Libertaria Set To Break Out In Iraq!!!
Bret Cahill
gummint" for years and years. Well now libertaria has broken out in
Iraq and you guys aren't going even though KBR will pay you 200K tax
free to move.
Can we say "hypocrite"?
Iraq has met all the libertard criteria:
1. everyone is armed
2. no taxes
3. no gummint
4. it's each individualist for himself
Now WHY OH WHY aren't libtards moving to Iraq?
Bret Cahill
Do As You Are Told
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1141963226.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Come on libertards, you've been saying "there's no gummint like no
> gummint" for years and years. Well now libertaria has broken out in
> Iraq and you guys aren't going even though KBR will pay you 200K tax
> free to move.
>
> Can we say "hypocrite"?
>
> Iraq has met all the libertard criteria:
Libertard = Liberal, I get it now.
>
> 1. everyone is armed
Thanks to liberal support for terrorism. Why do you hate America, terrorist
lover?
>
> 2. no taxes
What could make a liberal sadder than that? Bush cuts taxes, cuts spending,
cuts the deficit, therefore libs whine.
>
> 3. no gummint
Well, you found what could make a liberal sadder than the above pretty fast.
Bush has cut "gummint" in half so the economy is a hummin'
>
> 4. it's each individualist for himself
And for yourself, when you get 'roun' to taxin' 'im. Living standards are
rising again for all Americans who want to work, thanks to us Republicans!
Do As You Are Told
Bret Cahill
It's a sad sight, ain't it?
Bret Cahill
Do As You Are Told
> Ever see a rightard w/o his talking points?
>
> It's a sad sight, ain't it?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
Thanks for conceding. Hope u larned sumthin' t'day!
mrck
> 2. no taxes
I don't think that is true.
>
> 3. no gummint
Actually, there's a surplus of governments. Two of them. Theirs and
ours.
>
> 4. it's each individualist for himself
Personally, I don't think libertarianism is about "it's each
individualist for himself". It's about ordianary commerce being a much
more effecient means of social organization than the force and fraud
practice by governments and their supporters.
>
> Now WHY OH WHY aren't libtards moving to Iraq?
>
A better question is why are you not in Iraq supporting the policy you
seem to approve of.
Marion Mccoskey
http://www.mcky.net
abracadabra
"Do As You Are Told" <AcceptYourS...@ServeMe.ForLittlePay> wrote in
message news:v_6Qf.252$2W7...@fe07.lga...
>
> "Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1141963226.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> Come on libertards, you've been saying "there's no gummint like no
>> gummint" for years and years. Well now libertaria has broken out in
>> Iraq and you guys aren't going even though KBR will pay you 200K tax
>> free to move.
>>
>> Can we say "hypocrite"?
>>
>> Iraq has met all the libertard criteria:
>
> Libertard = Liberal, I get it now.
I think he means "Libertarians", not liberals.
libertad
"Well now libertaria has broken out in
Yes, Iraq is about to join the other libertarian countries: Somalia,
Afghanistan, Liberia, most of Central America...
Libbies keep speechifying about how much they want "the government that
governs least", but they never actually migrate to any of these
already-existing libertarian utopias.
Bret Cahill
<> It's a sad sight, ain't it?
< Thanks for conceding.
You're welcome. I'll concede that rightards w/o talking points are a
sad sight every day and twice on Friday.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
< I don't think that is true.
Well you thought wrong as usual.
They weren't collecting taxes BEFORE the civil war.
Anyway libertard dogma holds that all rights hinge on the individualist
right to keep and bear arms.
Every individualist is armed in Iraq so the only conclusion is Iraq is
the very face of libertaria.
Bret Cahill
Michael Price
> Come on libertards, you've been saying "there's no gummint like no
> gummint" for years and years. Well now libertaria has broken out in
> Iraq and you guys aren't going even though KBR will pay you 200K tax
> free to move.
>
> Can we say "hypocrite"?
>
> Iraq has met all the libertard criteria:
>
> 1. everyone is armed
>
Actually there's tight gun controls and warrantless searchs of houses
to locate
guns.
> 2. no taxes
>
Actually there's still taxes and taxes from other places are being
spent.
> 3. no gummint
>
Swing and a miss from the Bretster, there is government in Iraq,
you'll notice them
in the tanks and carrying the guns, not to mention killing people
without fear of
retribution.
> 4. it's each individualist for himself
>
Well actually there is little evidence of individualists in Iraq and
it's certainly not
every man for himself for those with government support.
> Now WHY OH WHY aren't libtards moving to Iraq?
>
Because it's your dream society not ours. You fanticise about a
place where government
can do whatever it likes. Iraq is exactly that society, so should I
help with your plane fare?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
Michael Price
manifestly
inadequate in a civil war. In fact it's your dream regime, people get
killed
for owning "too many" guns, or for trying to defend their homes against
government thugs.
>
> Bret Cahill
steveo
"libertad" <rog...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1142021897....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
No, the correct interpretation is the government that protects life,
liberty, and property with an iron fist (and does nothing else) is the best
government.
What we have in the 'nations' you specified is either anarchy (why don't all
the anarchists moves there? --see how trite that is?) or feudal systems.
Also, Central America is, for the most part, pretty stable and increasingly
a pleasant place that works through the rule of law. Not perfect by any
means, but it does not deserve the reputation anymore.
steveo
libertad
"No, the correct interpretation is the government that protects life,
liberty, and property with an iron fist (and does nothing else) is the
best
government."
That's what we have right now.
But I've visited too many libertarian web sites, starting with the LPA,
to believe that's what libbies want. What libbies want is a helpless
government with no fist at all, so they can ignore the law when it
suits them. And no matter what Mr. Price says, this is the current
situation in most parts of Iraq, and Iraq can only get out of it by
*not* being libertarian.
"What we have in the 'nations' you specified is either anarchy (why
don't all
the anarchists moves there? --see how trite that is?) or feudal
systems."
Actually, it's a very important question. It's actions that count.
Libertarians (and I include anarcho-capitalists in that bucket) don't
like to see the reality of what their shortsighted greed leads to, so
they make the same weak excuses I used to hear from Marxists ("I know
the USSR is awful, but that's not *real* communism!").
Libertarianism = weak government = anarchy/feudalism.
"Also, Central America is, for the most part, pretty stable and
increasingly
a pleasant place that works through the rule of law. Not perfect by
any
means, but it does not deserve the reputation anymore."
Assuming that CA is a nice place to live (which I don't, not by a long
shot): Logically, CA is either libertarian or not. If it's libertarian,
then the libbies should move there and join the utopia. Since they
don't, it proves they don't really think a libertarian country is a
good place to live And if it's not libertarian, then it proves
libertarian philosophy is a failure, since you move from nastiness to
niceness by *not* being libertarian.
libertad
"Actually liar there's a limit of one gun per household, which is
manifestly inadequate in a civil war. In fact it's your dream regime,
people get
killed for owning "too many" guns, or for trying to defend their homes
against
government thugs."
In Iraq we replaced a strong central government with a weak divided
government -- a libertarian's dream! And we see the result: Chaos and
civil war. The law may say there's such a limit, but so what? The
"government" has no effective means of enforcement no matter how many
APCs we give them. Even in Baghdad most neighborhoods have degenerated
into private fortresses with barricades in the streets. Not to protect
against your so-called government thugs -- to protect against their
neighbors.
Iraq = libertariansm at its finest!
Frank Clarke
<1142089373.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
>Steveo wrote,
>"No, the correct interpretation is the government that protects life,
>liberty, and property with an iron fist (and does nothing else) is the
>best
>government."
>
>That's what we have right now.
Really? What about the FCC, HUD, DOEn, DOEd, etcetera, ad infinitum, none of
whom protect life, liberty, or property? How about New London snagging Suzette
Kelo's home so the mayor's friends can build hi-rise condos on the beach? How
about Bush-II attacking a country that was no threat to its neignbors (much less
-us-)? How about Clinton bombing the Balkans? How about Bush-I invading
Kuwait? How about Reagan invading Grenada? Johnson and Kennedy making war in
SEAsia against people who were not a threat to us?
(the list goes on and on...)
The rest of your text snipped because you have such a poor grasp of concepts
that none of it is worth reading.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Bret Cahill
<> 1. everyone is armed
> Actually there's tight gun controls
But everyone is armed. According to libtard dogma, individualist
ownership of AK-47s GUARANTEES freedom.
. . .
<> 2. no taxes
< Actually there's still taxes
Only in a libtard's fantasy. You really think a tax collector would
show up at some Iraqi's door asking for some dough?
Iraqis don't even have any income.
There were no taxes being collected BEFORE the civil war.
And taxes in the U. S. have been cut as well. According to libtard
dogma if you cut taxes and starve gummint utopia breaks out.
. . .
<> 3. no gummint
. . .
< there is government in Iraq,
No one believes that except libtards.
. . .
<> 4. it's each individualist for himself
< Well actually there is little evidence of individualists in Iraq
Or independent thinking from a libtard.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
< weak divided government -- a libertarian's dream!
And Iraqis weren't paying taxes even before the developing civil war --
another "libertarian" dream.
And Iraqis are clearly armed, not just with AK-47s and RPGs but IEDs
and everything else except WMD -- yet another "libertarian" dream.
But don't expect "libertarians" to explain why utopia didn't break out
in Iraq when all their key criteria have been met.
No, libertaria has never broken out anywhere and never will.
And libtards simply cannot figger out why.
Bret Cahill
Sean
Iran military options open, says Former White House advisor and US
ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200603/r75482_213150.asx
text http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1588228.htm
eg
I think, at this time much wiser for the United States to be cooling the
rhetoric as Mr Faraday of the International Atomic Energy Agency suggested,
because Iran is not about to get a nuclear weapon. I think the most
conservative estimates, if we go on the Israeli estimates, they would say
that it's two to three years before they cross the nuclear threshold, that
is acquiring the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon, and probably five years
before they actually acquire a nuclear weapon. So there is time for the
diplomatic game to be played out and on the diplomatic playing field, the
United States is actually in a much stronger position than Iran because the
international community has now come to the conclusion that Iran should not
have control of its nuclear energy program, so as to prevent it from
acquiring nuclear weapons.
They [Iran] also have a card now that they have built after we toppled
Saddam Hussein in Iraq, particularly in southern Iraq, where they have
control over the Moqtada Sadr militia and the Bada brigades, which were
trained in Iran before Saddam Hussein was toppled, something that the
secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, has referred to today for the first time.
Robert Fisk shares his Middle East knowledge [ but will get canned for being
a leftie ]
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200603/r74379_208743.asx
text http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1582067.htm
eg
Iraq is not a sectarian society, but a tribal society. People are
intermarried. Shiites and Sunnis marry each other. It's not a question of
having a huge block of people here called Shiites and a huge block of people
called Sunnis any more than you can do the same with the United States,
saying Blacks are here and Protestants are here and so on. But certainly,
somebody at the moment is trying to provoke a civil war in Iraq. Someone
wants a civil war. Some form of militias and death squads want a civil war.
There never has been a civil war in Iraq. The real question I ask myself is:
who are these people who are trying to provoke the civil war? Now the
Americans will say it's Al Qaeda, it's the Sunni insurgents. It is the death
squads. Many of the death squads work for the Ministry of Interior.
