Why did that nice girl Emma get banned?
Your IP address gives you away, Emma.
Burn her!
er, I mean BAN her! Ban her again!!!
oh you've already done so. I thank you.
lol bri
be good emma
I'd like you to come back if you could restrain yourself.
don't be all angry angst y and acting out
go punch your pillow or something
and have a good heart to heart talk with yourself
Who's Emma and how did i miss all the fun?:rolleyes:
Burn her!
.
YES!!!! even if the manc tart doesn't agree! [COLOR="White"]it's a joke dani, relax. you know i loves ur commie arse.[/COLOR]
Maybe we could just burn her a little? Like a cigarette burn or something.
Who's Emma and how did i miss all the fun?:rolleyes:
:D
Maybe we could just burn her a little? Like a cigarette burn or something.
While forcing her to listen to an endless stream of pro-labor and anti-war songs from the 60s.
:band:
Redux you sadist.
Lock her under the stairs and don't let her out until she can sing Blowin In The Wind and The Times They Are A Changin.
What, with all the spiders?
Maybe we could just burn her a little? Like a cigarette burn or something.
Now I'm starting to get all excited...
What, with all the spiders?
If you can teach the spiders to sing, more power to you.
I can barely get them to do the dishes.
What, with all the spiders?
And Harry Potter. Which would be worse?
But you can make Harry Potter sing.
Or do the washing up.
Or anything you please.
Just get Sheldon to grab Harry's wand...
...or ride his broomstick.
If you can teach the spiders to sing, more power to you.
I can barely get them to do the dishes.
Don't bother. Spiders can't sing worth crap anyway.
Try some Beatles.
Don't bother. Spiders can't sing worth crap anyway.
Yes, but I understand they're
extremely flatulent. :D
Don't bother. Spiders can't sing worth crap anyway.
Rubbish!
They can't manage close harmony (for a decent Simon & Garfunkel song you gotta go with woodlice).
But get them set on Queen's
We Will Rock You, and you'll be blown away. I cite Cupcake Brown's book as evidence.
Yes, but I understand they're extremely flatulent. :D
But how harmful could a spider fart actually be?:rolleyes:
The smeller's the feller. You tell me! :D
Don't bother. Spiders can't sing worth crap anyway.
Don't tell Ziggy.
But you can make Harry Potter sing.
Or do the washing up.
Or anything you please.
Just get Sheldon to grab Harry's wand...
I'm more of a Ron Weasley fan. Potter's crack. Gingers snap.
;)
:lol2: C'mon Sheldon, at least blush when you do that.
He is blushing, you're just looking at the wrong cheeks....
Hehee, he said "penetrating".
After careful consideration and a soul searching walk to dust in the wind. I think this emma person is Alex Jones drinking cough syrup and posting.
[COLOR="White"] Alex Jones was an arbitrary choice and came up when a search for crazy right wing host and he can up first.
Texas law forbids anyone to have a pair of pliers in his possession. This is wrong it is just on person not general possession. [/COLOR]
Alex Jones is hysterical. Whoever said he was right-wing is quite wrong--he's hardcore libertarian with a massive dose of conspiracy nutjob thrown in. He's very entertaining.
Well it was either Jones or Glen Beck
Alex Jones is hysterical. Whoever said he was right-wing is quite wrong--he's hardcore libertarian with a massive dose of conspiracy nutjob thrown in. He's very entertaining.
He's just a nutjob. Don't say he's a libertarian. We libertarians don't want him either, just like we don't want other psychotic people who lie about being libertarians, like UG.
Mainstream news sources have referred to him as right-wing...
Jones identifies as a libertarian, not a right-winger, and calls himself a paleoconservative. In a promotional biography he is described as an "aggressive constitutionalist".
Link
Too late radar - you gotta keep him. No one else wants him.
It doesn't matter. There are a lot of people out there claiming to be libertarians who actually aren't. Bill Maher, UG, Alex Jones, Bob Barr, Larry Elder, etc.
