Tab Content
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 01:12 PM
    Dental fluorosis is a thing.
    13 replies | 508 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 01:05 PM
    If it wasn't a popular vote-getter, they wouldn't do it. If you want to make them stop doing that, then make it unpopular with the voters. Unfortunately, there really isn't much other option. You could introduce State-level bills to make such practices illegal, but so long as they were popular with the voters then you would never get enough support to pass such a bill.
    85 replies | 960 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 10:24 AM
    Well water in NW Montana has arsenic in it.
    13 replies | 508 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 10:13 AM
    I don’t even watch football. I have NEVER watched football, and I only know the phrase “excessive celebration” because it entered my vocabulary from people saying that Tebow should be fired for it. The last time I watched an NFL game, was like 1999 or 2000 when the Church I attended decided to host a Super Bowl watching party. I didn’t even know there WAS such a thing as “excessive celebration” until people were using it as a reason Tebow should be fired. Not being a football watcher in any way shape or form, I wouldn’t even know where to look for such a thing. It wasn’t ESPN or whatever calling for him to be fired, so searching ESPN is not where it’s at. It was the people. Liberal douchebag snowflakes offended at his display. Personally, I couldn’t possibly care less about the NFL or Tebow — I was taught that praying to make a show is what the Pharisees do to heap on the praises of men. I’m not defending Tebow. The point is that you would have a hard time finding someone who cares LESS about NFL football than I do, and the whole entire reason I even know that “excessive celebration” is even a thing, is I heard people talking about it in reference to why Tebow should be fired.
    85 replies | 960 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    Today, 09:42 AM
    If you abolish the government created by the Constitution, then it gets rid of both of them. Simple solution.
    5 replies | 146 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Today, 04:21 AM
    baloney sausage. Plenty of douchebags screamed for Tebow to be fired.
    85 replies | 960 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:40 PM
    I've never watched the NFL. I've never gave a hot damn about kneeling or not kneeling. I never gave a damn about Tebow or Kaepernick. The one thing that annoys the snot out of me is the hypocrisy of Tebow getting criticized by the left for taking a knee to thank God, while these other people are getting praised by the same people for taking a knee to protest America. And the vice versa on the right. I couldn't possibly care less about any of this nonsense, probably on account of I couldn't possible care less about the NFL and hand-egg in general, but the hypocrisy on both sides annoys the snot out of me.
    85 replies | 960 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:04 PM
    I'd love a more detailed treatment of this.
    9 replies | 125 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:48 AM
    There are only 3 arguments anyone can make against the feasibility of anarchy. 1. It's never worked before. And depending on definitions, this may be true. Just like in the 1800s, moving vehicles that weren't powered by animals never worked before, and therefore were simply an unrealistic fantasy. 2. I don't believe it can work. This isn't an argument; it's an opinion. And you are welcome to it. You believe that private defense contractors would gang up on their customers. You believe that people would form a state to protect them. You believe this. You believe that. Well, good for you, but that doesn't make this point any more valid. You could be completely wrong about how things would work out.
    97 replies | 1493 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-22-2017, 06:45 PM
    The people in Texas would fuck up any military that tried to occupy the state. As for the others, who knows? How do you know those things would happen anyway? How do you know that people from neighboring states wouldn't volunteer to fight for the people in those places? Do these invasions happen before the market had time to set up defense services for those people? If not, then I would definitely side with for profit defense.
    97 replies | 1493 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    3 replies | 130 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-20-2017, 01:08 PM
    As does the expectation that a state protects the masses from being violated. It merely positions itself as the primary violator.
    86 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-20-2017, 12:42 PM
    Yes, but the difference between anarcho-capitalism and every other system is that it is only maintained by defensive force.
    86 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-20-2017, 12:41 PM
    What kind of idiotic question is this? What would happen in a hypothetical state with no police or military or any kind of armed government agents?
    86 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-20-2017, 09:13 AM
    This is absolute gibberish. A "right" has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. Your rights are absolute up until they infringe on the rights of another. Your property right to your person and liberty is absolutely subject to someone else if you are violating their property rights.
    86 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    09-20-2017, 04:04 AM
    Every time someone intimates that taking down NK would be some kind of cakewalk, acting like they have some kind of knowledge about the situation, I am unsure whether to laugh or cry...
    106 replies | 1520 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-19-2017, 06:09 PM
    Possibly. But having a state doesn't change that. It only makes it worse.
    86 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-19-2017, 06:03 PM
    Then the socialist meets the same fate than any other robber would.
    86 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-19-2017, 06:02 PM
    Your God given right is your right to property, from which you get your right to life and liberty. If you don't have the right to property, then you can't have a right to your life or liberty. You can rightfully be made a slave to whomever claims ownership over your property.
    86 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-19-2017, 05:43 PM
    What trap? What economic justification? Your right to your life derives from your right to your property. If you are on someone else's property, you have no rights. Unless they invited you on to that pole, then the owner transferred the right to your person to you, and they would have to assist you. If they didn't invite you onto the pole, then you are at the pole owner's mercy.
    86 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-19-2017, 05:37 PM
    This can't be so. White Europeans are freedom loving folks. Their only danger is the dark people flooding in to steal away their jobs and money.
    7 replies | 128 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-19-2017, 05:30 PM
    Ah, well, it's a good thing we have a state to take care of that then. I didn't read the whole thread anyway, so I may have missed it. I can't rep you anyway, so I'll owe you one.
    86 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-19-2017, 05:27 PM
    To answer your idiotic question, yes you have the right to knock them off of your pole. The justification is that it is your pole and you are the sovereign decision maker of what happens to it. The moral justification has nothing to do with the pole, but with your property in general. If you own property, then you are the sovereign decision maker of what happens to it. The individual action of knocking the person to their death is not moral, whether or not you have the right to do it. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it morally acceptable. And if you are despicable person that would do such a thing, then the rest of society has the right to make life difficult on you, deny service in their establishments, pressure your employer to terminate you, etc.
    86 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-19-2017, 05:22 PM
    Actually, the state is everything that is supposed to prevent. We can't have warlords demanding protection money from people, so we have government agents do it. We can't have criminals stealing and looting and killing, so we have police do it.
    86 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-19-2017, 05:09 PM
    Yes, that Bill of Rights does you a lot of good. That still doesn't mean you have gained independence. You just gained a new master. If you feel like celebrating that, call it "I Like My New Owner Better Day". Not "Independence Day".
    26 replies | 435 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-19-2017, 05:04 PM
    Yes, sir. I am beginning to understand. If the Duke of Turdville says that welfarism is the way to go, who am I to disagree?
    15 replies | 225 view(s)
  • The Gold Standard's Avatar
    09-19-2017, 05:01 PM
    Then I guess "America" should celebrate, whoever that is. But neither you nor I have anything to celebrate on July 4th.
    26 replies | 435 view(s)
More Activity
About TommyJeff

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
724
Posts Per Day
0.74
General Information
Last Activity
09-11-2017 11:25 AM
Join Date
01-25-2015
Referrals
0

5 Friends

  1. GunnyFreedom GunnyFreedom is online now

    Agent of Freedom

    GunnyFreedom
  2. Peace&Freedom Peace&Freedom is offline

    Member

    Peace&Freedom
  3. TaftFan TaftFan is offline

    Member

    TaftFan
  4. The Gold Standard
  5. ThePaleoLibertarian
Showing Friends 1 to 5 of 5
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

09-19-2017


03-09-2017


03-08-2017


02-26-2017


02-25-2017


02-21-2017


02-20-2017


02-19-2017


02-17-2017


02-16-2017


02-15-2017



Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast