Sorry Commies. Americans Cannot Be Charged For War Crimes
Siobhan Medeiros
<noth...@spammer.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 04 May 2003 07:51:07 GMT, s...@netcom.com (Siobhan Medeiros)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:19:46 -0400, Valentine Michael Smith
>><noth...@spammer.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 06:03:13 GMT, s...@netcom.com(Siobhan Medeiros)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I've never heard of him - I been a libertarian a long time- - google
>>>>>returns nanda - who is he ?
>>>>
>>>>Damned if I know. Like most "libertarians", probably nobody.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So you quote someone as an example and expert and you don't even know
>>>who they are ?
>>
>>I didn't say he was an expert. I said he was a "libertarian". At
>>least he certainly identifies himself as one, and there are many of
>>his ilk posting to that newsgroup. Now, you claim he doesn't
>>represent your beliefs, but how do we know that guys like him aren't
>>the ones running the show, hmmm? Your boss is certainly kooky enough.
>
>So again it's someone you don't even know but just they post to some
>newsgroup and call themselves a libertarian they become your sole
>quoted expert ?!?
Oh, he's hardly my sole expert. The "libertarian" newsgroups are
filled with his type, from the guy who wants to imprison people for
"advocating taxation" to the one who thinks child labor is just dandy.
As I said in the last post which you so conveniently snipped, there's
more than enough evidence to suggest that his type is running the
show. If they're not - prove it.
>
>Do you ever wonder why you get so confused on your terminology - let
>alone your interpretation of how the world is ?
Since when does the "libertarian" movement represent the world?
Pretty haughty view of yourselves isn't it, considering you guys have
yet to capture 1% of the US vote. Hell, even Ralph Nader is kicking
your asses.
>
>>>>
>>>>Which "libertarian" party? There were three of them running in the
>>>>last US federal elections, and there are probably more that call
>>>>themselves "libertarian". I understand even the Cato Institute is
>>>>calling itself "libertarian" now.
>>>>
>>>
>>>My understanding was there was only one libertarian party in the US
>>>last election - there was two states where the official candidate was
>>>disputed and more than one person claimed to be the candidate but that
>>>is hardly the same.
>>
>>Ah, hence the confusion. One party, three candidates. Yeah, you guys
>>have a real good shot.
>
>considering you cannot tell 2 from 3 ......
One official libertarian candidate
+ 1 "rogue" candidate from each of those two states you mentioned
1+ (1*2) = 3
In grade school, perhaps instead of listening to Harry Browne lie
about Love Canal, you should have been practicing your math.
>
>>Well, to perform a Search & Rescue service, one has to be able to :
>>
>>1. Search
>>
>>2. Rescue.
>>
>>So, why don't you tell me how a lighthouse qualifies?
>
>Next time you call 911 make sure you tell the operator they have
>nothing to do with providing a rescue service too - they will be happy
>to know that :)
Sigh. Once again, here's you:
February 27, 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's fun to watch the Libertarian ilk. Especially their qualifiers.
>Case in point: " to the extent I agree I want the services. "
> What do I do , on a sinking ship, when the Coast Guard refuses to
>rescue me because I opted not to pay for Coast Guard services?
>Can I sign up on the spot? Will I have to agree to make back payments?
>Will there be a waiting period?
The decision is what-ever you contracted for, as it is for any
service. This would be no different than a warranty, or life
insurance, as opposed to now where the salesman has a gun to your
head.
We would probably have a lot better life saving facilities, and much
lower overall cost to society. They would not be using overpriced
pieces of junk equipment bought with regional and industrial benefits
as the prime motivator, cost and usefulness last.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you bother lying when you can just scroll upwards? Does this
sound like you're talking about a dispatch service? No, you're
clearly describing a private search & rescue operation.
Now, if you'lll remember, we were discussing the viability of such a
scheme (there wasn't any), and you proposed the existence of privately
run lighthouses as proof that such a system would work. None of this
"dispatch" bullshit. Why the hell would you need a lighthouse to
dispatch Coast Guard units?
Please don't bother lying again, I have better things to do than pull
out quotes of yours. And if you snip them, I'll just repost them.
>>>>
>>>>"Libertarians" idea of freedom is driving a dog out to the middle of
>>>>the forest and booting him out to fend for himself (and probably
>>>>starve). True libertarians know that freedom to starve is no freedom
>>>>at all, that freedom isn't "free", and that it involves constant
>>>>vigilance against would-be oppressors - and their toadies, many of
>>>>whom call themselves "liberatarians" and "objectivists".
>>>
>>>So you admit you have no clue what the term means - you're now mixing
>>>in a communist idea to define "True libertarians".
>>
>>Oooooh, the commie thing. Umm, you'll have to point out the communist
>>part though.