We don't want him either. I hope the teabaggers make their own party so he can join it.
I can't say that I have ever heard Larry Elder claim he is a libertarian. Anyone have proof of that?
He called himself a libertarian for years, and then he started calling himself a "Republitarian". I'll find a quote for you.
So he puts the books back on the shelves.
I'm not quite sure I understand the problem...
[COLOR=White]3636[/COLOR]
I can't say that I have ever heard Larry Elder claim he is a libertarian. Anyone have proof of that?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder051503.aspPeople really get banned from here?
Wow... that's almost hard to believe. I've been here three years and I don't think I've seen an angry, mean, rotten, bad, trolling, ninkumpoop [SIZE="1"](sp?) [/SIZE]yet.
Of course, I'm not the big ol' post prostitute that almost everyone else is here :).
I think y'all should model yourselves after me you know. Then everyone would get along. Might take a little while to get an answer or response, but that does have it's benefits (if you look at it in a positive constructive manner).
......................................................
Sooo[SIZE="1"]ooo[/SIZE]... Who was Emma? Was she cute? Have big boobs or anything?
Anybody get her email address?
Darn... I missed a chance to emulate the Tiger. :sniff:
People really get banned from here?
Wow... that's almost hard to believe. I've been here three years and I don't think I've seen an angry, mean, rotten, bad, trolling, ninkumpoop [SIZE="1"](sp?) [/SIZE]yet.
Of course, I'm not the big ol' post prostitute that almost everyone else is here :).
I think y'all should model yourselves after me you know. Then everyone would get along. Might take a little while to get an answer or response, but that does have it's benefits (if you look at it in a positive constructive manner).
......................................................
Sooo[SIZE="1"]ooo[/SIZE]... Who was Emma? Was she cute? Have big boobs or anything?
Anybody get her email address?
Darn... I missed a chance to emulate the Tiger. :sniff:
Her old threads are still around if you want to look at why she got banded and she is on other boards as well.
Don't worry you will get another chance to emulate me.
it's only a temp ban. And she's underage, so I wouldn't speculate about teh bewbies on a public forum if i were you....
Your IP address gives you away, Emma.
I haven't been here in a few months...what's was the problem? I thought it was damn near impossible to get banned from Dwellerrtown.
Almost. It takes a special effort combined with special circumstances.
She's not banned anyway, she's suspended.
It's been proven she has real life issues and hits up every forum she finds for attention.
We welcome real people. Deliberate trolling (aka whoring for those over the age of consent) is counter-productive to the community.
So, you're back, eh?
Thought you despised us? You requested permabanning after all. And as Datalyss you said we thought you were a paedo (on another site.)
Gonna play nice this time?
I think was pretty accepting of you before you went fruitloop.
Now I just wonder why you're here if we're so terrible.
To be fair, we did think he was a paedo :P
WHAT?! I though he got kicked for being a Podo, into feet.
[COLOR="White"]which isn't as good as meters but better than rods[/COLOR]
Are you forgetting Draxalyss is a she>he vacillating transexual? s/he requested permaboning because Tony refused to keep letting it change it's user name.
it? not very PC of you to call a trans an "it".
What is the correct second person pronoun for a trans/pan gender individual, and what personal pronoun should we be using for Datalyss
For those who have changed gender, it is PC to use the term for the gender they have changed to or identify with. If they don't wish to identify with either of the conventional genders, I think they get to choose. If they won't choose, just call them faggot. :bolt:
It is also PC to refer to the gender they are presenting, whether or not you're fooled. I've seen guys the size of linebackers in a dress, beards and all, who want to be called 'she'. I stumble over it a bit, but I do it because it makes them feel better and really costs me nothing more than a lie to myself.
If you're not sure, ask. If they won't choose, the grammatically correct answer is to use the masculine.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder051503.asp
On the other hand, most Libertarians opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a position I find increasingly naive and simplistic in a world of mobile biological labs and radiological bombs capable of being carried in suitcases by our nation's enemies.
