Ideology
Andrew Usher
disconnected emotional responses. This may seem obvious; however, the
language my opponents use betrays it.
Women are only capable of the latter type of emotional reasoning; only
men have true ideology. I am sick and tired of my opponents saying or
implying that because I am a socialist I ally myself with feminists or
'Marxists'. Nothing could be farther from the truth; just because a
woman has emotional reactions to various issues in agreement with
socialism does not make her a socialist! ONLY agreeing with _the
ideology_ and all its consequences does, and in practice the only way
for a woman to follow an ideology is to serve a political organisation
(or her husband, etc.) that is run by men. Now our Democrat and
Republican parties are not really organisations it that sense - they
have no coherent ideology, as they are completely corrupted by certain
interests - though the Democrats come closer.
Now feminism is something of an exception to the above rule - it shows
the one ideological idea that women are capable of conceiving: that
women ought to be superior to men. Of course this is not based on any
facts but is that surprising?
Our capitalist system is currently in a crisis. Only some kind of
socialism can solve it - indeed, the reason the US is affected so much
worse than any other country is precisely our lack of socialism - and
something IS going to happen. Feminism is _functionally_ a tool of the
ruling classes and must be overthrown.
Andrew Usher
Uncle Al
>
> An ideology is a coherent set of political ideas.
Disproof by counterexample: Democrats.
> It is not a set of
> disconnected emotional responses. This may seem obvious; however, the
> language my opponents use betrays it.
January 2010 State of the Union Address.
Nine Steps to Social Equity
1) All voices have equal merit.
2) Objective quality is not value, it is discrimination.
3) Historically repressed voices have priority and subsidy.
4) Historically repressive voices are denied.
5) Culture will never bow to society.
6) No incident can pass examination and also be "innocent."
7) Failure to embrace diversity demands re-education.
8) Productivity is confiscated for reward to the deserving.
9) Equity is not average or or majority, equity is 100%.
> Women are only capable of the latter type of emotional reasoning; only
> men have true ideology. I am sick and tired of my opponents saying or
> implying that because I am a socialist I ally myself with feminists or
> 'Marxists'.
Woof. Do align yourself with used toilet paper?
> Feminism is _functionally_ a tool of the
> ruling classes and must be overthrown.
Power to the prostitutes. Who else has tax-free earnings?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Mike Jr
> An ideology is a coherent set of political ideas. It is not a set of
> disconnected emotional responses. This may seem obvious; however, the
> language my opponents use betrays it.
>
> Women are only capable of the latter type of emotional reasoning; only
> men have true ideology.
You are clearly not married. I suggest that you listen to Obi's death
stick advice:
"Obi-Wan: "You want to go home and rethink your life."
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Death_stick
--Mike Jr.
Andrew Usher
> You are clearly not married. I suggest that you listen to Obi's death
> stick advice:
> "Obi-Wan: "You want to go home and rethink your life."http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Death_stick
Uh, whatever.
Andrew Usher
Jon Slaughter
The same socialism that has been tried and tried and tried an falled? Your
socialistic ideology is simply your desire to be submitted. You do not have
the inner desires to be free and hence your need to be controlled. You are
scared of life and it's uncertainty and wish someone, anyone, can remove it.
You are willing to give your faith to people to take that fear away from
you. I have no problem with your socialist views. It is a product of your
ignorance and fear. But I do have a problem with you trying to force it on
me. Of course this is where you arrogance comes in. You have all of the
qualities of a pathetic human being that doesn't deserve to exist.
The reason the US sucks is because of people like you who have tried to
transform it from day one. You can't stand the US being free and being
different than all the others. It scares you that the US has done so well.
It is proof that your ideology is wrong. Instead of rethinking your thought
process you attempt to change the facts. But go for it. Sooner or later
your "socialism" will fail... as it is doomed to be. I just hope you or your
children pay dearly and painfully for being so ignorant and arrogant. (After
all, how else will you learn)
Virgil
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
The sorts of socialism that have been tried and found so successful in
those countries with higher HDI scores than the US.
Sir Frederick
writers_lexicon
elsewhere and quit griping about politics in a math forum.
Andrew Usher
> Andrew Usher wrote:
>
> > An ideology is a coherent set of political ideas.
>
> Disproof by counterexample: Democrats.
You must have trouble reading because I specifically said that the
mainstream political parties are not good examples.
> > It is not a set of
> > disconnected emotional responses. This may seem obvious; however, the
> > language my opponents use betrays it.
>
> January 2010 State of the Union Address.
I didn't listen to it. Why? It's clear already that Obama is a failure
and has nothing interesting to say. He's just an empty suit put up to
fool us into believing that things will change when nothing is
changing.
Andrew Usher
jmfbahciv
Interesting. His attention span is ~5 days. He was making some
posts on topic but has reverted back to his misogynist thinking.
/BAH
Andrew Usher
> If you live in the US and you don't like our system, then go live
> elsewhere
If I freely could, there'd be no issue. The US system could not long
survive with free movement of people (as in the EU); we'd be forced to
adopt reforms, starting with national health care - Obama's big
failure.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> The same socialism that has been tried and tried and tried an falled? Your
> socialistic ideology is simply your desire to be submitted. You do not have
> the inner desires to be free and hence your need to be controlled. You are
> scared of life and it's uncertainty and wish someone, anyone, can remove it.
> You are willing to give your faith to people to take that fear away from
> you. I have no problem with your socialist views. It is a product of your
> ignorance and fear. But I do have a problem with you trying to force it on
> me. Of course this is where you arrogance comes in. You have all of the
> qualities of a pathetic human being that doesn't deserve to exist.
Nice psychoanalysis. Too bad it's completely wrong, but it's a good
example of right-wing paranoid thinking for a laugh.
Andrew Usher
Jon Slaughter
And this is exactly why your "socialism" will always fail. There will always
be Obama's to con your stupid ass into controlling you. Your too stupid to
realize it and I guess it's not your fault, which is the reason why your
live such a pathetic existance and should be put out of your misery.
Ste
> An ideology is a coherent set of political ideas. It is not a set of
> disconnected emotional responses. This may seem obvious; however, the
> language my opponents use betrays it.
>
> Women are only capable of the latter type of emotional reasoning; only
> men have true ideology. I am sick and tired of my opponents saying or
> implying that because I am a socialist I ally myself with feminists or
> 'Marxists'. Nothing could be farther from the truth; just because a
> woman has emotional reactions to various issues in agreement with
> socialism does not make her a socialist! ONLY agreeing with _the
> ideology_ and all its consequences does, and in practice the only way
> for a woman to follow an ideology is to serve a political organisation
> (or her husband, etc.) that is run by men. Now our Democrat and
> Republican parties are not really organisations it that sense - they
> have no coherent ideology, as they are completely corrupted by certain
> interests - though the Democrats come closer.
