Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
TribalWar Forums
Page 84 of 626

TribalWar Forums (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/index.php)
-   TWHOF (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=275)
-   -   This is for you Trump voters. (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=683482)

LouCypher 05-14-2016 19:55

If you can't reconcile "liberal" with "libertarian" then you fail to understand the definition of "liberty".

That's the problem with Republican LINOs, they think the "liberty" in "libertarian" is all about guns and letting big business do what it wants. The Paultards among you think it's okay for states to make laws restricting personal liberties (like who you marry, or if you can smoke weed), so long as it isn't the Federal government doing the stick wielding.

absent 05-14-2016 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by buize (Post 18572917)

The practical effect of jews like this Kohn loosing ******s in the 60's is tens of thousands of White women raped and White people in general robbed or murdered and without batting an eyelid they call you morally evil if you oppose this.

bam 05-14-2016 20:28

https://i.imgur.com/3tNLC7c.jpg

Captain Tele 05-14-2016 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouCypher (Post 18573200)
If you can't reconcile "liberal" with "libertarian" then you fail to understand the definition of "liberty".

LMAO

you aren't liberal in that conventional sense

Quote:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.[1][2]]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

you are none of those things above

you are a progressive.....regressiv e to the rest of us

you are to free markets what Paul Krugman is
you are to political freedom what the Fairness Doctrine has been
you are to civil liberties and the 2nd Amendment what Dianne Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg are.
you only dislike the ACA because it didn't apply enough mandated taxes and coercion upon the individual.

you are to our Republic, our rule of law, as depicted by the US Constitution, what our last few Presidents have been.

cut the word play and the bull**** already

you are a few bad trump jokes away from voting for HIll-Dawg because you feel you have to (like Vanster)

nobody but kerosene (another pseudo libertarian) is buying any of it

Captain Tele 05-14-2016 20:41

the new wave of regressive libertarianism.....brough t to you by LouCy

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...fb&oe=579F47F6

this is seriously your platform

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...dd&oe=57A46E3C

whereas this is what it should be

LouCypher 05-14-2016 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Tele (Post 18573214)
you are none of those things above

You are wrong (as usual).

But feel free to post more pictures with text proving how wrong you are.

Veniggs 05-14-2016 21:14

loucypher think he's a classic liberal

oh wait of course he is, sorry about that fat ****.

Captain Tele 05-14-2016 21:15

Lou must be thinking classic recipe KFC

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouCypher (Post 18573233)
You are wrong (as usual).

be more dishonest.....with yourself

then try again with you bull**** on TW

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouCypher (Post 18573233)
But feel free to post more pictures with text proving how wrong you are.

will do

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...45&oe=57A33269

pseudo liar libertarian, LouCy Lou

LouCypher 05-14-2016 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Tele (Post 18573221)
the new wave of regressive libertarianism.....brough t to you by LouCy

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...fb&oe=579F47F6

this is seriously your platform

Other than believing healthcare should be a government service, and not our current system of economic slavery at the behest of for-profit corporations, find a single instance where I've said socialized healthcare should pay for a sex change or an abortion.

You can't, because I haven't, because (once again) you're making up my positions on a whim to argue against something I never said.

I oppose abortion because it's a way for a woman to avoid responsibility for her actions in a manner not afforded to a man.

Gender reassignment surgery is an elective procedure and shouldn't be covered under any healthcare plan, especially one funded by tax payers.

I'm all for negative eugenics though.

LouCypher 05-14-2016 21:23

Captain Tele posts are like the timeline of every woman on Facebook.

Captain Tele 05-14-2016 21:24

yes....

free health care for all

but not for elective surgeries

as defined by you......not the stupid **** system we already have that does cover this insanity

California Is First State to Adopt Sex Reassignment Surgery Policy for Prisoners

you are as pro-choice and free market as these people.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow

these are your people.....not libertarians

LouCypher 05-14-2016 21:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Tele (Post 18573243)
free health care for all

but not for elective surgeries

as defined by you

...and just about every current insurance company.

Captain Tele 05-14-2016 21:31

you mean the ones mandated under the ACA?

Obamacare Now Pays for Gender Reassignment

+

Obamacare, states and insurers make gender reassignment surgery more accessible

LOL

U are so full of **** it is painful.