So, after much soul-searching, on Friday, May 9, 2003, I filed to change my voter registration to the Republican Party.
Make no mistake: My libertarian principles remain unchanged. But as writer Midge Decter once said, "There comes a time to join the side you're on." Count me in.
He does not say he is a Libertarian, he says he shares some of their principles, he does say that he is a Republickin though...
I guess "shim" would be out then - eh?
He does not say he is a Libertarian, he says he shares some of their principles, he does say that he is a Republickin though...
He was a registered Libertarian and called himself a libertarian, but because of his non-libertarian stance on the 2 unconstitutional wars he shares with other non-libertarians like UG, he changed his registration and party affiliation in May of 2003. At least he admits he's not a libertarian. He doesn't support unconstitutional wars of aggression and claim to be a libertarian like a gutless, lying, scumbag.
Pelosi is a Libertarian?
:lol:
He was a registered Libertarian and called himself a libertarian......he changed his registration and party affiliation in May of 2003.
No where in your link did it say that. He merely quoted Milton Friedman. It did state this:
My disillusionment with the GOP caused me to register as "Decline to State," which, in California, means independent.
Merc, Larry Elder described himself as a libertarian for years. He didn't say he was a member of the party, but he was a registered libertarian until 2003.
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/larry-elder.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/12015
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Larry-Elder
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-18540904.html
http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder/the-media-s-spin-on-greenspan.html
Notice how all of these say he describes himself as a libertarian. I guess everyone is lying right? It's a huge conspiracy to make everyone think Larry Elder calls himself, or at least used to call himself a libertarian. The good news is more and more radio talk shows are finding themselves without a venue as radio stations are closing them down. The good news is Larry Elder isn't on the radio anymore and Lou Dobbs isn't on television, and things aren't looking good for Glenn Beck since a lot of his sponsors dropped him. But unfortunately the bad news is good talk radio like Adam Carolla, and Tom Leykis are off the air too.
I was only commenting on the one article you posted.
I'd get you a clip of him saying it, but his show isn't on anymore so I don't really know where I could find one.
You can hear a good hour a day of Adam Carolla with the
Adam Carolla podcast.
I already listen to that podcast every day. It's shorter, but even more entertaining than his radio show was. I was actually listening to it when I read your post. Good call UT.
If you want to hear a couple of other REALLY interesting and entertaining podcasts with high quality production, I highly recommend you check out Dan Carlin.
HARDCORE HISTORY - This is a really great show about different periods in history and he goes into great detail about how people must have felt, and it does a great job of putting things in accurate historical context.
COMMON SENSE - This is a politics show where he talks about current events and his views on the roots of problems and common sense solutions. He doesn't claim to be libertarian, but he is very libertarian leaning.
Of the two, the history show has really high production value and is probably more entertaining, but there are fewer shows because it takes longer to make the shows.
I guess "shim" would be out then - eh?
Yes, I'm afraid so. You no-good, ugly,.....awww a cuuuuuttte dawgie!
;)
Brian
Don't say he's a libertarian. We libertarians don't want him either, just like we don't want other psychotic people who lie about being libertarians, like UG.
We all know which of us is the psychotic, Radar, and I enter the bulk of your recent posts to me as evidence of a disordered mind. I enter all of my recent posts replying to you as evidence of a well-ordered one. The verdict's on my side, amigo.
Being hostile to conflict with and subsequent impairment of totalitarian or autocratic or less-than-democratic regimes is NOT a libertarian-type idea, but an immoral pro-totalitarian one -- and what libertarian would be pro-totalitarian? This fundamental truth you avoid, Radar, but I do not. This is because I'm your moral superior, after all. My mind isn't all clabbered up with worshiping my Self.
