Tab Content
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:48 PM
    2 replies | 72 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:42 PM
    If you like this then you should subscribe to his channel. I think this is one of the less impressive things I've seen Peter do.
    2 replies | 72 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:40 PM
    The man who singlehandedly killed the 60s.
    20 replies | 249 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    11-10-2017, 03:54 PM
    We'll see. I'm still convinced Cuccinelli lost because both sides, for and against him, brought attention to what he actually did while he was in elected offices. The left said that he used the power of the state to punish people for doing stuff he didn't like under an anti-homosexuality law. Cooch said he thought the state needed to keep the power to punish people for doing stuff he didn't like, and that's why the anti-homosexuality law was needed. These days, I think Virginia is a place that kind of takes things at face value. If both sides say "he's gonna arbitrarily ruin lives using a law SCOTUS already overturned", then Virginians are pretty good at weighing that on its own merits. If Republicans would run people for these offices other than authors of bathroom bills, other than people who want to use anti-homosexuality laws to punish people arbitrarily, then they might get somewhere. It's far too cosmopolitan here anymore to think of this state as some kind of annex from the Bible Belt. If they would stick to issues, the way Roem did, then they would win. I'm sure it helped that Roem had the backing of a bunch of national leftist organizations. If money is a problem, then local politicians on the right can just as easily tap into national groups like Roem did. But nobody's creating a national "imprison husbands for getting head from their wives" superPAC. So, sorry, Cooch. The politics you and Marshall relied on are gone. Find something new. Maybe something about liberty that you don't intend to desecrate the moment you're in power. That proved pretty popular once. Got a guy elected in Houston a bunch of times.
    38 replies | 852 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    11-10-2017, 10:15 AM
    Roem stated specific goals he has, in particular to deal with Rt 28, which I actually had to drive across last night and let me tell you, holy shit, I've been driving in DC traffic since 1991 and I've seen the worst the US has to offer... there are certain areas that we all know about, where you just don't go through there from 6-10am and 2-8pm. And I had no idea that this is a new instance of one of those areas. Of course this is something that the free market would have dealt with within 4 months of it happening, and of course the state is dragging its feet. But Roem's overarching message for this campaign had nothing to do with SJW nonsense. He won specifically by saying "Look here's this super fucked up thing that nobody is even talking about, and when I'm elected I'm going to make it my business to take care of it, and then leave". Yes, he said that italic part. Hell, *I* would have voted for him, back when I still had Stockholm Syndrome.
    38 replies | 852 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    11-09-2017, 07:42 AM
    Don't forget that housing prices will also return to sanity.
    38 replies | 852 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    11-08-2017, 09:29 AM
    BTW this is just up the road from me. I can't say I'm sorry to see Marshall go. He was usually solid on pro-gun issues, but really was a conservative dinosaur. Nothing he ever did was founded on a devotion to liberty. He is a more obvious version of Ken Cuccinelli - champing at the bit to use the state to punish people he doesn't like. I think it's telling that Roem won largely by sticking to a fundamental issue that affects everyone in the district, which has been largely ignored. It's almost like people in the area think that this is what they are supposed to be paying attention to.
    38 replies | 852 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    11-08-2017, 09:25 AM
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/danica-roem-will-be-vas-first-openly-transgender-elected-official-after-unseating-conservative-robert-g-marshall-in-house-race/2017/11/07/d534bdde-c0af-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?utm_term=.51a85a52c7fb Virginia’s most socially conservative state lawmaker was ousted from office Tuesday by Danica Roem, a Democrat who will be one of the nation’s first openly transgender elected officials and who embodies much of what Del. Robert G. Marshall fought against in Richmond. The race focused on traffic and other local issues in suburban Prince William County but also exposed the nation’s fault lines over gender identity. It pitted a 33-year-old former journalist who began her physical gender transition four years ago against a 13-term incumbent who called himself Virginia’s “chief homophobe” and earlier this year introduced a “bathroom bill” that died in committee. “Discrimination is a disqualifier,” a jubilant Roem said Tuesday night as her margin of victory became clear. “This is about the people of the 13th District disregarding fear tactics, disregarding phobias . . . where we celebrate you because of who you are, not despite it.”
    38 replies | 852 view(s)
  • Southron's Avatar
    11-07-2017, 06:25 PM
    I use Firefox in a privacy configuration. I've been using Brave sometimes also. In cases I need Chrome, I use the open source. Chromium instead.
    23 replies | 420 view(s)
  • Southron's Avatar
    11-07-2017, 06:07 PM
    Sounds to me like Rand "tough-guyed" it when giving a police statement and was actually hurt worse than he admitted.
    598 replies | 17268 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-06-2017, 05:35 AM