I'd like to know what the Americans are doing to get at the people who are
trying to provoke the civil war. It seems to me not very much. We don't hear
of any suicide bombers being stopped before they blow themselves up. We
don't hear of anybody stopping a mosque getting blown up. We're not hearing
of death squads all being arrested. Something is going very, very wrong in
Baghdad. Something is going wrong with the Administration.
I don't know if al-Zarqawi is alive or exists at the moment. I don't know
if he isn't a sort of creature invented in order to fill in the narrative
gaps, so to speak. What is going on in Iraq at the moment is extremely
mysterious. I go to Iraq and I can't crack this story at the moment. Some of
my colleagues are still trying to, but can't do it. It's not as simple as it
looks. I don't believe we've got all these raving lunatics wandering around
blowing up mosques. There's much more to this than meets the eye. All of
these death squads that move around are part of the security forces.
In some cases they are Shiite security forces or clearly Sunni security
forces. When the Iraqi army go into Sunni cities they are Shiite soldiers
going in. We are not making this clear. Iraqi troops, we've got an extra
battalion. The Iraqi army is building up. The Iraqi army is split apart.
Somebody is operating these people. I don't know who they are. It's not as
simple as we're making it out to be. What is this thing when Bush says we
have to choose between chaos and unity? Who wants to choose chaos? Is it
really the case that all of these Iraqis that fought together for eight
years against the Iranians, Shiites and Sunnies together in the long massive
murderous Somme-like war between the Iranians and Iraqis - suddenly all want
to kill each other? Why because that's something wrong with Iraqis? I don't
think so. They are intelligent, educated people. Something is going
seriously wrong in Baghdad.
Iraqi is not Bosnia. Iraqi is not Bosnia. Iraqi is not Bosnia. Iraqi is not
Bosnia. We discovered here in Lebanon - and this city I'm talking to you
from - that, during the civil war, which lasted from 1975 to 1990 and killed
150,000 people, that there were many outside powers involved in promoting
death squads and militias here, and paying militias, not just Arab powers,
but European powers were involved in stirring the pot in Lebanon. I think
we're being very naive. Just because I can't give you the detail, like, of
who ordered this death squad, doesn't prevent us saying that something is
wrong with the narrative we're being given the press, from the West, from
the Americans, from the Iraqi Government. There is something going wrong.
Iraqis are not suicidal people. They don't go around blowing up mosques
every day. It's not a natural thing for them to do. It's never happened
before.
TONY JONES: What if you put Iran into this equation, because, as we all
know, Iran is under tremendous pressure from the West and particularly from
the United States at the moment. It has links to these Shia militias and,
possibly, links too, to these people you are talking about in the Interior
Ministry.
ROBERT FISK: No, no, no, that's wrong. The Iranians link is with the Iraqi
Government. The main parties in the government of Iraq which have been
elected, who are there now dealing with the Americans, these are the
representatives of Iran. Moqtada al-Sadr is irrelevant to Iran. Iranians are
already effectively controlling Iraq because the two major power blocks, the
two major parties who were elected and who Bush has just been talking to,
these are effectively the representatives of Tehran. That's the point. Iran
doesn't need to get involved in violence in Iraq.
You know, if the Americans are going to get out of Iraq - and they must get
out, they will - they need the help of Iran and Syria.
I don't think the Americans are in any footing or any ability, military or
otherwise, to have another war or to have another crisis in that region.
They're in the deepest hole politically, militarily and economically in
Iraq. The fact that the White House and the Pentagon and the State
Department seem to be in a state of denial doesn't change that.
I mean, this is a barbarous world we're living in now in the Middle East.
It's never been so dangerous here, either for journalists or soldiers but
most of all for Arabs.
links on main page
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/archives/lateline_20060302.htm
steveo
Life, liberty, and property. Weapons are used to secure those rights from
those who would try to take them. The weapons themselves are not the end.
Weapons used to deprive others of LLP are the antithesis of what
libertarianism stands for.
steveo
Michael Price
> <> Iraq has met all the libertard criteria:
>
> <> 1. everyone is armed
>
> > Actually there's tight gun controls
>
> But everyone is armed. According to libtard dogma, individualist
> ownership of AK-47s GUARANTEES freedom.
>
Firstly you're lying not everyone is armed because guns are limited
to one
per household and given the destruction of property few can live in a
household
of one.
> . . .
>
>
> <> 2. no taxes
>
> < Actually there's still taxes
>
> Only in a libtard's fantasy. You really think a tax collector would
> show up at some Iraqi's door asking for some dough?
>
Well yes, and I imagine that the Iraqi would fork it over if he
didn't want to
get Abu Gharibed. Not that taxcollectors usually turn up at people's
doors
physically.
> Iraqis don't even have any income.
>
> There were no taxes being collected BEFORE the civil war.
>
Do you have any evidence that the Iraqi government has stopped
collecting
taxes? You have not presented any. The fact is that the in Iraq at
the moment
the government can do anything to you at any time, the exact opposite
of
libertarianism yet you're such a lowlife moron you try to use it as any
example
of a libertarian society.
> And taxes in the U. S. have been cut as well. According to libtard
> dogma if you cut taxes and starve gummint utopia breaks out.
>
> . . .
>
> <> 3. no gummint
>
> . . .
>
> < there is government in Iraq,
>
> No one believes that except libtards.
>
Then why are we constantly told of government announcements? It
seems
others believe it not just us. In any case someone who can do what the
US
forces can do in Iraq sounds like a government to me liar.
> . . .
> <> 4. it's each individualist for himself
>
> < Well actually there is little evidence of individualists in Iraq
>
> Or independent thinking from a libtard.
>
Coming from you that's a joke. Fact is you can't even lie
intelligently.