So: I do not lie about being a small-L libertarian, such as Larry Elder has repeatedly described himself, and you always lie about whether I am one, being the narcissistic belittler you are, and a villain thereby, with no libertarian instinct anywhere in you. Larry's thinking has had some influence on mine; Radar's thinking never has. He can't back any of his arguments or assertions and then is dumb enough to think we don't figure out he's trying to win by bullying. No, Radar, you shall ever lose, because you lack even the smallest of people skills -- if you had them, surely you'd turn on the charm.
But charming is not a word anyone would apply to Radar. Probably not to [] either.
Radar has recently requested removal of his real name from several high-scoring Google posts as he is seeking employment in IT. I have edited UG's post to remove the name.
Another feeble attempt to suggest that starting unprovoked wars against other nations who haven't embraced democracy is somehow not a violation of the core libertarian philosophy...the non-aggression principle.
Choosing to oppose your desire to misuse the military in violation of our Constitution and in violation of the libertarian principles of our founders is not the support of totalitarianism. To attack these nations for no other reason that the fact that their government is not a democratic one is a gross violation of the Constitution and of libertarian beliefs. One cannot support this kind of action and be a libertarian at the same time any more than one can eat rare steak and be a vegetarian at the same time. For that mater one cannot be a decent American citizen or uphold the oath taken by anyone in the military and support that kind of action either.
If a foreign government is a totalitarian one, and I don't support sending our military to start unprovoked violence against them, it does nothing to indicate any support of the totalitarian government. It solidifies my resolve as a libertarian and a good American by sticking to our Constitution and to the core principles of libertarianism to wish freedom and liberty for them, and hope that they win it for themselves. Those who contradict the libertarianism and correct meaning of the Constitution in this statement are liars, idiots, or both.
As usual, UG is just repeating the same crap that I've destroyed a thousand times already. The Constitution is on my side. Libertarian philosophy is on my side. Common sense is on my side, and unlike UG, sanity is also on my side. I've backed each and every word I've ever said with accurate historical records, links to reputable sources, quoting the Constitution, and a few things UG lacks like intelligence, education, reason, logic, character, honesty, courage, strength, and strong moral fiber. I've never avoided a single issue or failed to address any valid points of UG because he has yet to make a single valid point in any of our discussions. I've never lost a single debate to UG, and it's not likely I ever will.
Every time he make his hollow claims of being a libertarian, I will be there to stomp him into the ground as I have for years and prove that he is not and to show everyone how utterly stupid and insane he really is.
Oh, and UG, the verdict of any psychiatrist on earth about which of us is sane and stable would put me miles ahead of you. I doubt there's a single person in the Cellar who would say any different other than you. There are zero actual libertarians who would say you are one. It's no wonder you like Larry Elder. Neither of you are libertarians.
I reckon you're both at least half nuts. Should we do a poll?
Radar has recently requested removal of his real name from several high-scoring Google posts as he is seeking employment in IT. I have edited UG's post to remove the name.
You're a good guy.
yes to Zen and absolutely agree with glatt!
People really get banned from here?
Most of the time it happens quietly behind the scenes. UT, Bruce, and I are kind of like The Shadow.
Mainly it's spammers. Every now and again someone behaves so badly that they cross the line into insufferably annoying, which is the most heinous of the three banning criteria here.
I reckon you're both at least half nuts. Should we do a poll?
Radar = Cashew
UG = Dog testical
Thanks....I think. At least you picked a good nut. ;)
Cashew, Pistachio, Almond, and Macadamia are all good.
They are two sides of the same coin. Fun to read their interactions.
None of what you claim you've done have you done, Radar. Pretend to have destroyed me all you want if that is what your decaying mind wants to hypnotize itself into believing; I think I'll forego that entertainment.
If his name ought to be edited out that's well enough.
Third party politics often degenerate in this direction -- yelling over who's the purer. I have never thought that pure Libertarianism would actually go anywhere, so I seek some blend of things that would. Radar's perspective is too narrow -- it's isolationist, and there is no point to isolationism. Libertarianism ought to go global in order to benefit those places that need it most. Without exception, these are undemocratic places, primarily run by oligarchies, who will resort immediately to aggression to retain a primacy that likely they should not have. There is essentially no concern about "initiating aggression" therefore. It is also impossibly poor strategy to allow the slavemongers the first blow. What do you do then, sacrifice your initial agents of change in the name of a principle that is too idealistically framed?