>
>"freedom to starve is no freedom at all" - a libertarian recognizes
>there are risks and responsibilities that go with freedom
Gee, Pravda suggested once that people should brush their teeth twice
a day. Quite clearly, some sinister conspiracy has infested the
American Dental Association. Shall we go get our pitchforks?
Maybe a communist said something like this sometime, maybe they
didn't. That doesn't change the fact that it's true. A wise man once
said the most effective of deceptions are composed of nine truths and
a lie. This is one of the nine truths.
Again, you want a definition of real freedom, check out FDR's "Four
Freedoms". Oh, I forgot, he was a commie too, wasn't he? Well
considering that he ended the Great Depression, won WWII, and brought
on 25 years of unprecedented economic prosperity, if he was a
communist then paint me red and hand out the Vodka.
What "libertarians" can't get through their heads is that you don't
have to be a government to oppress somebody. In "libertopia" it would
be easy for large corporation to institute large-scale oppression.
Just wipe out the competition, make yourself the only game in town,
and it's either do what you say or starve (which is a hell of a lot
easier once you've torpedoed welfare). i.e. Colorado under
Rockefeller. The result of a "libertarian" wet dream.
>and that it
>is not the role of government to try to legislate the economy to any
>single group's supposed benefit.
Which is the same as legislating it for the benefit of the rich and
greedy. This is exactly the kind of thinking which brought on the
Great Depression and took the USA to the edge of armed insurrection,
not to mention the end of democracy as we know it. Oh, that's right,
I forgot, you hate democracy don't you, o "freedom fighter". You
going to admit this, or am I going to have to get some more quotes.
>Most libertarians do believe and
>support personal charity as the most effective way to reduce poverty -
>as well as freedom for general economy which makes everyone better
>off.
Yeah, sure, the poor are wayyyyy better off in countries with no
social assistance programs. Those walking skeletons over in Africa
and the Middle East are probably just socialist propaganda. Open your
eyes much?
>>>No - the libertarian party of Ontario is the libertarian party in
>>>Ontario.
>>
>>And the difference is......
>
>basically libertarian vs objectivist philosophy - you don't understand
>the difference I know from your posts but others do.
SPECIFICS. Tell me exactly in what ways yours platform differs from
the Freedom Party's. You know, health care, education, environment,
stuff like that?
>keep it in yer mind and not fergit
>That it is not he or she or them or it
>That you belong to.
>
>Bob Dylan
>
At least you have the good sense to give up on that stupid Bob Dylan
debate.
"When an ice cube melts in a glass, the water level
doesn't rise"
Dr. Phillip Micheals of the CATO Institute explaining
why global warming won't cause flooding (conveniently
ignoring that more than half of the world's ice is
on land.)
Valentine Michael Smith
wrote:
>>So again it's someone you don't even know but just they post to some
>>newsgroup and call themselves a libertarian they become your sole
>>quoted expert ?!?
>
>Oh, he's hardly my sole expert. The "libertarian" newsgroups are
>filled with his type, from the guy who wants to imprison people for
>"advocating taxation" to the one who thinks child labor is just dandy.
He is the only one you quoted - so he *is* your only one. There is a
world outside of the newsgroups.
>
>As I said in the last post which you so conveniently snipped, there's
>more than enough evidence to suggest that his type is running the
>show. If they're not - prove it.
>
>>
>>Do you ever wonder why you get so confused on your terminology - let
>>alone your interpretation of how the world is ?
>
>Since when does the "libertarian" movement represent the world?
>Pretty haughty view of yourselves isn't it, considering you guys have
>yet to capture 1% of the US vote. Hell, even Ralph Nader is kicking
>your asses.
The terminology is well defined in the academic literature - your
totally ignorant of it but continue to post even after making a fool
of yourself like above and now you try to put in total irrelevance
like this ?
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Which "libertarian" party? There were three of them running in the
>>>>>last US federal elections, and there are probably more that call
>>>>>themselves "libertarian". I understand even the Cato Institute is
>>>>>calling itself "libertarian" now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My understanding was there was only one libertarian party in the US
>>>>last election - there was two states where the official candidate was
>>>>disputed and more than one person claimed to be the candidate but that
>>>>is hardly the same.
>>>
>>>Ah, hence the confusion. One party, three candidates. Yeah, you guys
>>>have a real good shot.
>>
>>considering you cannot tell 2 from 3 ......
>
>One official libertarian candidate
>
>+ 1 "rogue" candidate from each of those two states you mentioned
>
>1+ (1*2) = 3
2 states with 4 candidates - equals 2 per position.
Please post how you figure 3.
>
>In grade school, perhaps instead of listening to Harry Browne lie
>about Love Canal, you should have been practicing your math.
If you understood math you would read your post - and then apologize
or just leave.
<rest of drivel deleted - I'm bored with this fool tonight.>
........
N' keep it in yer mind and not fergit
That it is not he or she or them or it
That you belong to.
Bob Dylan
...........
www.libertarian.on.ca
..................