>
> Bret Cahill
Michael Price
Only Cahill is stupid enough to claim that a place with 150,000 armed
foreigners
who can torture, kill, violate all rights with impunity and get paid
with tax dollars
qualifies as a libertarian society. The thing is he's not really a
troll, he's really
this stupid.
Bret Cahill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The terrible security situation led to the appearance of these NGGs,
the name I gave to Non-Governmental Gangs, which are now in their
golden days, kidnapping innocents, hijacking cars, and stealing
personal and public property.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yup, it's libertaria breaking out in Iraq.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
executive, he always knew full well the quagmire will never introduce
peace and/or democracy in the mideast.
Indeed, getting the U. S. locked into an eternal glorious patriotic
conflict is exactly what Cheney, a true war criminal, was hoping would
keep him and Republicons in power forever and ever.
Senator Kennedy was the first to explain the most important truth about
Iraq: the entire idea was hatched in Texas and sold to the GOP as a
good vote getter, an "issue" they could use against Democrats.
Ain't them Bushies clever?
Too clever by a quarter it turns out.
Now that the GOP's vote getter strategy has backfired the question is,
why was such a moronic doomed-to-fail strategy attempted in the first
place?
The answer is the internet is rapidly wiping out conservative habitat
which is censorship of economic information.
Republicons were desperate after 8 years of the high tax Clinton
economic boom.
Republicons were so desperate they were willing to try anything.
So if you thought anything thoughtful was going on in DC, you thought
wrong. No one ever cared about Iraq except some gullible neocons and
even they have finally turned on what's left of the Bush
administration. A more motley assortment of interests and character,
as I will wager, could only come from the post Clinton economic boom
GOP.
One Bushie was arrested for shoplifting just last week.
Even a banana republic has more intelligent more dignified leaders.
The Bushies are incapable of planning a trip to a supermarket. They
are that stupid. They are without question the biggest bunch of
screwups the planet has seen in a long time.
AwOL Bush will be impeached and Cheney will do some time.
Bret Cahill
"All conservatism is based on censorship of economic information."
-- Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
from Iraq and pulls U. S. troops out of Iraq?
After all, all the criteria for libertopia will have been met:
No taxes
No gummint
Every individualist is armed
Bret Cahill
Liberdope:
"And when liberdopia breaks out everything is done by consent because
there are no nonconsenters in liberdopia."
Normal Person:
"What about those without any dough? Do they get to influence the
direction of society?"
Liberdope:
"Liberdopes believe one dollar = one vote. If you don't have any
money, then you don't have any say about anything once liberdopia
breaks out."
Normal Person:
"Why haven't liberdopes been successful in influencing society toward
liberdopia?"
Liberdope:
"We don't have any money."
Normal Person (laughing):
"That's the best one I've heard all morning! Your problem isn't
getting TO liberdopia. Your problem is getting OUT of liberdopia."
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
there WILL be gummint, if only by that one bad rich statist.
Now answer the question:
How is the libtard going to defend his doublewide with his AK-47 when
the bad guy billionaire has divisions of mercs and fleets of Apache gun
ships?
The libtard will be trying to hiss menancingly "out of my cold dead
hands" when a Predator comes over the horizon and the microwave beam
removes the libtards AK-47 from his live warm hands.
The rich guy then handcuffs the libtard with the others who are too
stupid to do anything except work on a road gang.
Or get on the short list for the Darwin Award.
Remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
< the LPA, to believe that's what libbies want.
Be real. "Libertarians" are too weak minded to know what they want.
Each self described "libertarian" has so many internal contradictions
he is forced into redefining/playing clever word games/outright dodging
of issues every time they post.
After awhile you realize the only common thread is enunciating what
rich Republicons are thinking but too smart to say in public.
That's why libtards are useful: to expose/discredit Republicon
economics.
Bret Cahill
steveo
Bret, your whole premise is bogus. Libertarians do recognize the need for
government. It is important. It is necessary. It protects life, liberty,
and property. There are some anarcho-libertarians out there who might
disagree with the need for a government, but that is not formal
libertarianism.
In reference to your 'example,' the government would then step in and _help_
protect the guy, who also is protecting himself.
What the government should not do is anything that is beyond the scope of
those three things (LLP). The government that governs least is the one that
governs best.
It also should not break its own charter by engaging in all sorts of
activities that are expressly forbidden to it.
steveo
Bret Cahill
> > the bad guy billionaire has divisions of mercs and fleets of Apache gun
> > ships?
> > The libtard will be trying to hiss menancingly "out of my cold dead
> > hands" when a Predator comes over the horizon and the microwave beam
> > removes the libtards AK-47 from his live warm hands.
> > The rich guy then handcuffs the libtard with the others who are too
> > stupid to do anything except work on a road gang.
> > Or get on the short list for the Darwin Award.
> > Remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
. . .
> the government would then step in and _help_
> protect the guy, who also is protecting himself.
"Help"?
Is your AK-47 really going to help when it comes to fighting the rich
man's Abrams tanks?
Or "checking" the feds?
> What the government should not do is anything that is beyond the scope of
> those three things (LLP). The government that governs least is the one that
> governs best.
I think gummint should stay out of religion, sex and other private
matters.
> It also should not break its own charter by engaging in all sorts of
> activities that are expressly forbidden to it.
Don't vote Republicon.
Bret Cahill
steveo
>> > How is the libtard going to defend his doublewide with his AK-47 when
>> > the bad guy billionaire has divisions of mercs and fleets of Apache gun
>> > ships?
>
>> > The libtard will be trying to hiss menancingly "out of my cold dead
>> > hands" when a Predator comes over the horizon and the microwave beam
>> > removes the libtards AK-47 from his live warm hands.
