[BUNDY BROS] CALL TO ARMS / MILTIA EVENT / GO-BAG

-SS- said:
Once you figure out that Libertarians are for maximum liberties and freedom and that governmental powers belong to the States and not the Fed, you might see the folly of your post.
Click to expand...
The Pauls aren't for maximum liberties and freedom, they just believe the Federal government should have less control over defining marriage or the legalization of drugs. They're perfectly content with keeping such things illegal in certain states, because they aren't Libertarians.

If you agree with them then you're not a Libertarian either. They support state's rights and not the rights of the individual, like most of the Tea Party buffoons.
 
Vanster said:
Do libertarians reject any and all governmental protection for intellectual property?
Click to expand...

If you actually understood property Rights, you wouldn't have to ask that question. :D

You leftists are a riot -you think Libertarianism is just a nice word for anarchism. Not very educated I see.

Anyway, LouCy, you are more than welcome to back your fallacious claims. It really displays how little you actually understand the philosophy. States Rights are an extension of Individual Rights in the capacity as a night watchman. I'll educate you more: minarchism.
 
-SS- said:
Anyway, LouCy, you are more than welcome to back your fallacious claims. It really displays how little you actually understand the philosophy. States Rights are an extension of Individual Rights in the capacity as a night watchman. I'll educate you more: minarchism.
Click to expand...
How can you claim to be a Libertarian and say the states have the right to define marriage? How can you claim to be a Libertarian and think states should determine the legal status of marijuana?

States Rights have nothing to do with the individual, they're just another form of government using the will of a majority to enforce their beliefs on the whole.
 
it makes more sense for states to individually legislate themselves vs. the federal government.

if states can individually represent their people, their people's needs and wants will be better represented.

a liberal state can pursue a liberal agenda and a conservative state can remain conservative.

the federal government should be the states' representative at the international level.
 
LouCypher said:
How can you claim to be a Libertarian and say the states have the right to define marriage? How can you claim to be a Libertarian and think states should determine the legal status of marijuana?

States Rights have nothing to do with the individual, they're just another form of government using the will of a majority to enforce their beliefs on the whole.
Click to expand...

People who support state's rights do so because they know their backwards redneck views wouldn't fly on a national scale.

What's funny is the states take away way more rights and have more ridiculous laws on the books.

But hey... 2nd amendment, apple pie, cousin sex and hee haw...
 
If you believe that growing the Federal Government in either size or influence is a conduit to more freedom and liberty you are either mentally retarded or so dishonest that a rational conversation is not possible.

War on Drugs...War on Terrorism....To Patriot Act/NDAA/NSA

Pick your poison and keep drinking it
 
And my issue with LouCy calling himself a Libertarian is the same issue I have with Obama calling himself a Constitutional scholar

Barack Obama's Poor Understanding of the Constitution

Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
Click to expand...

Negative liberties...negative externalities....this idea that the government shouldn't be set up in a manner and with a doctrine to leave you alone (bill of rights)...but that they must and should intervene on behalf of your best interests (as defined by whom?)

That you are owed something from them
That you are entitled
That what they want for you superceeds even your own beliefs and wishes.

Sorry... but that is the inverse of liberty folks
 
Last edited:
C.S. Lewis said:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Click to expand...

And that's all that needs to be said
 
Captain Tele said:
And my issue with LouCy calling himself a Libertarian
Click to expand...
Why would you have an "issue" with what I call myself?

- Calling myself a Libertarian has no impact on your life.
- Supporting the Libertarian party, if you truly consider yourself a Libertarian, is an increase in support for an ideology you believe in, regardless of your personal judgement of my legitimacy as a Libertarian.

In short, you're worrying over something that has no effect on you, and taking offense with my disagreement in your beliefs. That's pretty much the opposite of a Libertarian.
 
For his next trick

Watch LouCy Lou jump through a ring of fire

Come one come all

Because despite all that content he avoided all of it, completely, thoroughly, deceptively and went back to excuse making and pulling himself another victim card

Good go to ... very impressed

Rinse and repeat all thread

Call yourself a flying brony pony from the candy cane forrest I don't care...just pointing out that it is no less irrational than how you see yourself

My pointing out how dumb you are, how hypocritical your views are, isn't infringing on your liberties dummy. But nice try...you still have every right to be so daft
 
Last edited:
Captain Tele said:
Because despite all that content he avoided all of it, completely, thoroughly, deceptively and went back to excuse making and pulling himself another victim card
Click to expand...
What "content"? You making arguments based on the false assumptions of what I support or stand for?

I don't feel obligated to defend a position I never took, or to wear your labels that don't apply to me. If ignoring it is "avoiding" it, then you got me.
 
I am going to mail them a big box full of farts I have collected

That way they open it. Realize it is empty....get sad

Then bam....right in the kisser

Get them fuckers good u know?

Yuck yuck yuck
 
LouCypher said:
What "content"? You making arguments based on the false assumptions of what I support or stand for?

I don't feel obligated to defend a position I never took, or to wear your labels that don't apply to me. If ignoring it is "avoiding" it, then you got me.
Click to expand...

Jesus it is like a wall of dumb and dishonest

Do I really need to quote you being completely against "for profit" health care, education, prisons etc?

And using that as a reason to grow the Federal Government for UHC...et all etc

I mean it is my fault. I presume you know what you say and stand for as I make fun of you

When in reality you shape shift and distort like someone trying to hammer a sludge filled slug to the wall
 
LouCypher said:
I do, what about you?

What choice do you have in a system you can't opt-out of where every aspect of that system is owned or operated by a for-profit institution or company?

Student loans are the #1 source of debt in this country. Healthcare costs bankrupt people. Private prison companies lobby for mandatory sentencing and tougher laws to keep their beds full.

Keep thinking Capitalism gives you choice in these industries, because it doesn't. There is no opt-out.
Click to expand...

LOL

Maybe I just make you argue against yourself like ICFire
 
Captain Tele said:
Do I really need to quote you being completely against "for profit" health care, education, prisons etc?
Click to expand...
I've always said that.
Captain Tele said:
And using that as a reason to grow the Federal Government for UHC...et all etc
Click to expand...
Here's where you're making assumptions.

You think that because I would socialize health care, education, and the prisons, keeping for-profit companies out of those industries, that I would oppose any reduction in the powers of government. You have no basis for that argument. The net effect of shrinking government in other areas while expanding access to those services increases freedoms and liberty for citizens, both socially and economically, while resulting in smaller government overall.

Read this for a pretty good summation of why I oppose privatization or the involvement of for-profit entities in these industries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top