Das ship is sinking

Your boat full of S.S. Semantics is Doooooomeed

U point to private insurance to prove a failed point.....but want more gubmt insanity

so libertarian

LouCypher 05-14-2016 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Tele (Post 18573243)
you are as pro-choice and free market as these people.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow

these are your people.....not libertarians

The only person in that video that said anything I agreed with is Elisabeth Motsinger, who said "Profit motive is not something that should be interjected into public education."

LouCypher 05-14-2016 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Tele (Post 18573246)
you mean the ones mandated under the ACA?

I don't support the ACA.

Captain Tele 05-14-2016 21:40

You don't support it for the same reason most liberals no longer support it

It wasn't bungling and bureaucratic enough to be considered Universal Healthcare

It didn't go full retard

You don't want any privatization involved in it (because you dislike "Profit motive")....but now want to point to privatized insurance limitations on what are cosmetic and elective procedures

because other countries (like the ones you celebrate) do cover it

Want sex reassignment surgery in Canada? Be prepared to wait for years

Sex change ops on the NHS have trebled... since the procedure became a 'right'

try as you might you can't have it both ways

though I know you desperately want to

Just as you try to condemn religiderps while being admittedly pro-life......LMAO

LouCypher 05-14-2016 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Tele (Post 18573250)
You don't support it for the same reason most liberals no longer support it

It wasn't bungling and bureaucratic enough to be considered Universal Healthcare

I don't support it because it forces participation in a corrupt system, and fines individuals who try to opt out, while giving nothing in return.

We would be better off with a singlepayer system, coupled with addressing the costs of healthcare.

Republicans don't want a singlepayer system, but they also don't want to address the rising costs of services and medication, because doing so goes against the "free market".

Captain Tele 05-14-2016 21:47

nothing corrupt about gubmt controlled anything being your only choice


Eric Shinseki may be gone, but there are still indefensible civil service rules in place that put failing bureaucrats' job security ahead of the safety of the veterans they should be serving.


like with anything they already touch (SS, MEDICAID), education, or war on drugs, prison system, or foreign policy.....

privatization is the least of our worries in most of these areas

EDIT:

Though I do agree we are ****ed either way right now.

LouCypher 05-14-2016 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Tele (Post 18573253)
like with anything they already touch (SS, MEDICAID), education, or war on drugs, prison system, or foreign policy.....

http://i.imgur.com/E4QuNsM.png

KingSobieski 05-14-2016 22:51

Round up top doctors in 100 hospitals, ask them what are most critical operations/services, select most agreed on necessities and make those only free health services. Anything else requires privatized insurance. Promote preventative health measures, routine std and blood tests, offer free health advice and check ups (up to 1-2 times a year).

Try to run down health care costs by heading off health problems before they occur. Big issue is the american way of 'instant' in a pill cure for everything. Exercise, eat well, and keep up an active circle of relationships to stay physically n mentally healthy.

Run away health care costs is because of big pharma trying to beat the placebo effect. Drug commercials is an entirely american phenomenon to try to convince people they have a real medical condition. Shouldnt it be the doctor choosing the most appropriate medication??

Im a promoter of a common sense system, like a max lifetime cap, hit 500,000 and your public insurance runs out. No need to keep brain damaged 30yr comas going on the gov dole unless the family wants to step in.

Broken bones, back surgery, bronchitis, sciatica, oral surgery, anything that causes impairment of mechanical bodily function pertaining to limbs, internal organs, eye sight, up to x amount of money over a life time. A system that covers a 'normal pattern of life for a human adult as decided by biological needs as observed in nature and generally agreed upon by a panel of doctors as necessary to maintaining a livable quality of life'. Frequent fliers get kicked out after maxing out limit.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

Odio 05-15-2016 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouCypher (Post 18573259)

The irony in this is killing me faster than the cancer.

Captain Tele 05-15-2016 04:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouCypher (Post 18573259)

that's an adorable tribute to the alter of state.

some good statist supplicant paid proper tithing and tribute for that.

bet he prays 3-5 times a day toward mecca on Capital Hill

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dTVp5mjxT...97311041_n.jpg

the answer is dem mexicans......amiright?