>
>> > The rich guy then handcuffs the libtard with the others who are too
>> > stupid to do anything except work on a road gang.
>
>> > Or get on the short list for the Darwin Award.
>
>> > Remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
>
> . . .
>
>> the government would then step in and _help_
>> protect the guy, who also is protecting himself.
>
> "Help"?
Sure. Each person has the primary accountability to themselves for their
own self-preservation. Understanding that sometimes that it is not possible
for the individual to do so when confronted by others who would deprive as
many individuals as possible of their LLP, we set up a collective enterprise
to supplement our own resources to meet this need (i.e. government).
> Is your AK-47 really going to help when it comes to fighting the rich
> man's Abrams tanks?
Sure. The guys inside have to get out sometime....
> Or "checking" the feds?
Sure. It seems to me that some farmers and a few bankers defeated the best
equipped and trained army the world had ever seen a few hundred years back.
What could a musket do against ship-based artillery? Again, they have to
come ashore sometime....
>> What the government should not do is anything that is beyond the scope of
>> those three things (LLP). The government that governs least is the one
>> that
>> governs best.
>
> I think gummint should stay out of religion, sex and other private
> matters.
Agreed, so long as all those matters take place in consentual and adult
environments and don't result in unaccepted harm to others.
>> It also should not break its own charter by engaging in all sorts of
>> activities that are expressly forbidden to it.
>
> Don't vote Republicon.
Don't vote Republicrat or Demican. They are the same party, they just wear
different masks.
steveo
Bret Cahill
when
<>> > the bad guy billionaire has divisions of mercs and fleets of
Apache gun
<>> > ships?
<>> > The libtard will be trying to hiss menancingly "out of my cold
dead
<>> > hands" when a Predator comes over the horizon and the microwave
beam
<>> > removes the libtards AK-47 from his live warm hands.
<>> > The rich guy then handcuffs the libtard with the others who are
too
<>> > stupid to do anything except work on a road gang.
<>> the government would then step in and _help_
<>> protect the guy, who also is protecting himself.
<> "Help"?
< Sure.
Try to imagine a plausible scenario.
The libtard is firing away at the incoming Hellfire and realizes, "hey,
I need some backup. I'll just get on the cell and dial 911."
. . .
< we set up a collective enterprise to supplement our own
< resources to meet this need (i.e. government).
<> Is your AK-47 really going to help when it comes to fighting the
rich
<> man's Abrams tanks?
< Sure. The guys inside have to get out sometime....
Sure, after they leave a crater where the libtard's doublewide was once
parked, they get out and photograph the scene for their bonus pay.
<> Or "checking" the feds?
< Sure. It seems to me that some farmers and a few bankers
< defeated the best equipped and trained army the world had ever
< seen a few hundred years back.
They weren't fighting popular elective locally based government. They
had a majority to oppose a nonelective gummint. Today, we have an
elective gummint. If you cannot get a majority to march down to the
polling booth to vote your guys into office, you CERTAINLY aren't going
to get a majority to march into battle against bad gummint.
That was Tim McVeigh's error when he blew up the federal building. He
figgered more people were willing to shoot than vote and all they
needed was a little leadership.
McVeigh was executed by the Needle for believing NRA bottom fishing
propaganda.
The colonists were fighting against a nonelected gummint located across
2800 miles of ocean before cheap airfare made long range support
possible, even cheap.
< What could a musket do against ship-based artillery?
< Again, they have to come ashore sometime....
With the Predator no one even needs to be more than a foot from the
fridge to blow the AK-47 waving libtard's doublewide to bits.
Anyone as ignorant of modern military capabilities as a libtard
shouldn't be allowed to have a soup spoon as a weapon.
<>> What the government should not do is anything that is beyond the
scope of
<>> those three things (LLP). The government that governs least is the
one
<>> that
<>> governs best.
<> I think gummint should stay out of religion, sex and other private
<> matters.
< Agreed, so long as all those matters take place in consentual and
adult
< environments and don't result in unaccepted harm to others.
But all national economic policy is ultimately decided by the public
through their representatives in Congress. See Art. I, Sec. 8.
<>> It also should not break its own charter by engaging in all sorts
of
<>> activities that are expressly forbidden to it.
<> Don't vote Republicon.
< Don't vote Republicrat or Demican. They are the same party,
< they just wear different masks.
Democrats weren't using the NSA to spy on citizens.
Bret Cahill
Michael Price
No liar, it's a government that can violate all rights. If you
weren't a deluded fool
you would know this.
Michael Price
> Do libtards believe libertaria will break out when AwOL Bush goes AWOL
> from Iraq and pulls U. S. troops out of Iraq?
>
too much
harm.
> After all, all the criteria for libertopia will have been met:
>
> No taxes
>
A lie you have not supported.
> No gummint
>
Again a lie, there is a government that has the power to arrest,
torture and kill.
> Every individualist is armed
>
Again a lie.
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
> Liberdope:
>
> "And when liberdopia breaks out everything is done by consent because
> there are no nonconsenters in liberdopia."
>
> Normal Person:
>
> "What about those without any dough? Do they get to influence the
> direction of society?"
>
> Liberdope:
>
> "Liberdopes believe one dollar = one vote. If you don't have any
> money, then you don't have any say about anything once liberdopia
> breaks out."
>
Bret's little strawman has no basis in libertarian thought. Everyone
has a
say about what they do in a libertarian society.
Bret Cahill
didja?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
AWOL
<> from Iraq and pulls U. S. troops out of Iraq?
< It might
I rest my case.
Libtards are the most stupid folk on newsgroups.
Bret Cahill
Michael Price
Look there's a government. It's clearly there, it's doing government
stuff. It's doing
very unlibertarian government stuff, your delusions notwithstanding.