>
> Now feminism is something of an exception to the above rule - it shows
> the one ideological idea that women are capable of conceiving: that
> women ought to be superior to men. Of course this is not based on any
> facts but is that surprising?
In other words, the counterexample that disproves the preceding
mysogynist hypothesis. Even if women are "more emotional" than men,
surely you realise that a whole gender cannot be tarred with the same
brush.
> Our capitalist system is currently in a crisis. Only some kind of
> socialism can solve it - indeed, the reason the US is affected so much
> worse than any other country is precisely our lack of socialism - and
> something IS going to happen. Feminism is _functionally_ a tool of the
> ruling classes and must be overthrown.
I certainly detect a sea-change in your political views since last we
spoke. You know Einstein was a socialist, not a 'Jewish conspirator'?
Marshall
> On 1 Feb, 17:34, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Women are only capable of the latter type of emotional reasoning; only
> > men have true ideology.
>
> In other words, the counterexample that disproves the preceding
> mysogynist hypothesis. Even if women are "more emotional" than men,
> surely you realise that a whole gender cannot be tarred with the same
> brush.
If he were capable of realizing that, he wouldn't be starting
sentences with "women are only capable of ... "
Marshall
Andrew Usher
> > Now feminism is something of an exception to the above rule - it shows
> > the one ideological idea that women are capable of conceiving: that
> > women ought to be superior to men. Of course this is not based on any
> > facts but is that surprising?
>
> In other words, the counterexample that disproves the preceding
> mysogynist hypothesis. Even if women are "more emotional" than men,
> surely you realise that a whole gender cannot be tarred with the same
> brush.
I can't think of one counter-example (that one doesn't count since I
explicitly disqualified it). Give me just one example of a woman
consciously and correctly adhering to any political ideology other
than feminism. No, Ayn Rand doesn't count, her 'philosophy' was just a
female sexual fantasy in logical garb.
Still, even if you can find one, it doesn't change the point - that's
the idea of generalisation.
> > Our capitalist system is currently in a crisis. Only some kind of
> > socialism can solve it - indeed, the reason the US is affected so much
> > worse than any other country is precisely our lack of socialism - and
> > something IS going to happen. Feminism is _functionally_ a tool of the
> > ruling classes and must be overthrown.
>
> I certainly detect a sea-change in your political views since last we
> spoke. You know Einstein was a socialist, not a 'Jewish conspirator'?
No, there has been no change. As for Einstein, I don't recall my
precise words, but I'm sure I never used the word conspiracy or
conspirator. What I did express is that his politics were solely
motivated by (perceived) Jewish interests.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> And this is exactly why your "socialism" will always fail. There will always
> be Obama's to con your stupid ass into controlling you. Your too stupid to
> realize it and I guess it's not your fault, which is the reason why your
> live such a pathetic existance and should be put out of your misery.
You know, this is almost a sign of mental illness. If I hadn't heard
the same nonsense from a million other ignorant Republicans, I'd think
it was.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > In other words, the counterexample that disproves the preceding
> > mysogynist hypothesis. Even if women are "more emotional" than men,
> > surely you realise that a whole gender cannot be tarred with the same
> > brush.
>
> If he were capable of realizing that, he wouldn't be starting
> sentences with "women are only capable of ... "
If I were not capable of realising that, it would mean that I could
not imagine it to be otherwise. That is absurd.
Andrew Usher
Jon Slaughter
Wow, you admit it! You are correct in that it is a sign of mental illness.
It is a form of schizophrenia and you should seek out medical attention
immediately. You should cut all ties with your marxist friends as they too
suffer from the diease and it will only hamper your recovery. The first step
to recovery is admitting your illness and I commend you on that.
Ste
> On Feb 2, 9:35 am, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Now feminism is something of an exception to the above rule - it shows
> > > the one ideological idea that women are capable of conceiving: that
> > > women ought to be superior to men. Of course this is not based on any
> > > facts but is that surprising?
>
> > In other words, the counterexample that disproves the preceding
> > mysogynist hypothesis. Even if women are "more emotional" than men,
> > surely you realise that a whole gender cannot be tarred with the same
> > brush.
>
> I can't think of one counter-example (that one doesn't count since I
> explicitly disqualified it). Give me just one example of a woman
> consciously and correctly adhering to any political ideology other
> than feminism. No, Ayn Rand doesn't count, her 'philosophy' was just a
> female sexual fantasy in logical garb.
But what sort of counterexample are you willing to accept?
> Still, even if you can find one, it doesn't change the point - that's
> the idea of generalisation.
But it's an absurd argument to say that no woman has ever adhered to a
political ideology - it's not even true as a generalisation.
> > > Our capitalist system is currently in a crisis. Only some kind of
> > > socialism can solve it - indeed, the reason the US is affected so much
> > > worse than any other country is precisely our lack of socialism - and
> > > something IS going to happen. Feminism is _functionally_ a tool of the
> > > ruling classes and must be overthrown.
>
> > I certainly detect a sea-change in your political views since last we
> > spoke. You know Einstein was a socialist, not a 'Jewish conspirator'?
>
> No, there has been no change. As for Einstein, I don't recall my
> precise words, but I'm sure I never used the word conspiracy or
> conspirator. What I did express is that his politics were solely
> motivated by (perceived) Jewish interests.
But have you ever looked into Einstein's background, or read anything
that he himself wrote, or indeed placed his views within social
context? Anything I've ever read on Einstein shows that his views were
properly characterised as "socialist", not as "Jewish" - any sympathy
towards Jews seemed to be primarily a result of his own Jewish
background and his sense that the Jews were an oppressed people, not
to mention the horrors of the Nazi regime.
Andrew Usher
Nothing more can be said.
Andrew Usher
Jon Slaughter
> On 2 Feb, 21:45, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 9:35 am, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Now feminism is something of an exception to the above rule - it
>>>> shows the one ideological idea that women are capable of
>>>> conceiving: that women ought to be superior to men. Of course this
>>>> is not based on any facts but is that surprising?
>>
>>> In other words, the counterexample that disproves the preceding
>>> mysogynist hypothesis. Even if women are "more emotional" than men,
>>> surely you realise that a whole gender cannot be tarred with the
>>> same brush.
