Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Oh heck no...which is why I pointed it out! These guys are coming to virtual blows over who won the PEACE prize. What does that tell you about our chances for peace in our world? As Obama said, people have been warring in one form or another since the beginning of mankind.

Which brings us back around to trust. Dems trust Obama and Reps trusted Bush. I trust no one with that much power to make moral decisions. People somewhere will go in the meat-grinder for reasons skewed by political convenience and an over-blown sense of certitude. We give power addicts power and expect them to be responsible with it.

[ZenGum]

As Douglas Adams observed, (paraphrasing) the sort of person who wants to be in charge is exactly the sort of person who should not be allowed to be in charge.

But if it isn't them, it'd just be someone else.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

No provision in the Constitution supports any of your contentions, Radar. I read the Constitution, which says you are wrong. Were you right, you wouldn't rely on trying to make me feel bad for knowing better than you, would you now? You'd be showing me up with relevant quotations, now wouldn't you? Those have never happened, have they? Can't link to even one, IIRC.

Your intellectual bias is all about keeping America from winning fights with totalitarians, I make note. You weren't able to do anything about World Wars One or Two, so you're doing your damnedest to prop up the forces of unfreedom now. I don't have that bias, being a man of freedom in a way you never can be, owing to your personality.

Your posts exhibit your inferior scholarship and your delusive thought. Your adherence to them shows your childish inability to admit fault. Ranting does not persuade, and you haven't a hope of making me the issue, yet on and on you try, failing always. You embarrass yourself before your intellectual match, indeed before your intellectual better. I don't rant, because I am the better man. Observe, if you will or can, the excellence of my manners compared to yours, for just one place where you are bettered. I know many others are observing.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You weren't able to do anything about World Wars One or Two, so you're doing your damnedest to prop up the forces of unfreedom now.

disagrees with me == traitor

Man, you've got some serious tinfoilishness going on there, UG.

[Radar]

What else do you expect dar? He's a lying, idiotic, weasel who is immune to logic, reason, facts, accurate historical record, or even black and white excerpts from the Constitution. Facts don't matter to people as mentally unstable and delusional as UG. You can't reason with the unreasonable like UG.

I've long quoted the parts of the Constitution that prove everything I've said. The Constitution grants ONLY Congress the power to DECLARE war when it is used to carry out the goal of "common DEFENSE". It cannot make war other than through a formal declaration of war. This is the only means given to Congress to make war.

To anyone that comprehends the English language, this means the role and scope of the U.S. military is defined and limited to being for the DEFENSE of America, not offensive action against other nations that pose no harm to our own and which have not attacked ours. It also means that Congress can only make war through a declaration of war. The Constitution also describes the only way to change the Constitution...through an amendment. Which means acts of congress that contradict the Constitution such as Congress authorizing the president to make war, are blatantly unconstitutional. The power of Congress to make war is limited to being only for our defense and defense, by definition, means we only declare war on nations that attack our own. The Constitution also clearly states that the President is the commander-in-chief WHEN CALLED UPON by Congress, which means through a formal declaration of war because this is the only way the Constitution allows Congress to make war.

One might think that UG's inability to comprehend the English language might be limited to his utter disdain for the U.S. Constitution, but his disdain and selective illiteracy also applies to libertarian philosophy...which is funny since he dishonestly claims to be a libertarian.

The core belief of the libertarian philosophy is NON-AGGRESSION, which means you DO NOT initiate force against anyone who has not initiated force against you. UG likes to make self-righteous platitudes about wanting to kill others in the name of freedom and justice, and other nonsense ad nauseum, and if those people ask him for help, he should be free to volunteer to go to those places and help them on his own. But he isn't satisfied with that. He thinks he is entitled to use the U.S. Military which is defined and limited by the Constitution as being for the common DEFENSE of America, to attack nations which have not attacked ours, and which pose no danger to our own country. This is not only unlibertarian, it's unAmerican, and idiotic. It violates the principles of our founders who warned us to avoid tangling alliances and it violates common sense.

As John Quincy Adams said...

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."


As a true libertarian, I wish freedom, independence, prosperity, and happiness to all people of all nations, but would not allow the U.S. military to win it for any people of any nation but our own because it violates the Constitution and because freedom won by others does not last. When someone gives something to you, you don't value it as much as if you have earned it for yourself. In fact with opponents of freedom like UG in our midst, freedom and liberty don't last very long even when you do win it for yourself.

UG would claim that we went into Iraq to "liberate the Iraqi people" which is utter bullshit. The reasons for that blatantly unconstitutional and immoral war changed from week to week and none of them was to liberate the Iraqi people. First they said that Saddam had weapons, which he did not. But even if he did, this does not make him a threat to America. Merely owning a weapon does not make someone a threat. Using UG's pathetic and poor excuse for logic, it would be ok for me to gun someone down because I saw a bump in their pocket that MIGHT be a gun, and they MIGHT use it against me. Using his logic, I can go around killing anyone who MIGHT have the power to harm me...if at some point they decided to in the future.