Yeah, right, like that would promote or promulgate libertarianism. We humans can be a pretty damned beastly lot, and none of us want to be lambs to the slaughter. Radar is certainly in no hurry to offer himself.
Nor am I. Slay the goons working for the slavemakers instead, disrupt and slay the slavemakers too, and do it too efficiently for them to catch up. There's also the rest of it, as libertarianism doesn't take hold until enough people there want it. This "don't initiate aggression" principle is one designed to keep libertarianism a parlor game, not a political movement; a debating society, not a responsible administration. It is sabotage.
My position is neither narrow, nor isolationist. Don't confuse military non-interventionism with isolationism. They are entirely different. I support trading with other nations, establishing non-aggression treaties, and even working together to boycott nations with poor human rights records. This is far from isolationism.
I just do not support using the U.S. Military to defend any nation but our own or to win freedom for any people but our own. I wish freedom, liberty, prosperity and security for all, but not if it requires endangering or spilling the blood of a single American soldier.
Libertarianism should go global, and the best way to do that is by example. One of the two core beliefs of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. It means the only valid use of force is in your own defense. Libertarianism isn't to be forced onto anyone. That is like raping girls to preserve chastity.
If you feel strongly about helping those in other nations to win freedom for themselves, you should be allowed to give your time, money, weapons, and even yourself to do it, but you should never use the DEFENSIVE U.S. Military to attack any nation that has not attacked our own...PERIOD.
Why does the statue of liberty hold a torch? To being a shining example of freedom that other nations can emulate. She's not holding a rifle. Our founders thought we should be like a lighthouse to lead others toward freedom, but never to become involved in tangling alliances or force our views onto others.
Libertarianism in other nations is something you hope for, not kill for. To attack another nation because they don't embrace libertarian beliefs or western democracy, means you don't embrace those things either.
Freedom is to be enjoyed by those who value it enough to fight for it and to keep it. Our freedom was ours to win and to protect. If others want the kind of freedom Americans have, they must win it for themselves and work to defend it. People value what they've worked for a thousand times more than something that was handed to them, and the blood of American soldiers should never be spilled unless it is in our own nation's defense and there is no other way to avoid bloodshed.
The non-aggression principle isn't a parlor game. It's the core belief of libertarianism. It's one of the two defining characteristics of libertarianism. For instance, two defining characteristics of a Christian include A) The belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God and B) Jesus died and was resurrected 3 days later to absolve all sinners who accept him as their savior of their sin and allow them into heaven.
If you only believe one of these but not the other, you are not a Christian, by definition. Christianity has more than 2 defining characteristics, but if you aren't retarded, you get the point.
One cannot be a libertarian without accepting BOTH of the 2 core principles of libertarianism. If you believe in one, but not the other, you aren't a libertarian.
1) Self-Ownership - We own ourselves and the contents of our body and we hold sole-dominion over our body. No other organism, person, or group of people regardless of their number has any claim to our body, our labor, the fruits of our labor, etc. Nobody has the right to tell us what foods or drugs we can put into our body, what consenting others we can marry or have sex with, etc.
and
2) The Non-Aggression Principle - The only justifiable use of force is for your own defense. It is NEVER ok to initiate force against others, especially for political gain or social engineering.
Those who would invade other countries to force them into western democracy don't believe in either of these principles. They believe that we have more of a claim to other people than they have for themselves so it's up to us to decide what form of government they should have, and what laws they should live under. They also think unprovoked violence is ok to obtain the political and social changes they want in other nations.
In other words, no matter what they say, they are not libertarians. They are no more libertarians than someone who eats meat is a vegetarian. They no more qualify as being a libertarian than someone who doesn't believe that Jesus is the son of god qualifies as being a Christian.