>>
>> I can't think of one counter-example (that one doesn't count since I
>> explicitly disqualified it). Give me just one example of a woman
>> consciously and correctly adhering to any political ideology other
>> than feminism. No, Ayn Rand doesn't count, her 'philosophy' was just
>> a female sexual fantasy in logical garb.
>
> But what sort of counterexample are you willing to accept?
>
Anyone that will suit is ideology ofcourse!
Andrew Usher
> > I can't think of one counter-example (that one doesn't count since I
> > explicitly disqualified it). Give me just one example of a woman
> > consciously and correctly adhering to any political ideology other
> > than feminism. No, Ayn Rand doesn't count, her 'philosophy' was just a
> > female sexual fantasy in logical garb.
>
> But what sort of counterexample are you willing to accept?
I'd know it when I see it.
> > Still, even if you can find one, it doesn't change the point - that's
> > the idea of generalisation.
>
> But it's an absurd argument to say that no woman has ever adhered to a
> political ideology - it's not even true as a generalisation.
Well, if it's so absurd, surely you'd have no trouble providing an
example.
> > > I certainly detect a sea-change in your political views since last we
> > > spoke. You know Einstein was a socialist, not a 'Jewish conspirator'?
>
> > No, there has been no change. As for Einstein, I don't recall my
> > precise words, but I'm sure I never used the word conspiracy or
> > conspirator. What I did express is that his politics were solely
> > motivated by (perceived) Jewish interests.
>
> But have you ever looked into Einstein's background, or read anything
> that he himself wrote, or indeed placed his views within social
> context? Anything I've ever read on Einstein shows that his views were
> properly characterised as "socialist", not as "Jewish" - any sympathy
> towards Jews seemed to be primarily a result of his own Jewish
> background and his sense that the Jews were an oppressed people, not
> to mention the horrors of the Nazi regime.
This is the usual philo-semitic set of excuses. Here's an essay
written by a Jew holding the same sort of positions but more honestly:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001091.html . And here's a review
written by a libertarian that probably wouldn't agree with me on most
political issues: http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg11.htm .
There's an even better one I read once and can't find anymore.
In my opinion, he was socialist primarily because it allowed him to
advocate causes popular among Jews, and to support the Soviet Union,
which was (rightly or wrongly) supported by Jews almost until its end.
Andrew Usher
Marshall
>
> If I were not capable of realising that, it would mean that I could
> not imagine it to be otherwise.
This claim is as ridiculous as the rest of your arguments.
Marshall
Immortalist
> An ideology is a coherent set of political ideas. It is not a set of
> disconnected emotional responses. This may seem obvious; however, the
> language my opponents use betrays it.
>
> Women are only capable of
- When asked to spell a word, men use the left hemisphere. Women use
both sides of the brain.
- Women recover language function better after left-hemisphere damage
than men do.
WOMEN'S SOCIAL SKILLS
Grammar's study of modern courtship showed that women are socially
more astute than men. They orchestrate social interactions so
skillfully that they can control their date, even when the man
believes he is running the show. The view that women arc more verbal
than men is more than a stereotype. Women score higher on verbal
tests, speak more words in a day, are quicker to verbal aggression,
are more articulate, get verbal responses out rapidly, have more
friends, and spend longer amounts of time speaking to them on the
telephone. Moreover, when women talk, they reveal more intimate and
meaningful information about themselves. Women are better listeners.
They tend not to let their attention wander in the middle of a long
story. They are more willing to offer comfort to another person a sex
difference in empathy that is present even in young children.
Women are more skilled in reading and using body language. countless
laboratory experiments have showed that they are more skilled at
reading facial expressions and detecting nonverbal signs of lying, for
example. This research backs up the findings of field studie on
courtship interactions.
Psychologists often point to different childhood influences in order
to explain why women have better interpersonal skills. They argue that
giving a doll to a little girl and giving a tool set to a little boy
conveys important messages about the kind of skills each needs to
develop. While this may be true, it is also true that boys and girls
differ in their inclinations regardless of how they are treated, a
point already made for the development of aggression in boys. Parents
who strive to inculcate nonviolence in their sons by keeping them away
from violent toys and violent TV are often alarmed to discover that
the boys imaginatively turn common objects into weapons of
destruction. Sticks are guns or spears. Pine cones are hand grenades.
Sex differences in aggression are largely due to biology, as already
pointed out, but upbringing does accen- tuate them, as happens in
warlike societies. Sex differences in social skills may also reflect
evolved differences.
Thus, women's abilities to entice and manipulate men in a dating
context would have helped to ensure male support for their children.
In the past, they may not have had much personal interest in striving
for political power and social status, but they were attracted to men
who had these qualities and therefore acquired them by association. In
other words, a woman who succeeded in marrying a high-ranking man
acquired high social status for herself. Even today, when women's
earning power immediately after college is almost equivalent to that
of men, they still express the same emotional needs that helped them
to obtain paternal in vestment in the evolutionary past.
The Science of Romance - by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573929700/
Michael Gordge
> Our capitalist system is currently in a crisis.
Its not a capitalist system, ewe dumb knuckle-dragging commie cunt,
its a cronyist system that only capitalism can fix.
MG
Jon Slaughter
No doubt this moron will be running for office some day and chances are will
get elected. Have you ever noticed that the only problems they want to fix
are the ones they created?
Immortalist
Predatory Capitalism When Corporations Go Unregulated
UNREGULATED PROFIT-SEEKING CORPORATIONS HARM THE PUBLIC THESE FIVE
WAYS
Unregulated profit-seeking corporations harm the public these five
ways. We are talking mainly about the larger, publicly-traded, profit-
seeking corporations like those whose stocks are traded on the stock
exchanges. But the same ideas can apply to any unregulated profit-
seeking corporation, even the smaller ones and the private ones.
We recognize that profit-seeking corporations can be a great force for
good in the world, creating and providing wonderful goods and services
that would be unavailable by any other means. But we also recognize
that if they are unregulated, they harm the public these five ways. An
unregulated corporation is like a loose elephant in your neighborhood.
Who can stop it from trampling over whatever it chooses?
1. NOT PAY TAXES -In order to maximize profits, they always seek to
avoid or minimize their taxes.
2. ELIMINATE COMPETION -In order to maximize profits, they always seek
to eliminate or control their competition.
3. CUT WAGES AND SALARIES - In order to maximize profits, they always
seek to reduce their labor costs.
4. DISREGARD THE ENVIRONMENT - In order to maximize profits, they
always seek to avoid all environmental restraints.