Captain Tele 05-15-2016 04:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odio (Post 18573275)
The irony in this is killing me faster than the cancer.

must be the tainted water in Flint, gas leaks in CA, radiation spills in Wa, or orange rivers the EPA keeps making for us

http://politistick.com/wp-content/up...River_.000.jpg

they must make human sacrifices if the state shall remain great

your contribution in blood is not voluntary.....nor are their great ideas

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...12&oe=57E6CF61


SexxxGodSteve 05-15-2016 05:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouCypher (Post 18573247)
The only person in that video that said anything I agreed with is Elisabeth Motsinger, who said "Profit motive is not something that should be interjected into public education."

a noble goal


convince everyone on your side to stop giving excuses for spilling money into the coffers of pearson and friends via standardized tests, textbooks, etc.

Greedo909 05-15-2016 06:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouCypher (Post 18573200)
If you can't reconcile "liberal" with "libertarian" then you fail to understand the definition of "liberty".

That's the problem with Republican LINOs, they think the "liberty" in "libertarian" is all about guns and letting big business do what it wants. The Paultards among you think it's okay for states to make laws restricting personal liberties (like who you marry, or if you can smoke weed), so long as it isn't the Federal government doing the stick wielding.

As far as any conservative libertarian I know goes; promoting states rights is an issue of practical strategy, not an ends in itself. It is a way to use the already existing set of laws(as they were originally written and intended to be used in the constitution) to legally maintain or restore liberty by nullifying illegally obtained federal power.

Ron Paul(I've read several of his books) is personally for keeping the government completely out of involvement in marriage or drug use, whether its' state or federal. As a legislator though, he compromises by supporting the practical lesser of two-evils--state over federal. It's fair to point out that purists might take issue with such a compromise, but it's completely dishonest to say that he is for tyranny as long as it comes at the hands of a state.

On a side note, you seem to enjoy boasting about your libertarianism, and trying to insult and disarm anyone that is a conservative libertarian(clearly the dominant strain of libertarianism in the US) as being in the fringe. But how do you rectify your progressive statist views with the views of the Libertarian Party(basically AnCap on economics and social law, but minarchist on defense/foreign policy) who you always claim to be a big supporter of?

https://www.lp.org/platform

Validuz 05-15-2016 07:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouCypher (Post 18573259)

All of those things (besides NASA) happened without the federal government. Local people have been growing food and creating infrastructure for all of our history.

In short, you're a retard.

HumDumpin 05-15-2016 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedo909 (Post 18573314)
As far as any conservative libertarian I know goes; promoting states rights is an issue of practical strategy, not an ends in itself. It is a way to use the already existing set of laws(as they were originally written and intended to be used in the constitution) to legally maintain or restore liberty by nullifying illegally obtained federal power.

Ron Paul(I've read several of his books) is personally for keeping the government completely out of involvement in marriage or drug use, whether its' state or federal. As a legislator though, he compromises by supporting the practical lesser of two-evils--state over federal. It's fair to point out that purists might take issue with such a compromise, but it's completely dishonest to say that he is for tyranny as long as it comes at the hands of a state.

On a side note, you seem to enjoy boasting about your libertarianism, and trying to insult and disarm anyone that is a conservative libertarian(clearly the dominant strain of libertarianism in the US) as being in the fringe. But how do you rectify your progressive statist views with the views of the Libertarian Party(basically AnCap on economics and social law, but minarchist on defense/foreign policy) who you always claim to be a big supporter of?

https://www.lp.org/platform

Conservative libertarians come up so short on conserving the environment, seems like a dead end experiment from the start if your political-economic outlook essentially rewards poisoning the world to save an almighty dollar.

Kerosene31 05-15-2016 10:35

Libertarianism seems like a great idea when you're stoned, but then you realize that people generally fall into two categories:

-stupid
-evil

Unfortunately we need laws, mostly for the first category. We have to put "do not drink" labels on bleach.

LouCypher 05-15-2016 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Tele (Post 18573302)
the answer is dem mexicans......amiright?

No, they'll just use a machine so they don't have to pay anyone to pick it.....amiright?

