Libertarianism is stupid.

[hecter]

I'm fucking sick and tired of this "it's called google" bullshit. If people ask for a source, just fucking it. You're the one making the claim, so you back it up. If people want to find confirmations for said source, or conflicting sources, then that's their prerogative and they may do so. But you should be the one backing up your own claims.

[Snorri1234]

I'm fucking sick and tired of this "it's called google" bullshit. If people ask for a source, just fucking it. You're the one making the claim, so you back it up. If people want to find confirmations for said source, or conflicting sources, then that's their prerogative and they may do so. But you should be the one backing up your own claims.

Word.

[captain.crazy]

And here, I thought that you were really trying to make sound arguments... I have to now laugh in your face obnoxiously...

Actually, Libertarians used to be called Liberals. That was untill the fucking communists came along and ass raped the term. Now "Liberal" actually means, "give-me-a-big-ass-controlling-government-so-I-don't-have-to-have-freedom-or-responsibility"

No, liberal means socially ... do what you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but don't you DARE tell me how to live my life!

bull shit meter! 95%
Liberal, in its political use, refers to a political mindset that believes that larger government roles in everything from education to economics is the best way to homogenize every aspect of life. So far, they seem to have done a BANG up job in everything that they have done. Welfare works swimmingly, does it not? Oh, and our education system is wonderful! Here is a great ides! lets turn over the health care system to them. that should work well! Just look at all of the other successes that Government has had... I mean, its not like social security has been pilfered or anything like that.


Economically, it means that we need a basic "safety net" because people are not perfect, make bad mistakes, get sick, etc... and its far CHEAPER to pay for some housing and food than to have to deal with rampant theft (anyone hungry enough WILL steal), etc. When it comes to kids... it is FAR FAR CHEAPER to fill their bellies with decent food and provide decent medical care than to watch them become adults with poorer abilities because they were malnurished as kids.

Yes, yes, its much better to file them into a system where they are pumped full of pharmaceutical wonder drugs that turns them into homicidal maniacs when they come off their meds. What better way do you know of to make a case for getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens?

Economically it means go ahead and make money, but you better pay your employees enough so they can have a reasonable house, decent food and medical care! If you cannot afford to do so, you cannot afford to stay in business! When those employees are paid so poorly so that stockholders in some remote city, even another country, can make a hefy check or so that CEOs can make a huge bonus ... its plain criminal.

How about economically, it means that you pay people what they are willing to do the job for. Oh, because that means that you will have to raise costs, which, oh... whats that you say... raises tax revenues? You don't say... tell me more about how its cheaper to just give money away when you can simply have people work for their living? Oh, and if more law abiding citizens were armed, I assure you that crime would be lowered. More criminals would get their asses blown off, essentially ending their criminal careers.

Politically Its creating laws that protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. That allow anyone to think, say or do anyting so long as it is not directly harmful to those around. Its also about not getting into other people's.other countries business unless we are asked/needed. And when it is necessary, we do what Is necessary and not just what will benefit us, because in the LONG run, that really will benefit us the most.

Bullshit meter just popped over 100%... we are saturated!

Liberal Clinton never did anything aggressive militarily... Oh no! say it with me...H.R. 4655. Nor did he spin up military efforts
in Somalia. Just a little nation building here folks... nothing to see... move along!


But this is a thread on Liberatarianism, not liberalism.

So true. I was only pointing out that You communists have stolen the term liberal, which is a joke, since you support nothing that resembles freedom.

[Snorri1234]

Me: There have been 20,000 people slaughtered somewhere in Mexico.
Other Person: Really, got any story or proof for that?
Me: Duuuh...google it.
Other Person: I can't find any mention of it, can you link it?
Me: Moron, can't even find simple stuff.

[captain.crazy]

Me: There have been 20,000 people slaughtered somewhere in Mexico.
Other Person: Really, got any story or proof for that?
Me: Duuuh...google it.
Other Person: I can't find any mention of it, can you link it?
Me: Moron, can't even find simple stuff.

wow... or, maybe you could just stop being a vague ass and post a link.

[mpjh]

I'm fucking sick and tired of this "it's called google" bullshit. If people ask for a source, just fucking it. You're the one making the claim, so you back it up. If people want to find confirmations for said source, or conflicting sources, then that's their prerogative and they may do so. But you should be the one backing up your own claims.

This is a conversation, not a dissertation. If you don't want to do the work and look it up, tough, you can sit there and rant all you want, but I am not your research assistant.

[mpjh]

Me: There have been 20,000 people slaughtered somewhere in Mexico.
Other Person: Really, got any story or proof for that?
Me: Duuuh...google it.
Other Person: I can't find any mention of it, can you link it?
Me: Moron, can't even find simple stuff.

Snorri (after about 5 posts) "oh I an too drunk to answer so save this spot for later."

get real

[captain.crazy]

I'm fucking sick and tired of this "it's called google" bullshit. If people ask for a source, just fucking it. You're the one making the claim, so you back it up. If people want to find confirmations for said source, or conflicting sources, then that's their prerogative and they may do so. But you should be the one backing up your own claims.

totally agreed!

[hecter]

I'm fucking sick and tired of this "it's called google" bullshit. If people ask for a source, just fucking it. You're the one making the claim, so you back it up. If people want to find confirmations for said source, or conflicting sources, then that's their prerogative and they may do so. But you should be the one backing up your own claims.

This is a conversation, not a dissertation. If you don't want to do the work and look it up, tough, you can sit there and rant all you want, but I am not your research assistant.

In that case, I have infallible proof that the 1'000'000 figure you quoted is, infact, exaggerated. I read it on the internet, feel free to go find it.