It's a clear cut, black and white, irrefutable, undeniable, absolute truth.
No one is expecting to "force Western democracy" on anyone, Radar. The force part of the scenario, as I never tire of repeating so eventually even one so blockheaded as yourself will be unable to deny, is there to remove the antilibertarian forces -- which make no mistake will be in play. They should be anticipated, and neutralized. It matters damned little except in dollars and cents how much effort or forcibleness the neutralization requires.
The "don't force Western democracy" is a leftist-liberal trope, anyway, Radar. Heck, it is remarkable how much an alleged Libertarian sounds just like a blame-America-first leftist Democrat -- not enough faith in the goodness of democracy which had to originate somewhere, north, south, east, or west. Too lame.
Your position is narrow because it is confined within the borders of the United States, Radar. That's too small, particularly for me. It is isolationist because, well, the US paradigm is, reversing the British Empire dictum, "Trade follows the flag," "The flag, when necessary, follows trade." On numerous occasions when banana-republic autocrats have trespassed upon American business' property rights within their nations, it has been found necessary. Until autocracy is banished from the globe, there is not much prospect that it will ever become unnecessary. Your position resembles old-fashioned American isolationism in another particular in that neither those old grumps nor you aimed to cut off trade. Even the worst policymaking gaffe in the protectionist Smoot-Hawley tariffs was only aimed at rejiggering trade, not at ending it altogether.
Example, hah? [SIZE="5"]Just what effin' example -- and where?[/SIZE] Yep, that's what I thought. No "example" can be found. The LP isn't even trying missionaries. You are banking upon a zero, but I am unhappy with the results so far of this banking upon an absence. Out upon this "example" blithering.
The US military, happily, is not Constitutionally defensive, and you shall not and cannot make it so. When will you learn I will not hear that unfounded idea? Sometime in the Third Millenium? You adduce no proof, so you can only become offensive. How's that working for you in the debate, eh? Honestly, your inability to learn anything suggests a two-digit-only IQ, jiving with the way your personality forces your ratiocination down. If the US military is defensive, then tyranny wins. Tyranny, I say, must not win. You, contrariwise, care nothing about that. This is not the mentality of an intelligent man, but of a brute.
So, being acquainted with you for some time now, I conclude that you have absolutely no business in politics whatsoever. You may have talent in IT; stick to your last. Mankind -- about mankind you know less than you do of the Constitution.
1. "Anti-libertarian forces" is a euphemism for the military of nations do not accept western democracy or libertarianism. We have absolutely no legitimate reason or authority to attack such a force if it is running a country in a non-libertarian way.
2. The authority of the U.S. Government ends at our own borders. That is as wide as our position can legitimately be. No other sovereign nation on earth requires the permission of the United States, or the UN to run their country in any way they want whether it's Sharia law, a Monarchy, a Fascist Dictator, or a Communist totalitarian government. Nor do they require the permission of the U.S. or the U.N. to develop any weapons they choose.
3. Free nations have no authority or mandate to "liberate" nations that are not free, and nations that do embrace libertarianism do not EVER practice pre-emptive military action because it is not defensive force.
4. One does not need to sign a mutual military defense treaty, especially with nations that have no military to speak of, in order to have free trade with them. That's an absurd notion without an ounce of reality to back it up. We traded with virtually every nation on earth before WWI, and we had very few military treaties with anyone at the time.
5. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, and the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution defines the role and scope of the U.S. Military as being for the "common DEFENSE" of America. This means we have a DEFENSIVE military and anyone who denies this is a liar. This irrefutable, indisputable, undeniable, and 100% factual statement won't stop being the truth because you refuse to hear it. Article 1, section 8 also limits war making powers to being reserved for Congress alone and this power is granted to Congress in order to carry out the "common DEFENSE" of "we the people of the USA". Congress is given the power to make a formal declaration of war in order to make a defensive war. Congress is not given the power to grant this power to the President. This could only be done legally through an amendment.