5. SELL DANGEROUS, HARMFUL PRODUCTS - In order to maximize profits,
they are tempted to sell dangerous or harmful products.
http://www.loveallpeople.org/predatorycapitalism.html
------ complete text of page
Predatory Capitalism
When Corporations Go Unregulated
PredatoryCapitalism.net
A Service Of LoveAllPeople.org
Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director
Unregulated profit-seeking corporations cannot be trusted to protect
the Public, because their main objective is to make profits, not to be
a do-gooder for the Public. Whenever profit-making conflicts with the
Public interest, profit-making wins! Thus they become Predators on the
Public, not Protectors of the Public.
This is not a radical idea, but an obvious fact, if you think about
it. Profit-seeking corporations exist to make a profit, and the more
profit, the better. Anything which increases profits is good for them;
and anything which decreases profits is bad. So they try to do
whatever is necessary to make profits. This is the essence of Laissez-
faire Capitalism: that profit-seeking corporations should be left
alone to do whatever they choose to do in order to make profits.
Employees get paid to help the company make a profit, not to be a do-
gooder for the general Public. Just suppose a local manager decided to
give away $1,000,000 of the company's money to build a playground for
the neighborhood children. "The kids need the playground!," he says.
Unless this playgound were part of some co-ordinated Public Relations
effort, intended ultimately to produce greater profit, the employee
would probably be fired, and replaced by someone with a better profit-
making attitude.
Suppose an auto manufacturer had some kind of a safety problem,
perhaps gas tanks that sometimes exploded on impact. And suppose it
would cost a hundred million dollars to fix the problem, but it would
only cost ten million to let the problem continue, and pay off the
victims who sued and won. What do you suppose the company would do? It
would let the problem continue, of course! Deny that a problem exists,
claim it was the user's fault, and pay off damages only when forced to
do so. These kinds of decisions happen all the time. Why do you
suppose the corporations are so eager to get "Tort Reform?" To limit
their payoffs for damages, of course! So their profits aren't hurt so
much! "To hell with the Public," they think. "They should be more
careful!"
And if the Management of a profit-seeking corporation ever did choose
the Public interest over a higher profit (unless it were forced to do
so by some kind of government regulation), then that corporation would
be violating its financial duty to its stockholders. And the
stockholders would be entitled to replace the do-gooder Management
with a profit-oriented Management.
UNREGULATED PROFIT-SEEKING CORPORATIONS HARM THE PUBLIC THESE FIVE
WAYS
Unregulated profit-seeking corporations harm the public these five
ways. We are talking mainly about the larger, publicly-traded, profit-
seeking corporations like those whose stocks are traded on the stock
exchanges. But the same ideas can apply to any unregulated profit-
seeking corporation, even the smaller ones and the private ones.
We recognize that profit-seeking corporations can be a great force for
good in the world, creating and providing wonderful goods and services
that would be unavailable by any other means. But we also recognize
that if they are unregulated, they harm the public these five ways. An
unregulated corporation is like a loose elephant in your neighborhood.
Who can stop it from trampling over whatever it chooses?
1. NOT PAY TAXES -In order to maximize profits, they always seek to
avoid or minimize their taxes.
2. ELIMINATE COMPETION -In order to maximize profits, they always seek
to eliminate or control their competition.
3. CUT WAGES AND SALARIES - In order to maximize profits, they always
seek to reduce their labor costs.
4. DISREGARD THE ENVIRONMENT - In order to maximize profits, they
always seek to avoid all environmental restraints.
5. SELL DANGEROUS, HARMFUL PRODUCTS - In order to maximize profits,
they are tempted to sell dangerous or harmful products.
So what should we do? We need profit-seeking corporations because they
are very efficient and very innovative. They are quick to provide
products and services to fill needs, if the profit is there. They can
do great things very quickly. But they cannot be trusted to protect
the Public, if it hurts their profits to do so. And it is unreasonable
to expect that they should - unless they are somehow compelled to do
it. But we cannot allow them simply to run loose, like rampaging
elephants, trampling down whatever is in their path.
The answer is GOVERNMENT REGULATION! Yes, Government Regulation of
profit-seeking corporations. Reasonable regulations, applied fairly,
so that all the companies are in the same boat and nobody gets any
special advantage. This is not difficult to do, but it does require
some effort. And it requires going against the current right-wing
Republican policies of Laissez-faire Capitalism: that profit-seeking
corporations should be left alone to do whatever they choose to do in
order to make profits.
Blessings to you. May God help us all.
Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
Marshall
Oh dear, I find myself agreeing with something Michael Gordge wrote.
Marshall
PS. I'm unsure about the "only" part, though.
Ste
> On Feb 2, 5:38 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can't think of one counter-example (that one doesn't count since I
> > > explicitly disqualified it). Give me just one example of a woman
> > > consciously and correctly adhering to any political ideology other
> > > than feminism. No, Ayn Rand doesn't count, her 'philosophy' was just a
> > > female sexual fantasy in logical garb.
>
> > But what sort of counterexample are you willing to accept?
>
> I'd know it when I see it.
>
> > > Still, even if you can find one, it doesn't change the point - that's
> > > the idea of generalisation.
>
> > But it's an absurd argument to say that no woman has ever adhered to a
> > political ideology - it's not even true as a generalisation.
>
> Well, if it's so absurd, surely you'd have no trouble providing an
> example.
I must admit I can't think of any famous ones recently, although of
course feminists would say that is the result of oppression. That
said, I'm still not convinced that women are naturally "less
ideological". After a few minutes of thinking about my preconceptions
(for example, that women are less "hard line", fewer women are
interested in politics, etc.), I can actually find as many
counterexamples for all of them.
> > > > I certainly detect a sea-change in your political views since last we
> > > > spoke. You know Einstein was a socialist, not a 'Jewish conspirator'?
>
> > > No, there has been no change. As for Einstein, I don't recall my
> > > precise words, but I'm sure I never used the word conspiracy or
> > > conspirator. What I did express is that his politics were solely
> > > motivated by (perceived) Jewish interests.
>
> > But have you ever looked into Einstein's background, or read anything
> > that he himself wrote, or indeed placed his views within social
> > context? Anything I've ever read on Einstein shows that his views were
> > properly characterised as "socialist", not as "Jewish" - any sympathy
> > towards Jews seemed to be primarily a result of his own Jewish
> > background and his sense that the Jews were an oppressed people, not
> > to mention the horrors of the Nazi regime.
>
> This is the usual philo-semitic set of excuses.
I'm certainly not "philo-semitic", and in fact I'm critical of Israel
and Zionism.
> Here's an essay
> written by a Jew holding the same sort of positions but more honestly:http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001091.html. And here's a review
> written by a libertarian that probably wouldn't agree with me on most
> political issues:http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg11.htm.
