone fills the world's atmosphere with radiation? Are you nuts? You don't consider that a direct threat, an attack on all nations?

If you want to find where the line is, start a thread for the purpose. But don't lie about the nature of non-interventionism.

Ever watch Star Trek? Kirk was always too arrogant to obey Roddenberry's concept of a Prime Directive, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 09:33 AM
Why would anyone stand around while someone fills the world's atmosphere with radiation? Are you nuts? You don't consider that a direct threat, an attack on all nations?

If you want to find where the line is, start a thread for the purpose. But don't lie about the nature of non-interventionism.

So, by your measure , pollution is grounds for war under non-interventionism.


Who is it that is in charge of drawing this line exactly ?? Can we trust him/her ?:p

acptulsa
08-31-2009, 09:37 AM
So, by your measure , pollution is grounds for war under non-interventionism.

Oh, no. Those bastards during WWI should have just taken their mustard gas and liked it. They just didn't have enough hot dogs. :rolleyes:


Who is it that is in charge of drawing this line exactly ?? Can we trust him/her ?:p

You confusing me with an ancap? Another thread, Buc. We've already hijacked this one to Havanna...

Bucjason
08-31-2009, 09:40 AM
Oh, no. Those bastards during WWI should have just taken their mustard gas and liked it. They just didn't have enough hot dogs. :rolleyes:



You confusing me with an ancap? Another thread, Buc. We've already hijacked this one to Havanna...

im just joking with ya ...i pretty much agree for the most part .

LibertyEagle
08-31-2009, 09:41 AM
It's a worthwhile discussion, Buc. We should start a new thread though, if we're going to continue it.