The U.S. Military is Constitutionally a DEFENSIVE one because only when our military is limited to the DEFENSE of our own country, does freedom, liberty, justice, and libertarianism win. When it is used for anything other than our own defense, freedom loses and tyranny wins.
Because I know you better than you will ever know me, or even know yourself, I've accurately assessed that you are absolutely clueless about politics, history, logic, science, debate, geography, the U.S. Constitution, human nature, morality, psychology, the role and scope of the U.S. Military, and generally everything else. This is why I'm compelled to refute the never-ending stream of lies that you pollute this board with. I set you straight and shut you down each and every single time. You've failed to ever beat me in any debate on any subject at any time in the history of your time trolling this board, but your dishonesty, inflated ego, and stupidity prevent you from admitting it.
My positions aren't leftist. They are libertarian, but you're so polarized into the neocon, war-mongering, anti-libertarian stance, everyone is a leftist in comparison.
The U.S. Military is not here to defend any nation but our own or enforce UN resolutions. It's not here for humanitarian aid or peacekeeping missions. It's not here to overthrow dictators or to prop them up. It's not here to spread democracy or to overthrow it. It's not here to prevent other nations from developing nukes or any other weapons they want. It's not here to stop the flow of drugs from other nations or to protect U.S. "interests" abroad. It's not here to train the military of other nations or nation building. It's not here to cover the earth like the Roman empire or bully other nations or be the police of the world. It's not here to secure sources of oil. It's not here to take part in every petty dispute among other nations. It's not here to do anything other than defending our own country when we attacked. Attacking someone who MIGHT have weapons that they MIGHT use at some point in the future IS NOT DEFENSE.
You refuse to acknowledge the word DEFENSE in the Constitution even though it was listed twice as a way of limiting the scope and role of the military, yet you somehow think "police of the world" or "champion of global freedom" are in it when this flies right in the face of everything the founders said.
The founders didn't even want to have a standing army. They correctly saw it as a threat to our own freedom and knew idiots would see a large military and want to find ways to use it or to stick our nose where it doesn't belong.
Military non-interventionism IS NOT isolationism, but is one of the platforms of the Libertarian Party and a core belief of libertarian philosophy. This is why despite all of your empty claims, you are nowhere near being a libertarian. You ignore the most basic core principle of libertarianism. In order to join the Libertarian Party you have to sign a pledge that says you adhere to the non-aggression principle.
Claiming to be a libertarian who doesn't adhere to the non-aggression principle is like claiming to be a vegetarian who eats meat. Repeat it a billion times. It still won't be true.
Lastly, in your incoherent, twisted, and moronic rant, you asked for an example. An example of what? I am not in favor of protectionist policies. I'm in favor of free trade. FREE trade, not managed trade, and not any trade that requires the use of our military to defend any other nation as part of the deal.
It's almost like listening in on a deep and intimate conversation. Entertaining, yet odd. :eyebrow:
Radar & UG, sittin' in a tree... :haha:
Thanks for that visual Bruce...
:repuke:
Most of the time it happens quietly behind the scenes. UT, Bruce, and I are kind of like The Shadow.
Mainly it's spammers. Every now and again someone behaves so badly that they cross the line into insufferably annoying, which is the most heinous of the three banning criteria here.
Ooooooh. A goal for the new year.
So, uh...why did that nice girl Emma get banned?
So, uh...why did that nice girl Emma get banned?
we found out she was in mensa and, well, you know how we feel about mensa...
I swear I'm getting close to mensa: hot flashes and all that...sigh.
I thought Emma was a lot younger than I am.
I swear I'm getting close to mensa: hot flashes and all that...sigh.
I thought Emma was a lot younger than I am.
well, with all the hormones in our food these days...comes on a LOT earlier...poor kid.
I'm not sure Emma was of age for menses yet. :rolleyes:
Mensa's age limit is 18, I think...
mensa's is an annagram of assmen.