> There's an even better one I read once and can't find anymore.
>
> In my opinion, he was socialist primarily because it allowed him to
> advocate causes popular among Jews, and to support the Soviet Union,
> which was (rightly or wrongly) supported by Jews almost until its end.
Again, I find nothing compelling to show that this perspective (where
Jewishness is somehow a central characteristic) is particularly
useful. I think Einstein's political views were fairly understandable
considering the circumstances, and he did not in any way practice the
Jewish faith.
jmfbahciv
> On Feb 2, 5:38 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I can't think of one counter-example (that one doesn't count since I
>>> explicitly disqualified it). Give me just one example of a woman
>>> consciously and correctly adhering to any political ideology other
>>> than feminism. No, Ayn Rand doesn't count, her 'philosophy' was just a
>>> female sexual fantasy in logical garb.
>> But what sort of counterexample are you willing to accept?
>
> I'd know it when I see it.
>
You are wrong. You are incapable of identifying a
counterexample with rationality. When you do meet one,
you respond with extreme violence.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
it's called job security using stupidity.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> On 3 Feb, 01:53, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 5:38 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I can't think of one counter-example (that one doesn't count since I
>>>> explicitly disqualified it). Give me just one example of a woman
>>>> consciously and correctly adhering to any political ideology other
>>>> than feminism. No, Ayn Rand doesn't count, her 'philosophy' was just a
>>>> female sexual fantasy in logical garb.
>>> But what sort of counterexample are you willing to accept?
>> I'd know it when I see it.
>>
>>>> Still, even if you can find one, it doesn't change the point - that's
>>>> the idea of generalisation.
>>> But it's an absurd argument to say that no woman has ever adhered to a
>>> political ideology - it's not even true as a generalisation.
>> Well, if it's so absurd, surely you'd have no trouble providing an
>> example.
>
> I must admit I can't think of any famous ones recently,
that's because they are doing productive work. Being famous
wastes valuable time.
<snip>
/BAH
Andrew Usher
> > If I were not capable of realising that, it would mean that I could
> > not imagine it to be otherwise.
>
> This claim is as ridiculous as the rest of your arguments.
Actually, it's simple logic, which you apparently don't believe in.
Andrew Usher
Marshall
I have no problem with logic; what I reject is the exorbitant
amount of "simple" that you bring to your every off-topic
watery teen diary entry.
Marshall
Andrew Usher
> On Feb 1, 9:34 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > An ideology is a coherent set of political ideas. It is not a set of
> > disconnected emotional responses. This may seem obvious; however, the
> > language my opponents use betrays it.
>
> > Women are only capable of
>
> - When asked to spell a word, men use the left hemisphere. Women use
> both sides of the brain.
>
> - Women recover language function better after left-hemisphere damage
> than men do.
>
> WOMEN'S SOCIAL SKILLS
<snip>
Completely irrelevant, even if true, as it has nothing to do with
ideologies.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
Unregulated capitalism naturally is cronyism. More capitalism can't
fix the problems that capitalism caused.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> >>> But it's an absurd argument to say that no woman has ever adhered to a
> >>> political ideology - it's not even true as a generalisation.
> >> Well, if it's so absurd, surely you'd have no trouble providing an
> >> example.
>
> > I must admit I can't think of any famous ones recently,
>
> that's because they are doing productive work. Being famous
> wastes valuable time.
Nice dodge. Aren't you so special?
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > > If I were not capable of realising that, it would mean that I could
> > > > not imagine it to be otherwise.
>
> > > This claim is as ridiculous as the rest of your arguments.
>
> > Actually, it's simple logic, which you apparently don't believe in.
>
> I have no problem with logic;
Then you should have no problem with the above claim.
> what I reject is the exorbitant
> amount of "simple" that you bring to your every off-topic
> watery teen diary entry.
I suppose for you 'simple' means 'over my head'.
Andrew Usher
Marshall
> On Feb 3, 9:36 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > If I were not capable of realising that, it would mean that I could
> > > > > not imagine it to be otherwise.
>
> > > > This claim is as ridiculous as the rest of your arguments.
>
> > > Actually, it's simple logic, which you apparently don't believe in.
>
> > I have no problem with logic;
>
> Then you should have no problem with the above claim.
I don't have a problem with it; it's an obvious oversimplification.
No problem!
> > what I reject is the exorbitant
> > amount of "simple" that you bring to your every off-topic
> > watery teen diary entry.
>
> I suppose for you 'simple' means 'over my head'.
You know, what makes so many people come out of the
woodwork to dis you is not your limp arguments, which
are commonplace, but rather how tremendously proud
of them you are.
Marshall
Ste
To quote Einstein: "we can't solve problems by using the same kind of
thinking we used when we created them".
Michael Gordge
Spot on, they create problems and then believe they can fix them by
creating even more, identical in principle to the 'first lie' always
has to be covered by another lie and on and on it goes.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Unregulated capitalism naturally is cronyism.
Cronyism is the state doing deals with & jumpiing into bed with
business, the deals take many forms e.g. regulations to stop
competition, e.g. tariffs, import duty, licenses, tax, etc etc the
more state mandated regulations there are the more cronyism there is.
Cronyism grows from state mandated regulations.
The best regulations are the regulations you place on yourself.
MG
Michael Gordge
> More capitalism can't
> fix the problems that capitalism caused.
A capitalist system places the responsibility of fixing problems on
those who caused the problem, why shucks that sounds a great idea to
me, why dont you want to be held responsible for the problems you
create?
MG
Michael Gordge
> Predatory...........
Ewe have chosen the wrong noun to follow preditory, therefore faulty
premise, try again.
MG
Errol
Hint: Check your premises. There is no natural entity called "state".
There are only individuals. These individuals are responsible for
giving contracts to buddies and relatives.
Errol
Hint: Check your premises. There is no natural entity called
"capitalism".
There are only individuals. These individuals are responsible for
predatory behaviour.
jmfbahciv
/BAH
Zinnic
Golda Meir is a good example of a female Ideologue. If her
Jewishness invalidates her being an Ideologue, then one is in the
ridiculous situation of claiming that Zionism is not an Ideology.
Usher is playing with words.
Michael Gordge
> Hint: Check your premises. There is no natural entity called "state".
It doesn't have to be "natural" to exist, ewe fucking moron, the
"state" exists as an entity with its very own identity.
There are such things as "state mandated regulations" and they are the
cause of cronyism.
> There are only individuals.