Michael Price
> <> Do libtards believe libertaria will break out when AwOL Bush goes
> <> AWOL from Iraq and pulls U. S. troops out of Iraq?
>
> < It might
>
> I rest my case.
>
nothing but assertions.
> Libtards are the most stupid folk on newsgroups.
>
Why because they disagree with you that armed american imperialism is
paradise on earth?
>
> Bret Cahill
steveo
First off, Bret, you have to do something about your newsreader or what ever
is mangling the lines.
><>> > How is the libtard going to defend his doublewide with his AK-47
> when
> <>> > the bad guy billionaire has divisions of mercs and fleets of
> Apache gun
> <>> > ships?
>
> <>> > The libtard will be trying to hiss menancingly "out of my cold
> dead
> <>> > hands" when a Predator comes over the horizon and the microwave
> beam
> <>> > removes the libtards AK-47 from his live warm hands.
>
> <>> > The rich guy then handcuffs the libtard with the others who are
> too
> <>> > stupid to do anything except work on a road gang.
>
>
> <>> the government would then step in and _help_
> <>> protect the guy, who also is protecting himself.
>
> <> "Help"?
>
> < Sure.
>
> Try to imagine a plausible scenario.
>
> The libtard is firing away at the incoming Hellfire and realizes, "hey,
> I need some backup. I'll just get on the cell and dial 911."
I find it implausible that any nation would allow a private citizen to own a
fully loaded military weapon like a jet. Even a libertarian one.
> . . .
>
> < we set up a collective enterprise to supplement our own
>
> < resources to meet this need (i.e. government).
>
> <> Is your AK-47 really going to help when it comes to fighting the
> rich
> <> man's Abrams tanks?
>
> < Sure. The guys inside have to get out sometime....
>
> Sure, after they leave a crater where the libtard's doublewide was once
> parked, they get out and photograph the scene for their bonus pay.
Not all libertarians live in mobile homes, contrary to your belief. Your
invective does little to prove your points.
Also, I was assuming that you would infer the idea that the person being
attacked would not make an easy target of himself by standing immobile in
front of the refigerator and hide until the attacking person got out of the
vehicle to "photograph the scene."
> <> Or "checking" the feds?
>
> < Sure. It seems to me that some farmers and a few bankers
>
> < defeated the best equipped and trained army the world had ever
>
> < seen a few hundred years back.
>
> They weren't fighting popular elective locally based government. They
> had a majority to oppose a nonelective gummint. Today, we have an
> elective gummint. If you cannot get a majority to march down to the
> polling booth to vote your guys into office, you CERTAINLY aren't going
> to get a majority to march into battle against bad gummint.
But I thought we were talking about a private citizen who owned a fighter
jet attacking some one in a mobile home? The point I was making is that
individuals do have effective options to protect their LLP, but clearly you
missed that and went off on some nonsensical tangent.
> That was Tim McVeigh's error when he blew up the federal building. He
> figgered more people were willing to shoot than vote and all they
> needed was a little leadership.
Agreed. He was very wrong. American don't like terrorist tactics, no
matter who performs them or what the cause.
> McVeigh was executed by the Needle for believing NRA bottom fishing
> propaganda.
>
> The colonists were fighting against a nonelected gummint located across
> 2800 miles of ocean before cheap airfare made long range support
> possible, even cheap.
>
> < What could a musket do against ship-based artillery?
>
> < Again, they have to come ashore sometime....
>
> With the Predator no one even needs to be more than a foot from the
> fridge to blow the AK-47 waving libtard's doublewide to bits.
>
> Anyone as ignorant of modern military capabilities as a libtard
> shouldn't be allowed to have a soup spoon as a weapon.
I know full well the capabilities of modern weapons. That wasn't the point
in contention. Obviously a 22 or a 9mm, the most common home weapons, will
be of any direct use against a tank or jet. The drivers have to get out
sometime, though.
Besides, even if it were legal for someone to own a fighter jet and fire the
missles at some residence they didn't like, how often would it be cost
effective for some rich bad guy to fire a missle that costs hundreds of
thousands of dollars just to take out some guy in a mobile home?
> <>> What the government should not do is anything that is beyond the
> scope of
> <>> those three things (LLP). The government that governs least is the
> one
> <>> that
> <>> governs best.
>
> <> I think gummint should stay out of religion, sex and other private
> <> matters.
>
> < Agreed, so long as all those matters take place in consentual and
> adult
> < environments and don't result in unaccepted harm to others.
>
> But all national economic policy is ultimately decided by the public
> through their representatives in Congress. See Art. I, Sec. 8.
Nonsensical response, but yes, Article I does invest in Congress the
authority and responsibility to govern interstate and extra-national
commerce, along with creating a budget to fund the activities clearly
deliniated in the Constitution.
> <>> It also should not break its own charter by engaging in all sorts
> of
> <>> activities that are expressly forbidden to it.
>
> <> Don't vote Republicon.
>
> < Don't vote Republicrat or Demican. They are the same party,
>
> < they just wear different masks.
>
> Democrats weren't using the NSA to spy on citizens.
Check again.
steveo
Bret Cahill
Didn't see it. You were closer to the truth when you said there were
2 gummints.
In reality there are a lot of gummints in Iraq, Montesquieu's textbook
definition of "despotism" aka "libertaria."
"Each house is a gummint." -- Montesquieu
It's just that when "libertarians" are dictators they don't call it
"gummint."
They call it "utopia."
That's what Saddam called it.
> It's clearly there, it's doing government
> stuff.
Like keeping the peace?
Protecting life and property?
>It's doing
> very unlibertarian government stuff, your delusions notwithstanding.
But we agree when U. S. troops leave, libertaria will break out.