UG's lack of logic, education, reason, honesty, courage, integrity, character, sanity, and moral fiber are snowballing and making him a truly sad, pathetic, and impotent little man. He's a sociopath and a moron with an inflated ego. And that's a bad combination.

[classicman]

Don't help anyone, ever - thats the libertarian way?

[Radar]

No. Don't use the military to help other people. That isn't the role of the military. If private citizens want to help, nobody should stop them. If they want to give money, food, supplies, guns, or even themselves to help people, that's fine. Just don't use the U.S. military to do it, and only do it if asked to do it. That is the libertarian way.

[TheMercenary]

Guns? I don't think that is legal under current law.

[Radar]

It should be legal. If I want to donate my guns to people in Israel to defend themselves, I should be able to do it. If you want to donate your guns to people on the other side of that conflict, you should be able to. It's your property.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

You're not going to get them out from under a autocratic/military oppressor if you don't use the military to help. You need enough force, and no political philosopher I am aware of takes the view that this somehow "isn't the role of the US military." It makes no odds morally or legally whether such oppression removal is performed by men in uniform or men in civvies -- and the men in the uniforms do have the skills kept current and the equipment to prevail. When things get violent between nation-states, those who would prevail need the organizations to do the job.

The libertarian way is Liberty, Radar. Complaining about how it's done is simply nuts. Leaving our fellow creatures under tyranny's yoke is even nuttier, for it's also an amoral thing to do.

I see you are once again monomaniacally repeating your contentions that actually doing anything in American interest with the military is somehow unconstitutional. This idea is not supported anywhere in the Constitution, which you manifestly don't want to understand, owing to narcissism. I do understand the Constitution's words. You're wrong, you can't back your idea and you never can prove it; fuck off hard, fast and far, and do it now, you anticonstitutionalist, strict-obstructionist son of a none too choosy bitch hyena with purple spots. You despise freedom because what you want, deep down, is slaves. I, for one, decline this dubious honor.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by dar512

disagrees with me == traitor

Man, you've got some serious tinfoilishness going on there, UG.

No no no, Dar. While I would now put no perfidy past this kooky pseudoexpert Radar, disagrees with me usually equals dumbshit. That ain't tinfoil -- look at the crap he has for ideas. Banging on me does not make you right or righteous, and Radar is mighty short on either. The poor fool thought Obama was the most libertarian candidate. Since Obama is doing one comprehensive job of being the anti-libertarian, you wonder what else Radar's got wrong. This guy helped to fuck my Republic over, and I resent it.

Though too, those who are unmistakably patriotic do agree with me a lot.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

disagrees with me usually equals dumbshit.

You're not helping yourself here.

[Radar]

The Libertarian way does not include using a DEFENSIVE military to start unwarranted, unprovoked, and unconstitutional attacks against other nations simply because they do not accept what YOU think libertarianism is. You have no clue what libertarianism actually is because it is based on the non-aggression principle and self-ownership/self-determination which you are clearly against.

You obviously don't think the people of other nations should be able to determine for themselves what form of government to have and you think you know better than they do what they should have.

The libertarian way is not using force other than in your own defense....PERIOD.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The military is by no means confined to a "DEFENSIVE" rôle, Radar. Never has been. The "non-aggression principle" -- one I cannot imagine you ever practicing were you ever to gain a position of responsible (or irresponsible) power -- is one designed to sabotage libertarianism's advance in the world, and keep the party a mere debating society. Such parlour exercises are not politics. Not effectual politics anyway. In the lion's share of cases, it would be moot anyway, as those places that need libertarianism most are guaranteed to order government goons in -- to commit aggression, to be sure. Okay, so they start it. So? How many casualties do you take so you can be comfortable? Where's the brains in ceding the initiative to the opposition? How about if you're one of the casualties? I don't see you volunteering for martyrdom any time soon. Your picture on Technorati says you're a little too well upholstered to be the sort to make this sacrificial sternness likely.

You, amigo, obviously think less-than-democracy is acceptable. I say, "Never!" Then I say you are no libertarian, but a fascist and fascist sympathizer, in accordance with the nature of your soul.

And in any case, there's also what Technorati's site says about you. Pretty much matches my understanding of your intellectual attainments.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by dar512

You're not helping yourself here.

Clearly you're not getting it yet, Dar.

Some intelligent people have disagreed with me intelligently. The dumbshits disagree with me more often, more vehemently, and in a case or two more madly as well. I also see a lot of intellectual dishonesty in the opposition (which I will not claim as exclusively "my" opposition).

Some people's thinking is really twisted by their ideology. For example, Redux recently chided me for calling policies I dislike "socialist." He really thought that was how I viewed the matter. He completely misses the idea that a policy's socialist features would be the very reason I disapprove! There isn't much you can do with a bright man who is being kept so silly, so not-with-it. So stupid. There, I said it. And there, I probably will keep on saying it.