    You said that arguments cannot be made without making certain predictions about the future. Then you defined statelessness with a declarative statement, full stop (""the state should be abolished and a free market in security should replace it"). Note, there is no prediction in that statement - it is, quite precisely, a philosophical statement without presumption of future consequences. Just a statement about how human society should be organized. I agree with it, in fact - it is simple, yet eloquent, and makes the case rather precisely. Again - you've stated that arguments cannot be made without making predictive statements. That all of economics, history and political science would be upended if we didn't make presumptions about the future. Which justifies your adherence to "minarchism", since you "know" that stateless will not succeed. As an aside, We're fortunate, as human beings, that you weren't around when human beings were considering whether or not civilization would persist without the institution of slavery. Your definition of "minarchism" (again, just a lol term) jives with your ability to see the future... Which is nice and all. It's just that you can't actually know what humans will accept and refute in the future. Just as you couldn't have known that slavery would eventually been rejected if you'd been peddling your nonsense on message boards in the 1800's. ;)
    732 replies | 12038 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-05-2017, 05:40 AM
    I oppose the State. I believe that human interaction should be based on the reality of human existence, which is - OBSERVABLY - that human beings exist on objectively equal terms. Though some may be more physically or mentally apt, there is clearly no instrument which can determine an objective standard by which one human is superior to another. Therefore there is no justification for the existence of an entity within human society wherein some subset of humans may rule over the rest. That is a logically consistent "political" (if you will) philosophy congruent with objective, observable human interaction. One may say that this model of society is unlikely to persist; that it is inevitable that some humans will inevitably seek to acquire a position of absolute authority over other humans. Much as others in the past argued that it is inevitable that there are some humans who are subservient others. Yet this concept, which had gained wide acceptance amongst humans from centuries if not millenia, has been rejected broadly by people as humans have grown and gained knowledge. Similarly, I believe that some day people will reject the notion that there are some people who are suited to rule over the rest of people. Maybe that is a folly, and maybe it isn't. As they say, the truth will bear out. Regardless, I hold this position not because I believe it is practical, or because I believe it is inevitable (though I believe it is both); I hold it because it is True. Full stop.
    59 replies | 1216 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-05-2017, 05:26 AM
    I found a picture of your post, HVACTech: You've won this round, Gas Master... the power of your ass is indomitable! I think I too am going to start coding all of my internet POV's in cryptic, largely irrational arguments that can't be refuted on that very basis then claim victory over the retarded mass of humanity.
    59 replies | 1216 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-05-2017, 04:34 AM
    Hmph? How about that? By your very own words you define statelessness by making a declarative statement, and your definition of "minarchism" (the time we could spend on that term...) comes out the gate claiming that statelessness is impossible. That's interesting. Because above you stated that it isn't possible to make an argument without predicting the future. Yet even you define the anti-statist as making a declarative (and not a predictive) statement. It's almost like you're full of shit, isn't it?
    732 replies | 12038 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-04-2017, 10:20 AM
    Ron was the original pragmatist - he presented himself to the general public as a reasonable, practical constitutionalist politician; Hey, this is what the governing document of this body says we can do, let's only do that. It happens that the Constitution was a decent document for limiting the scope of a national state. Since RP has been a national figure, however, the national state hasn't been limited in any way, shape, or form. So it was a decent piece of high ground from which he could snipe. In the course of doing so, he brought many of us here. Much of what Ron has written and said indicates that he believes in a much, MUCH more limited state than what the CONstitution lays out. Now that he's a private citizen, we're seeing more of that.
    47 replies | 1089 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-04-2017, 02:48 AM
    I've been telling the ladies that for years... Ahem. I'll show myself out.
    11 replies | 281 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-03-2017, 08:21 PM
    Oh, good... HVACTech is creating threads in the political philosophy subforum. This place has been lacking finger-paint pieces for the refrigerator, lately.
    47 replies | 1089 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-03-2017, 08:18 PM
    I'm sure you're a Trump supporter, which isn't "necessarily" congruent with *white supremacist*... but most of those folks are morons who wouldn't know a Paulian political position if he tripped over it, which wouldn't be surprising (the tripping over of, that is). But anyway, please continue along pulling your pants down and imagining you're not the butt of the joke...
    159 replies | 2648 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-03-2017, 08:03 PM
    I wasn't debating you. I just made an observation and recollection. :shrug: Little trigger happy there, aren't ya? That said, GFY. Also, I'm not in favor of open borders... because I'm not in favor of borders. I'm in favor of private property.