At least according to libtard theory.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
AWOL
<> from Iraq and pulls U. S. troops out of Iraq?
< It might,
Like the header sez:
"Libertaria set to break out in Iraq."
At least we agree on SOMETHING.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
< citizen to own a fully loaded military weapon like a jet.
I find libertaria, not just implausible, but absurdly impossible.
. . .
<> < we set up a collective enterprise to supplement our own
<> < resources to meet this need (i.e. government).
<> <> Is your AK-47 really going to help when it comes to fighting the
> rich
<> <> man's Abrams tanks?
> < Sure. The guys inside have to get out sometime....
> Sure, after they leave a crater where the libtard's doublewide was once
> parked, they get out and photograph the scene for their bonus pay.
. . .
< Also, I was assuming that you would infer the idea that the
< person being attacked would not make an easy target of
< himself
How does that change the fact that there's a crater where the
doublewide used to be?
. . .
<> <> Or "checking" the feds?
<> < Sure. It seems to me that some farmers and a few bankers
<> < defeated the best equipped and trained army the world had ever
<> < seen a few hundred years back.
<> They weren't fighting popular elective locally based government.
They
<> had a majority to oppose a nonelective gummint. Today, we have an
<> elective gummint. If you cannot get a majority to march down to the
<> polling booth to vote your guys into office, you CERTAINLY aren't
going
<> to get a majority to march into battle against bad gummint.
< But I thought we were talking about a private citizen who
< owned a fighter jet attacking some one in a mobile home?
YOU are the one who tried to allude to the American Revolution.
< The point I was making is that individuals do have effective
< options to protect their LLP,
Yea, and it's called "gummint."
. . .
< > < What could a musket do against ship-based artillery?
<> < Again, they have to come ashore sometime....
<> With the Predator no one even needs to be more than a foot from the
<> fridge to blow the AK-47 waving libtard's doublewide to bits.
<> Anyone as ignorant of modern military capabilities as a libtard
<> shouldn't be allowed to have a soup spoon as a weapon.
< I know full well the capabilities of modern weapons. That
< wasn't the point in contention. Obviously a 22 or a 9mm, the
< most common home weapons, will be of any direct use
< against a tank or jet. The drivers have to get out sometime,
< though.
I thought you knew there IS no human inside the Predator.
You in a state of denial or what?
< Besides, even if it were legal for someone to own a fighter jet
< and fire the missles at some residence they didn't like, how
< often would it be cost effective for some rich bad guy to fire a
< missle that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars just to
< take out some guy in a mobile home?
All he has to do is blow one or two to smitherines and the rest do what
he says because they don't want to be on the short list for the Darwin
Award.
That's how Saddam stayed in power -- fear.
Monarchy is based on honor, democracy virtue and despotism fear.
. . .
<> Democrats weren't using the NSA to spy on citizens.
< Check again.
I checked again and Democrats weren't using the NSA to spy on citizens.
You wanted a free lunch on liberty and guess what? The opposite
happened.
There is no free lunch. Taxes are the price of freedom.
Bret Cahill
Michael Price
> > Look there's a government.
>
> Didn't see it.
Well that's because you're an idiot and you weren't there. If you
had actually been there
or read the reports of those that
> You were closer to the truth when you said there were
> 2 gummints.
>
> In reality there are a lot of gummints in Iraq, Montesquieu's textbook
> definition of "despotism" aka "libertaria."
>
Saying something is also known as something doesn't make it true.
> "Each house is a gummint." -- Montesquieu
No he didn't say that he could spell. In any case there is a big
difference
between a house and State.
>
> It's just that when "libertarians" are dictators they don't call it
> "gummint."
When are libertarians dictators? And what the hell does that have to
do
with Iraq, that doesn't have any significant libertarian political
force.
>
> They call it "utopia."
>
> That's what Saddam called it.
And he's a libertarian is he?
>
> > It's clearly there, it's doing government
> > stuff.
>
> Like keeping the peace?
>
> Protecting life and property?
>
Well no they never do that, but they are blowing stuff up and bossing
people
around. And taxing people.
> >It's doing very unlibertarian government stuff, your delusions notwithstanding.
>
> But we agree when U. S. troops leave, libertaria will break out.
>
No liar we do not agree. I said it might.
> At least according to libtard theory.
>
First of all the continual use of "libertard" is moronic and
immature, secondly it is
harldy "libertarian theory" that freedom will come about in situations
like Iraq. You're
lying again.
>
> Bret Cahill
Michael Price
would regardless. In
fact you claimed that "libertaria" was already there. Of course you
lied. I notice
you haven't even bothered to try to justify your claim that there are
no taxes in Iraq.
>
> Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
<> <> AWOL from Iraq and pulls U. S. troops out of Iraq?
<> < It might,
<> Like the header sez:
<> "Libertaria set to break out in Iraq."
<> At least we agree on SOMETHING.
< No liar
Too late to do the libtard flip flop.
It's on record: You believe when the troops are pulled out that
libertaria may break out in Iraq.
I'm CERTAIN libertaria will break out.
We basically agree.
< I said it _might_ _if_ the troops left,
"If"? "_IF_" ? ? ?
You think it is politically possible to leave the troops over there
until they all die of old age?
Remember, they don't call him "AwOL" for nothing.
< you said that it would regardless.
Well all the preconditions of libertaria will have been met when the
troops leave:
1. No elective gummint
2. No taxes
3. Everyone is armed
< In fact you claimed that "libertaria"
< was already there.
Well the preconditions have certainly been met:
1. No elective gummint
2. No taxes
3. Everyone is armed
All we need to do now is wait until independent voters toss Republicons
out so Dems can impeach AwOL Bush.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
<> Didn't see it.