LouCypher 05-15-2016 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by SexxxGodSteve (Post 18573307)
convince everyone on your side to stop giving excuses for spilling money into the coffers of pearson and friends via standardized tests, textbooks, etc.

I'll get right on that.. after you convince everyone on your side that my tax dollars shouldn't be spent giving parents school vouchers so their kids can attend a school that thinks science is an instrument of Satan, and the world is 6000 years old.

LouCypher 05-15-2016 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedo909 (Post 18573314)
Ron Paul(I've read several of his books) is personally for keeping the government completely out of involvement in marriage or drug use, whether its' state or federal. As a legislator though, he compromises by supporting the practical lesser of two-evils--state over federal. It's fair to point out that purists might take issue with such a compromise, but it's completely dishonest to say that he is for tyranny as long as it comes at the hands of a state.

If he walks like a Republican, and talks like a Republican, you can understand why people think he's a Republican. It's deceitful to call your self "Libertarian" and then every chance you have to prove it you decide to go with the "lesser of two-evils" instead of standing up for good. Everytime he has a mic in front of him he's said states should decide who can marry because he's just another politician lying to supporters like you.

LouCypher 05-15-2016 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Validuz (Post 18573315)
All of those things (besides NASA) happened without the federal government. Local people have been growing food and creating infrastructure for all of our history.

In short, you're a retard.

You know what happened in this country before the federal government standardized the width and spacing of train tracks? The "free market" had companies with different specifications, and none of their trains would work on the competitor's tracks.

The government sets standards, companies follow them, and we all benefit.

Scud411 05-15-2016 11:00

It all sucks.

If things are corporate run there's the risk of cutting corners leading to some terrible ****.

If things are state run there's the risk of inflating costs and terrible corruption (lack of oversight) which ends up the burden of the taxpayers.

I think the reasonable thing to say is state should handle basics and work where it can to give people the education and access to ways to leverage the capitalist economy.

But because it's all a big show, they have to do their song and dance and act all extreme in order to get people angry or excited to vote for them.

I guess something sorta liberal I would like to see one day is for elections and campaigning to be standardized in some way and for debates to not be run by broadcasters. They could be rebroadcast, but they should be run by the state so there's less interest in the spectacle and more focus on discussing problems and solutions.

havax 05-15-2016 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouCypher (Post 18573359)
If I walk like a Democrat, and talk like a Democrat, I can understand why people think I'm a Democrat. It would be deceitful to call myself "Libertarian" and then every chance I have to prove it I decide to go with the "lesser of two-evils" instead of standing up for good.

fixed

Vanster 05-15-2016 12:28

http://cdn.humoropedia.com/wp-conten...y-Quotes-2.jpg

Tantric Rex 05-15-2016 12:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouCypher (Post 18573356)
after you convince everyone on your side that my tax dollars shouldn't be spent giving parents school vouchers so their kids can attend a school that thinks science is an instrument of Satan, and the world is 6000 years old.

Thats easy, get rid of the US department of education. then you dont have to worry about what parents teach their kids.

[N]PRIME189 05-15-2016 13:25

That's a libertarian ideal tantric, Lucy is a democrat

Captain Tele 05-15-2016 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerosene31 (Post 18573350)
Libertarianism seems like a great idea when you're stoned, but then you realize that people generally fall into two categories:

-stupid
-evil

Unfortunately we need laws, mostly for the first category. We have to put "do not drink" labels on bleach.

good thing laws fix, stop, and discourage

-stupid
-evil

Africa and Central to South America proving that point.

And/Or Chicago, DC, and Oakland if you wish to find microcosms

Quote:

The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.
several centuries strong and still holding true

Pagy 05-15-2016 14:33

loucyphr is as much a libertarian as icpedo was an independent

LouCypher 05-15-2016 14:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tantric Rex (Post 18573420)
Thats easy, get rid of the US department of education. then you dont have to worry about what parents teach their kids.

If you can get rid of the DoE and still maintain a standard for education, do it.

Would you like to be the cancer patient with an oncologist who doesn't offer chemotherapy because he thinks prayer will shrink your tumor?


Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:19.
Page 84 of 626

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2003, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright 1999-2020 Tribalwar.Com, LLC