UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
exactly, you're a republican and you vote for republicans.
Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
Registered independent.
Voted independent last presidential election.
Voted democrat, republican, and independent for the rest of the ballot.
You don't know me. You never will.
Voted independent last presidential election.
Voted democrat, republican, and independent for the rest of the ballot.
You don't know me. You never will.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Lol.
As for you being a dipshit and insisting that I said something that I never said, let's not move on. It was worth insisting until you realized you're a dipshit, but now you want to pretend you're not, while hoping to be taken seriously.
Seriously, you're not a libertarian if you worship the constitution as holy writ you fucking statist.
First off, no. The Koch brothers and other American libertarians love funding "science". What you call libertarian is actually liberal so you are correct by accident.
As for you being a dipshit and insisting that I said something that I never said, let's not move on. It was worth insisting until you realized you're a dipshit, but now you want to pretend you're not, while hoping to be taken seriously.
Seriously, you're not a libertarian if you worship the constitution as holy writ you fucking statist.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The word libertarian feels violated.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Wow, so we are going to take that tone then.
So you are trying to argue that I'm wrong which would mean the Koch brothers are NOT funding for political reasons, that's just asinine.Just like when Soros funds "science" it's for political reasons and comes with bias attached. There is no difference in the practice, not sure why you can't grasp that.
What I call libertarian is actually considered classical liberal now, what's classified as liberal today is nothing like libertarian, but you have your definitions, the rest of the world has theirs.
Moving on, but go back and read the convo, we were talking about the last election and you made your RP comment when libertarian voting was being discussed. Normal people would think you meant RP was the L vote in the last election, since that's what the convo was obviously about. You know, since that's exactly what was said.
I'm a statist by your definition only. To everyone else educated by humans, we call it a federalist. A statist is what the central planners are.
You get really pissy when you can't make an intelligent argument don't ya.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
shouldn't you be gone for the next month?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It can be said there are two kinds of people. Those that want to run others lives and those that don't want to run others lives.
Democrats and Republicans are just phenotypes of the first kind. Have a great day.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You have linked two possible separate things there. Do you have a pet Catdog?
A person could oppose a government instituted edict which lessens property rights of the individual ("civil rights" ) and not be a racist.
Tell me again how a person of ANY race or gender preference can own something, yet it can be controlled by others. How does that work, Mr. Gov't. Boot Licker?
When you jump to conclusions that people are racist based on your world view, you reveal your inability to use abstract thinking. That means you're not very smart. The fact that you deny some people the right to "own" their own property makes you a prohibitionist too. Now go wack off to your Jesse Jackson posters.
Last edited:
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I think it's more dishonesty and just plain bullying. The squeaky wheel tends to get the grease, and sometimes it's easier to give the toddler another cookie to shut him up. The tactic worked well for the first few years of this admin, but people stopped falling for it, most people with above imbecile level intelligence anyway, years ago.
It's actually reached it's saturation point. We've all seen the idiots hang themselves when given enough rope. They are left screaming and pointing and it's falling on deaf ears. Most people see those idiots for what they are. I've stopped acknowledging the court jester and it's entertaining to watch how bad they strive for the attention.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Tell me how you can own land with out the existence of a government.
Rak on Tur'
Active Member
At the end of the day, does it really matter? The Koch brothers, Soros, Buffet, ect can care less about you and your freedoms.
I tend to be a pretty conservative guy and have always had the live and let live mindset. There are some real boneheads that are conservative, but I've noticed that you will find them in any political ideology. While people argue back and forth about what side is worse, the politicians of every stripe sell us out.
I tend to be a pretty conservative guy and have always had the live and let live mindset. There are some real boneheads that are conservative, but I've noticed that you will find them in any political ideology. While people argue back and forth about what side is worse, the politicians of every stripe sell us out.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
tell us again how you oppose civil rights but are not racist, fine gents.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
anyone can own land if there is no government, all you have to do is claim it, defend it from the Anarcho-_______________ist hordes, and make it stick.
thats how Ur of the Chaldees was founded, thats how Babylon was founded, thats how Rome was founded, thats how EVERY civilization was founded.
owning territory requires co-operation, then, once you reach a certain point, co-operation requires leadership, and leadership eventually evolves into government.
you keep putting the cart before the horse, and pretending "government" created civilization, when the reverse is true.
civilization creates government, sometimes to it's own regret, but your "philosophy" destroys civilization and will result in the rise of petty warlords, bandit gangs, and mindless brutal dictatorships, like we see in mexico.
just to clarify:
Petty Warlords: the zapatistas, drug gangs, corrupt government officials, the PRI and the mexican federal govt controlled by 7 wealthy families.
Bandit Gangs: the zapatistas, drug gangs, corrupt government officials, the PRI and the mexican federal govt controlled by 7 wealthy families.
Mindless Brutal Dictatorships: the zapatistas, drug gangs, corrupt government officials, the PRI and the mexican federal govt controlled by 7 wealthy families.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
When you claim a piece of land and defend it, you are doing what states do.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yes.
thats also what small tribes did, when they discovered agriculture and animal husbandry.
applying the imagined pejorative "State" to any action does not transform that action into evil.
had small tribes not settled, raised livestock, and tilled the land, you would not be able to become an anti-civilization Anarcho-Libertarian Crypto-Marxist Zapatista today.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
even infirm brokedicks who still live with their mamas?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Governments exist to serve the ruling class and protect private property.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
governments exist to facilitate co-operation in a society, which includes settling disputes between members of that society, which often involves Property.
repeating that silly slogan doesnt make it true.
heres something that IS true though:
The Zapatistas are Authoritarian Marxists