    159 replies | 2648 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-03-2017, 06:52 PM
    I may be mis-remembering, but I'm pretty sure kahless is an open fascist/white supremacist whose presence here only inaccurately ties RP to his twisted, BS collectivist ideology to the passers-by. On those terms, I endorse any and all GFY's he gets around here. Cleans the place up...
    159 replies | 2648 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-03-2017, 06:44 PM
    YES. THEY. DO. Unless they encroach uninvited or with malice upon PRIVATE PROPERTY, people have a right to move about the planet unencumbered. Adorable as it is that - like a child - you've endorsed the idea that there exists entities which have this extra-human authority to cordon off segments of the planet and claim them for their own, rational people understand that human beings doing no harm to others may move around as they may see fit. AND - CA's refusal to buy into the state's border scam does NOT mean that he favors violent people coming to this continent... he has stated that if people were allowed to possess whatever means of self-defense they so choose, none of this would matter. There was a time in this country when people who couldn't control themselves in polite society just ended up dead at the hands of people who could. That had a civilizing effect on folks. That sort of thing would be useful these days.
    159 replies | 2648 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    11-03-2017, 03:43 AM
    Were there any men or "legal" guns left in New York City, this POS would have been dealt with at the beginning, middle or end of his rampage.
    159 replies | 2648 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    11-01-2017, 01:30 PM
    There are only two questions you need to ask. 1. What has the Church, through its saints, universally taught about this for the last 2000 years? 2. What makes me think I know better than several hundred high-profile people who literally - not figuratively, literally - devoted their entire lives to answering these questions, or the millions who went down this same road before me and all agreed that what the Church has always taught on the issue is actually the work of the Holy Spirit?
    96 replies | 1340 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    11-01-2017, 09:15 AM
    Except in the Church this is not really debated at all, hotly or coldly. In the Church this has been a settled issue for two millennia. Outside of the Church this is a question that people who choose not to belong to the Church like to ask. And they are free to explore that for themselves as much as they want, as long as they keep that self-exploration outside of the Church.
    96 replies | 1340 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    10-28-2017, 04:23 PM
    You and Sisyphus. Poor guy. You, the all-knowing. We bow before you and your vice-like grip upon the unknowable. What things you must be able to tell us about the future! Please TELL US! We await your wisdom...
    732 replies | 12038 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    10-27-2017, 08:32 PM
    The Audion Zoo in New Orleans has a "swamp monster" on display that is their crappy version of the Loup-Garou. It stuck in my head from childhood.
    23 replies | 468 view(s)
  • fisharmor's Avatar
    1 replies | 146 view(s)
  • A Son of Liberty's Avatar
    10-23-2017, 08:27 PM
    Yeah, I didn't see that. I'll go back and look. I don't have a ton of free time (I've been off the past couple days, so I've popped in to play), so you're correct I don't stick around too much... Real quick before I go to bed - this thing you guys keep bringing up, that contracts are gonna be enforced and therefore that's a State... it really belies a very sophomoric understanding of what the State is... sorry to say. Anti-statists oppose the unprovoked initiation of force. I mean, we can get into a lot more detail there, but at the end of the day, that's basically what it boils down to. I don't think any of us have time - nor hopefully the need - to get further into it than that, but maybe we do. Either way, not my problem - go ahead and read about what anti-statism is as far as libertarians are concerned. There's plenty of material out there - start with Tom Woods. This idea that we anti-statists think that in a world without a State, people are all just going to magically get along, and no one is going to welch on agreements and contracts... it's nonsense. No one in our tradition has ever suggested that would be the reality. We merely oppose the pre-emptive, unprovoked coercive and/or physical violence which the State represents. In more succinct terms, you (generally speaking, you "Statists") are afraid someone isn't going to live up to a contract (i.e., do violence, essentially), so you pre-empt said violent act by inaugurating the State, an institution which is BY DEFINITION an act of violence. Now, it's always at this point that Statists want answers... "well, then how are you going to enforce contracts", or, "how are you going to provide defense", or, "how are you going to do..." this or that. That's NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS, you're point of view is wrong. It's immoral, because you're initiating violence where there has been no offense. That is the point upon which the pendulum of the argument tips. By the way - there are answers to those questions... but they don't really matter, because in a truly free market, there are literally 7 billion people with numerous ideas as to how those questions may be answered... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FREE MARKET IS. As a so-called conservative, or libertarian, or whatever you call yourself, THAT SHOULD BE SELF-EVIDENT TO YOU.
    732 replies | 12038 view(s)
More Activity