Not in the socialist's universe there isn't, ewe fucking idiot.
> These individuals........
Known as the "state", you fucking moron, a state of heading nodding
brain dead left and right wing morons, doing deals by inventing
regulations, with and for their mates in business.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Hint: Check your premises. There is no natural entity called
> "capitalism".
You being the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the results of
your energy and being left free and alone to choose and obtain all by
yourself your very own perceptions of a greater for lessor value for
yourself (known as a capitalist) is as close to your nature (being
natural) as it is possible for you to get.
MG
Ste
Rubbish.
Andrew Usher
> > You being the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the results of
> > your energy and being left free and alone to choose and obtain all by
> > yourself your very own perceptions of a greater for lessor value for
> > yourself (known as a capitalist) is as close to your nature (being
> > natural) as it is possible for you to get.
>
> Rubbish.
It's not only rubbish, it's incomprehensible. But such are the logical
tortures libertarian ideology put its defenders in to.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Golda Meir is a good example of a female Ideologue. If her
> Jewishness invalidates her being an Ideologue, then one is in the
> ridiculous situation of claiming that Zionism is not an Ideology.
> Usher is playing with words.
Perhaps she is. Zionism is indeed a complicated case, and I am not
trying to play around.
Andrew Usher
Michael Gordge
But of course ewe knuckle-dragging leftist retards cant say how, where
and why its rubbish.
MG
Michael Gordge
> On Feb 4, 5:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You being the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the results of
> > > your energy and being left free and alone to choose and obtain all by
> > > yourself your very own perceptions of a greater for lessor value for
> > > yourself (known as a capitalist) is as close to your nature (being
> > > natural) as it is possible for you to get.
>
> > Rubbish.
>
> It's not only rubbish, it's incomprehensible.
Which part of "ewe being the sole benefactor and the sole decider of
the results of your energy", do ewe not understand?
Which part of "ewe being left free and alone to live by your very own
perceptions of a greater for lessor value" do ewe not understand?
MG
Ste
Actually I've just said how on so many occasions with so many
numbskulls before you, that I actually tend not to discuss much
politics these days.
But perhaps I'll make an exception. Of course, we'll have to talk a
bit about what you mean first. When you say "left free and alone to
choose and obtain all by yourself", what exactly do you mean by that?
And when you say "close to nature", are you talking about some
hypothetical "ideal state", or are you actually talking about some
historical "natural environment" that humans previously lived in?
Michael Gordge
Pathetic off topic idiotic qualifying crap snipped
> When you say "left free and alone to
> choose and obtain all by yourself", what exactly do you mean by that?
I mean, that you be left free and alone to determine your own
perception of a greater for lesser value, are you stupid?
> And when you say "close to nature", are you talking about some
> hypothetical "ideal state", or are you actually talking about some
> historical "natural environment" that humans previously lived in?
I mean as an example, that in nature you were not born stupid, so how
has it happened?
MG
jmfbahciv
> On Feb 3, 6:21 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>> Andrew Usher wrote:
>>> On Feb 2, 5:38 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I can't think of one counter-example (that one doesn't count since I
>>>>> explicitly disqualified it). Give me just one example of a woman
>>>>> consciously and correctly adhering to any political ideology other
>>>>> than feminism. No, Ayn Rand doesn't count, her 'philosophy' was just a
>>>>> female sexual fantasy in logical garb.
>>>> But what sort of counterexample are you willing to accept?
>>> I'd know it when I see it.
>> You are wrong. You are incapable of identifying a
>> counterexample with rationality. When you do meet one,
>> you respond with extreme violence.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Golda Meir is a good example of a female Ideologue.
Which was moderated when she became a leader.
> If her
> Jewishness invalidates her being an Ideologue, then one is in the
> ridiculous situation of claiming that Zionism is not an Ideology.
> Usher is playing with words.
Usher is fighting a battle he knows he has already lost. However,
he has started to become curious about physics. I just hope he
continues being curious.
/BAH
Ste
> On Feb 5, 6:25 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pathetic off topic idiotic qualifying crap snipped
>
> > When you say "left free and alone to
> > choose and obtain all by yourself", what exactly do you mean by that?
>
> I mean, that you be left free and alone to determine your own
> perception of a greater for lesser value, are you stupid?
This is still awfully vague. What do you mean "determine your own
perception of value"? Are you talking about trade, or what?
> > And when you say "close to nature", are you talking about some
> > hypothetical "ideal state", or are you actually talking about some
> > historical "natural environment" that humans previously lived in?
>
> I mean as an example, that in nature you were not born stupid, so how
> has it happened?
Which "nature"? As I say, are you talking about a period of history,
or just some supposed Garden of Eden?
Michael Gordge
> This is still awfully vague. What do you mean "determine your own
> perception of value"?
Do yourself a huge favour and dont ever put words into my mouth and
dont ever fucking well misquote me and or drop context, you commie
cunt, ....I said -- "that you be left free and alone to determine your
own perception of a greater for lesser value"
The context is capitalism, the thread is Ideology.
e.g. I know that there is a greater value for me in trading a few
minutes of my energy for a few dollars to purchase a few apples,
rather than growing the apples myself, whereas the apple grower would
no doubt regard a greater value for him would result by trading the
results of his energy (some apples) for a few dollars to purchase some
fertilizer, rather than make the ferilizer himself, from a person who
has traded some of his energy for some dollars to purchase the raw
product required to manufacture the fertilizer, from a person who has
traded some of his energy for a few dollars to purchase a digger to
dig the raw product from the ground, from another person
who........maybe ewe are now getting the drift, but I will not hold my
breath.
The result is all parties obtaining their own perception of a greater
for lesser value, why? because if they didn't there would be NO
FUCKING TRADE happening.
NOTE; also that in the above real life examples money was only used as
a tool of trade, it is a fact that capitalism (obtaining your
perception of a greater for lesser value), can happen without money
changing hands.
Have ewe any idea, have ewe ever stopped to think just how many people
and how many products, are required to be traded, i.e. just how many
people are required to trade the results of their energy to make a
single pencil?
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
> Which "nature"?
Beeeeep, wrong question, another example; In nature you are born
tabula rasa, your mind is a clean slate.
So how why when the fuck did ewe allow your mind to be polluted with
anti-human leftist garbage?
Did it happen to ewe at the state indoctrination factories?
MG
Andrew Usher
<snip>
I've often wondered why people are libertarians. I mean, look:
- The movement doesn't promise any personal salvation like most
religions
- The movement doesn't give people the pleasure of knowing they're
helping others
- The movement doesn't give its followers any goods or advantages in
life
So why are there libertarians? The reason is that these people want to
feel superior even though they're not. And that is one of the worse
human emotions of all. Libertarians are quite literally defective of
character.