< Well that's because you're an idiot
Nope.
< and you weren't there.
Don't need to be there to unnerstand there's no gummint in Iraq.
. . .
<> You were closer to the truth when you said there were
<> 2 gummints.
<> In reality there are a lot of gummints in Iraq, Montesquieu's
textbook
<> definition of "despotism" aka "libertaria."
< Saying something is also known as something doesn't make it true.
Just read _Spirit of Laws_ and you'll see the textbook definition of
low tax libertarian gummint.
M. just calls it "despotism."
. . .
<> It's just that when "libertarians" are dictators they don't call it
<> "gummint."
< When are libertarians dictators?
Saddam. Fidel. Kim Ill
< And what the hell does that have to do with Iraq, that
< doesn't have any significant libertarian political force.
"Libertarian force"
? ? ?
Is that like "anhydrous water"?
. . .
<> That's what Saddam called it.
< And he's a libertarian is he?
He once had perfect libertarian property rights.
<> > It's clearly there, it's doing government
<> > stuff.
<> Like keeping the peace?
<> Protecting life and property?
< Well no
Then it ain't gummint.
. . .
< it is harldy "libertarian theory" that freedom will come
< about in situations like Iraq.
Name some situations where libertarian theory applies.
Bret Cahill
steveo
> < When are libertarians dictators?
>
> Saddam. Fidel. Kim Ill
Thanks, Bret! I needed a good laugh today!
steveo
Michael Price
> <> <> Do libtards believe libertaria will break out when AwOL Bush goes
>
> <> <> AWOL from Iraq and pulls U. S. troops out of Iraq?
>
> <> < It might,
>
> <> Like the header sez:
>
> <> "Libertaria set to break out in Iraq."
>
> <> At least we agree on SOMETHING.
>
> < No liar
>
> Too late to do the libtard flip flop.
>
out and
that it had broken out.
> It's on record: You believe when the troops are pulled out that
> libertaria may break out in Iraq.
>
No, I said it might, that's on the record. You're lying again.
> I'm CERTAIN libertaria will break out.
>
> We basically agree.
No we don't.
>
> < I said it _might_ _if_ the troops left,
>
> "If"? "_IF_" ? ? ?
>
> You think it is politically possible to leave the troops over there
> until they all die of old age?
>
I think it's possible to rotate troops Bret, if you weren't an idiot
you'd
think that too.
> Remember, they don't call him "AwOL" for nothing.
>
> < you said that it would regardless.
>
> Well all the preconditions of libertaria will have been met when the
> troops leave:
>
> 1. No elective gummint
>
On the contray the government is very effective at doing government
things.
It's not very effective at actually helping anyone but when it is?
> 2. No taxes
If you want to post any evidence of this at all go ahead, so far
you've asserted it
without evidence three times.
>
> 3. Everyone is armed
>
A lie.
> < In fact you claimed that "libertaria"
>
> < was already there.
>
> Well the preconditions have certainly been met:
>
<snip repeat of lies>
According to you those are not preconditions but the essence of
libertarian society.
> All we need to do now is wait until independent voters toss Republicons
> out so Dems can impeach AwOL Bush.
>
And that has what to do with Iraq?
>
> Bret Cahill
What the hell do you have against Bush anyway Bret? It's not like
you object to
lying and brutality.
Michael Price
> <> > Look there's a government.
>
> <> Didn't see it.
>
> < Well that's because you're an idiot
>
> Nope.
>
> < and you weren't there.
>
> Don't need to be there to unnerstand there's no gummint in Iraq.
>
No you just need to be a delusional moron who believes whatever he
wants.
There is clearly a government in Iraq, there is police, a military
(hell a couple
of them), government courts, a parliment. You are such a low down liar
that
whenever tyranny goes wrong you call it a lack of government.
> . . .
> <> You were closer to the truth when you said there were
> <> 2 gummints.
>
> <> In reality there are a lot of gummints in Iraq, Montesquieu's
> textbook
> <> definition of "despotism" aka "libertaria."
>
> < Saying something is also known as something doesn't make it true.
>
> Just read _Spirit of Laws_ and you'll see the textbook definition of
> low tax libertarian gummint.
>
And it's nothing like Iraq.
> M. just calls it "despotism."
> . . .
> <> It's just that when "libertarians" are dictators they don't call it
> <> "gummint."
>
> < When are libertarians dictators?
>
> Saddam. Fidel. Kim Ill
>
Yeah they're real libertarians you fucking moron. Has it occured to
you
that they violated every single tenet of libertarainism.
> < And what the hell does that have to do with Iraq, that
>
> < doesn't have any significant libertarian political force.
>
> "Libertarian force"
>
> ? ? ?
>
> Is that like "anhydrous water"?
Oh get a clue.
>
> . . .
>
> <> That's what Saddam called it.
>
> < And he's a libertarian is he?
>
> He once had perfect libertarian property rights.
>
No he didn't. He had "property" rights established by
violent overthrow of the government and imposition of a tyrannical
and very unlibertarian government.
> <> > It's clearly there, it's doing government
> <> > stuff.
>
> <> Like keeping the peace?
>
> <> Protecting life and property?
>
> < Well no
>
> Then it ain't gummint.
>
Well then neither is any State because none of them actually protect
property or life or keep the peace. Keeping the peace and protecting
life
and property are not what government does. You just choose to believe
that these things define government and ignore reality when it shows
this
to be untrue. You're delusional.
> . . .
>
> < it is harldy "libertarian theory" that freedom will come
>
> < about in situations like Iraq.
>
> Name some situations where libertarian theory applies.
>
Well all of them. Freedom works. What your buddies the US
government
are inflicting in Iraq doesn't work.
>
> Bret Cahill