4 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    A Liberty candidate needs your help!

    Donate today to Thomas Massie with $20.12 or something bigger! http://www.thomasmassie.com/

    For Liberty!
  2. View Conversation
    Sorry Fortis... I'm pretty new, too... you're not neg rep'ing me, you just don't have enough rep points to give + rep's yet. I haven't gotten neg rep's yet, and apparently they're red... yours are gray on my control panel... once you gain enough rep points, they'll turn green. lol I have no idea... I'll kick some + rep your way as re-payment.
  3. View Conversation
    Thanks (regarding my post). I don't really worry about the rep thing, I was just curious what about the post you didn't like.

    By the way, you negative rep'd me again in the Glenn Beck thread. lol
  4. View Conversation
    just curious why you negative rep'd me for my post in your thread...?
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 4 of 4
About FortisKID

Basic Information

Date of Birth
August 10, 1993 (24)
About FortisKID
Biography:
I'm of course a Ron Paul supporter. Currently attending high school as a Junior in Michigan.
Political Campaign Skills
Video and Audio:
Video Producer
Marketers:
Online Marketer

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
73
Posts Per Day
0.03
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
4
Most Recent Message
04-26-2012 12:16 AM
General Information
Last Activity
09-19-2012 04:46 PM
Join Date
10-12-2010
Referrals
3

10 Friends

  1. A Son of Liberty A Son of Liberty is offline

    Member

    A Son of Liberty
  2. Carehn Carehn is offline

    Member

    Carehn
  3. fisharmor fisharmor is offline

    Member

    fisharmor
  4. LibertyIn08 LibertyIn08 is offline

    Member

    LibertyIn08
  5. R3volutionJedi R3volutionJedi is offline

    Member

    R3volutionJedi
  6. ryanmkeisling ryanmkeisling is offline

    Member

    ryanmkeisling
  7. Southron Southron is offline

    Member

    Southron
  8. t0rnado t0rnado is offline

    Banned

    t0rnado
  9. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
  10. Vessol Vessol is offline

    Member

    Vessol
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 10
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...