Andrew Usher
Michael Gordge
Shouting hysterically commie Andweew wet behind the fucking ears Usher
wrote:
LIBERTARIAN JACK ASS .... followed by a pathetic load of off topic
nasal whining nauseating envy ridden knuckle-dragging leftist crap.
Hey dopey, the subject is not and never has been libertarian, its
about ewe being the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the
results of your energy, which obviously scares the living shit out of
ewes, now answer the fucking questions, ewe fucking uselss commie
moron.
Grizzlie Antagonist
You've hit upon some of it.
But it goes just a little further.
Libertarians want unlimited access to sex (often deviant sex), drugs
and rock & roll. They want to live a hedonistic lifestyle and they
don't want anyone to judge them on it. Being "judgmental" is the
eighth deadly sin.
Libertarians want to live a life devoted to pure self-pleasure and
they want to live this life at someone else's expense and without
being held liable for the consequences.
For whatever reason, they don't want to call themselves "Democrats".
They don't want to call themselves "hippies". So they call themselves
"libertarians" because it enables them to posture themselves as
philosophers and they suppose that this prevents them from being
exposed as degenerates.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Libertarians want unlimited access to sex..........
Hey dopey, did someone cut your cock off?
Are ewe geting all excited about going to church tomorrow?
MG
Andrew Usher
> On Feb 6, 11:56 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Shouting hysterically commie Andweew wet behind the fucking ears Usher
> wrote:
>
> LIBERTARIAN JACK ASS .... followed by a pathetic load of off topic
> nasal whining nauseating envy ridden knuckle-dragging leftist crap.
<snip>
That is why you can't get one. Everyone is fed up with you. You also
have obvious mental issues.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
wrote:
> Libertarians want unlimited access to sex (often deviant sex), drugs
> and rock & roll. They want to live a hedonistic lifestyle and they
> don't want anyone to judge them on it. Being "judgmental" is the
> eighth deadly sin.
I don't think this can be a primary reason. No doubt many libertarians
do like the 'hedonistic lifestyle', but if all they wanted is to
justify that, there are other choices than being libertarian.
Andrew Usher
Ste
> On Feb 6, 10:23 am, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is still awfully vague. What do you mean "determine your own
> > perception of value"?
>
> Do yourself a huge favour and dont ever put words into my mouth and
> dont ever fucking well misquote me and or drop context, you commie
> cunt, ....I said -- "that you be left free and alone to determine your
> own perception of a greater for lesser value"
>
> The context is capitalism, the thread is Ideology.
>
> e.g. I know that there is a greater value for me in trading a few
> minutes of my energy for a few dollars to purchase a few apples,
> rather than growing the apples myself, whereas the apple grower would
> no doubt regard a greater value for him would result by trading the
> results of his energy (some apples) for a few dollars to purchase some
> fertilizer, rather than make the ferilizer himself, from a person who
> has traded some of his energy for some dollars to purchase the raw
> product required to manufacture the fertilizer, from a person who has
> traded some of his energy for a few dollars to purchase a digger to
> dig the raw product from the ground, from another person
> who........maybe ewe are now getting the drift, but I will not hold my
> breath.
>
> The result is all parties obtaining their own perception of a greater
> for lesser value, why? because if they didn't there would be NO
> FUCKING TRADE happening.
But this gives a vacuous definition of "value". If I put a gun to your
head and make you an offer you can't refuse, you will probably trade
for your life. But this doesn't much help us establish what "value"
is.
I mean, if all you're saying is that "people will trade in order to
get the things they want", then that is true now and has been for all
time. And if I say "how do you know they wanted it", and you say "they
traded for it", then again we can see the vacuity.
> NOTE; also that in the above real life examples money was only used as
> a tool of trade, it is a fact that capitalism (obtaining your
> perception of a greater for lesser value), can happen without money
> changing hands.
You do realise that "capitalism" does not just mean "trade"? I mean,
even monkey's trade with time and effort, but they aren't
"capitalists" - except for Bush, perhaps.
> Have ewe any idea, have ewe ever stopped to think just how many people
> and how many products, are required to be traded, i.e. just how many
> people are required to trade the results of their energy to make a
> single pencil?
Yes, I believe I have.
> > Which "nature"?
>
> Beeeeep, wrong question, another example; In nature you are born
> tabula rasa, your mind is a clean slate.
So there's no "human nature"?
> So how why when the fuck did ewe allow your mind to be polluted with
> anti-human leftist garbage?
I didn't.
> Did it happen to ewe at the state indoctrination factories?
It certainly didn't happen there.
Ste
wrote:
May I say, an excellent summary of the issue!
Bret Cahill
>
> - The movement doesn't promise any personal salvation like most
> religions
> - The movement doesn't give people the pleasure of knowing they're
> helping others
> - The movement doesn't give its followers any goods or advantages in
> life
>
> So why are there libertarians? The reason is that these people want to
> feel superior
Actually looneytarians are just really weak minded. They enunciate
what the rich are thinking but too smart to say in public.
Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
> But this gives a vacuous definition of "value". If I put a gun to your
> head and make you an offer you can't refuse, you will probably trade
> for your life.
The subject is capitalism / trade / value -- the subject is NOT
socialism / stealing / vice.
Try and stay focused on the subject.
Stealing is a vice (a socialist trait) stealing is NOT a value (a
capitalist trait).
Capitalists trade - they dont steal.
Socialists steal - they dont trade.
> I mean, if all you're saying is that "people will trade in order to
> get the things they want",
I fucking well told ewe NOT to put your fucking disgusting words into
my mouth, what a fucking moron.
> You do realise that "capitalism" does not just mean "trade"?
Ewe do realize that capitalism has no meaning without trade?
> I mean,
Ewe have shown no clue to knowing what the fuck ewe mean.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Everyone is fed up with you.
What is it about "ewe being the sole benefactor and the sole decider
of the results of your enegy" that ewe can not comprehend?
MG
Michael Gordge
> On Feb 5, 9:59 pm, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Libertarians want unlimited access to sex (often deviant sex), drugs
> > and rock & roll. They want to live a hedonistic lifestyle and they
> > don't want anyone to judge them on it. Being "judgmental" is the
> > eighth deadly sin.
>
> I don't think
That's fucking obvious.
MG
Grizzlie Antagonist
Grizzlie Antagonist
I don't know why you're getting so upset.
After all, I DID think the better of what I was saying and then I
added in parentheses "(often deviant sex)".
I didn't leave you out.
Ste
> On Feb 6, 1:53 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But this gives a vacuous definition of "value". If I put a gun to your
> > head and make you an offer you can't refuse, you will probably trade
> > for your life.
>
> The subject is capitalism / trade / value -- the subject is NOT
> socialism / stealing / vice.
>
> Try and stay focused on the subject.
>
> Stealing is a vice (a socialist trait) stealing is NOT a value (a
> capitalist trait).
>
> Capitalists trade - they dont steal.
>
> Socialists steal - they dont trade.
So what characterises "stealing" as opposed to "trade"? Is "stealing"
manipulating someone or bringing pressure to bear on them so that they
don't trade freely, but under duress?
> > I mean, if all you're saying is that "people will trade in order to
> > get the things they want",
>
> I fucking well told ewe NOT to put your fucking disgusting words into
> my mouth, what a fucking moron.
Then please correct me...
> > You do realise that "capitalism" does not just mean "trade"?
>
> Ewe do realize that capitalism has no meaning without trade?
Yes, but trade has meaning without capitalism.
> > I mean,
>
> Ewe have shown no clue to knowing what the fuck ewe mean.
We'll see.
Michael Gordge
> So what characterises "stealing" as opposed to "trade"?
Ewe are drunk, come back when or if ewe ever sobber up.
MG
Michael Gordge
Grizzlie Antagonist
Sounds like someone hasn't fed the goose.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> I didn't leave you out.
Anyway, are ewe getting all excited about going to church tomorrow?
MG
Grizzlie Antagonist
Yeah, I understand that your voice hasn't broken yet and that you're
going to be singing in the choir.
Don't bend over while you're alone with the priest.
Uncle Al
>
> On Feb 5, 8:06 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I've often wondered why people are libertarians.
Waco, Ruby Ridge, Utah; Homeland Severity, a Muslim 3-front war... 15
April... Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, nationalized
healthcare... AIG... 1 of 31 US residents are in the correctional
system.
Things like that. Who will speak out when they come for you?
> Libertarians are quite literally defective of
> character.
> Andrew Usher
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
>Andrew Usher wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 5, 8:06 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I've often wondered why people are libertarians.
>[snip crap]
>
>Waco, Ruby Ridge, Utah; Homeland Severity, a Muslim 3-front war... 15
>April... Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, nationalized
>healthcare... AIG... 1 of 31 US residents are in the correctional
>system.
And all of the criminals are libertarians. All of them believed in
"doing their own thing". They grew up in environments where they were
encouraged to "do their own thing".
>Things like that. Who will speak out when they come for you?
Libertarians won't. Libertarians believe in liberty only for
themselves and other libertarians and servitude for everyone else.
It's a cult, much like liberalism is. It's no coincidence that the
names are almost the same.
>> Libertarians are quite literally defective of
>> character.
>
>> Andrew Usher
>
>idiot
Degenerate.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 03:02:52 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
>
> >On Feb 6, 4:07 pm, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> I didn't leave you out.
>
> >Anyway, are ewe getting all excited about going to church tomorrow?
>
> >MG
>
On the contrary, ewe have shown that ewe understand fucking nothing,
so how was church today, ewe fucking wanker?
MG
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> And all of the criminals are libertarians.
Fucking ignorant cockhead.
> All of them believed in
> "doing their own thing".
Via voluntary association, promoting capitalist acts between
consenting adults, a concept totally unknown to ewe fucking pig
ignorant knuckle-dragging nasal whining nauseating commie fucking
retards.
MG
Grizzlie Antagonist
Actually, it's Saturday where I am. Very few churches are open for
business on Saturday.
What about you? You don't even know how to spell a second-person
pronoun. How was remedial school today?
Grizzlie Antagonist
Mr. Potato Head! Mr. Potato Head! The conversation was about prison
inmates.
Do you regard armed robbery as a means of "promoting capitalist acts
between consenting adults via voluntary association"? As a
libertarian, you undoubtedly do.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Do you regard armed robbery as a means of "promoting capitalist acts
> between consenting adults via voluntary association"?
Armed robbery is the method of the fucking socialist.
MG
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Sounds like someone hasn't fed the goose.
Speaking of geese, how was church?
MG
Grizzlie Antagonist
You still sing like a soprano in the choir. You're exciting the
priest and he hopes that your voice never changes.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Do you regard armed robbery as a means of "promoting capitalist acts...
Ewe stupid commie khunt, capitalism is based on free trade, the gun
removes freedom you fucking numbnut.
MG
Grizzlie Antagonist
Libertarians don't believe in "capitalism" or "free trade". That's
boob bait for the suckers.
Libertarians believe in sex, drugs, and heavy metal.
Ultimately, libertarians believe in annoying their neighbors and
ultimately oppressing them. Ultimately, libertarians believe in
freedom for libertarians and servitude for non-libertarians, and that
means guns for libertarians and no guns for non-libertarians.
There isn't a criminal in the world who isn't a libertarian. There
isn't a criminal in the world who doesn't wish that the government
would leave him/her alone.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Libertarians don't believe in "capitalism" or "free trade".
The pope doesn't believe in god? what a fucking wanker.
What libertarians believe doesn't change the fact that the only fair
trade is free trade.
> Libertarians believe in sex, drugs, and heavy metal.
So how was church?
MG
Grizzlie Antagonist
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 2:48�pm, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Libertarians don't believe in "capitalism" or "free trade".
>
>The pope doesn't believe in god? what a fucking wanker.
The pope is a wanker because he doesn't believe in God?
Libertarians don't believe in God! Does that make them wankers?
>What libertarians believe doesn't change the fact that the only fair
>trade is free trade.
>
>> Libertarians believe in sex, drugs, and heavy metal.
>
>So how was church?
>
>MG
How was the rock concert?
Ste
I dare say you could do with a drink to calm your hysteria and bring
you to your senses.
Michael Gordge
> I dare say you could do with a drink to calm your hysteria and bring
> you to your senses.
Me - me come to my senses? for fucks sake ewe idiot, ewe are the
fuckwit who is totally off your rocker, capitalism depends upon,
capitalism is utterly dependent upon free trade, a free means free,
free means no fucking guns, no fucking stealing, ewe fucking commie
idiot.
MG
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> How was the rock concert?
Ewe really are a pathetic little wanker aren't ewe?
MG
Grizzlie Antagonist
Well, when you grow up, you'll learn that life is more than just
glue-sniffing and rock concerts.
You'll have to abandon what you call "libertarianism", move out of
your mother's house, and get a job.