[mpjh]

Yes, of course there are right-wing propagandists trying to deny the truth out there. If you want to be a ditto-head and follow Rush and his ilk, it is a free country.

[hecter]

Yes, of course there are right-wing propagandists trying to deny the truth out there. If you want to be a ditto-head and follow Rush and his ilk, it is a free country.

But I'm unbaised in the fact that this war doesn't affect me. I have no friends nor family involved the war on either side, I don't pay taxes to the war as I'm in a different country, I'm really just a casual observer. Why would I listen to an idiot like Rush who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about? No, the stuff I referenced was legit man. You should find it.

[mpjh]

I don't know what your motives are for buying the right-wing lies. I told you the estimate was from the Lancet (a respected medical journal) and two other organizations. If you don't want to look up the truth, well, once an ostrich always an ostrich I guess.

[Snorri1234]

I'm fucking sick and tired of this "it's called google" bullshit. If people ask for a source, just fucking it. You're the one making the claim, so you back it up. If people want to find confirmations for said source, or conflicting sources, then that's their prerogative and they may do so. But you should be the one backing up your own claims.

This is a conversation, not a dissertation. If you don't want to do the work and look it up, tough, you can sit there and rant all you want, but I am not your research assistant.

Then you should stop bringing shit up. When it is clear noone here reads the lancet nor can be bothered to look it up you're just being annoying. You know where it is and can presumably find it in a few seconds, yet you refuse to and tell others that they're buying rightwing-lies?

We're not actually doubting your claim. I'm more than happy to believe that there have been over 100000 deaths, but not without the proof. And since you bring it up, you should prove it is so. We are not your research assistant either, and we don't take everything some idiot says on a forum as fact.

[InkL0sed]

And here, I thought that you were really trying to make sound arguments... I have to now laugh in your face obnoxiously...

Actually, Libertarians used to be called Liberals. That was untill the fucking communists came along and ass raped the term. Now "Liberal" actually means, "give-me-a-big-ass-controlling-government-so-I-don't-have-to-have-freedom-or-responsibility"

No, liberal means socially ... do what you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but don't you DARE tell me how to live my life!

bull shit meter! 95%
Liberal, in its political use, refers to a political mindset that believes that larger government roles in everything from education to economics is the best way to homogenize every aspect of life. So far, they seem to have done a BANG up job in everything that they have done. Welfare works swimmingly, does it not? Oh, and our education system is wonderful! Here is a great ides! lets turn over the health care system to them. that should work well! Just look at all of the other successes that Government has had... I mean, its not like social security has been pilfered or anything like that.


Economically, it means that we need a basic "safety net" because people are not perfect, make bad mistakes, get sick, etc... and its far CHEAPER to pay for some housing and food than to have to deal with rampant theft (anyone hungry enough WILL steal), etc. When it comes to kids... it is FAR FAR CHEAPER to fill their bellies with decent food and provide decent medical care than to watch them become adults with poorer abilities because they were malnurished as kids.

Yes, yes, its much better to file them into a system where they are pumped full of pharmaceutical wonder drugs that turns them into homicidal maniacs when they come off their meds. What better way do you know of to make a case for getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens?

Economically it means go ahead and make money, but you better pay your employees enough so they can have a reasonable house, decent food and medical care! If you cannot afford to do so, you cannot afford to stay in business! When those employees are paid so poorly so that stockholders in some remote city, even another country, can make a hefy check or so that CEOs can make a huge bonus ... its plain criminal.

How about economically, it means that you pay people what they are willing to do the job for. Oh, because that means that you will have to raise costs, which, oh... whats that you say... raises tax revenues? You don't say... tell me more about how its cheaper to just give money away when you can simply have people work for their living? Oh, and if more law abiding citizens were armed, I assure you that crime would be lowered. More criminals would get their asses blown off, essentially ending their criminal careers.

Politically Its creating laws that protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. That allow anyone to think, say or do anyting so long as it is not directly harmful to those around. Its also about not getting into other people's.other countries business unless we are asked/needed. And when it is necessary, we do what Is necessary and not just what will benefit us, because in the LONG run, that really will benefit us the most.

Bullshit meter just popped over 100%... we are saturated!

Liberal Clinton never did anything aggressive militarily... Oh no! say it with me...H.R. 4655. Nor did he spin up military efforts
in Somalia. Just a little nation building here folks... nothing to see... move along!


But this is a thread on Liberatarianism, not liberalism.

So true. I was only pointing out that You communists have stolen the term liberal, which is a joke, since you support nothing that resembles freedom.

My stupid meter just exploded.

[mpjh]

It is regrettable that no one here (as Snorri claims) reads the Lancet, but that is not an excuse for denying the truth. I provided the sources for my assertion. Typically the right-wing doesn't deal in fact, and now you, Snorri, have taken up that tack.

Fortunately the Lancet's analysis has been commented on throughout the web, so even a cheapie goggle search will turn up tens of articles. It is laziness that you don't look, or political bias that doesn't even allow for the fact to be true?

[Snorri1234]

It is regrettable that no one here (as you claim) reads the Lancet, but that is not an excuse for denying the truth. I provided the sources for my assertion. Typically the right-wing doesn't deal in fact, and now you, Snorri, have taken up that tack.

It's a pretty safe claim to say that virtually no one here read the Lancet. I am not denying the truth but merely asking that you provide the actual source instead of having us look for it. in the same way that I don't accept it when someone says "go read the bible, it's in there" I don't accept it when someone else says "look it up".

This is not bias or right-wing tactics, in fact it's pretty fuckign solidly an attack against rightwing bullshit. Because they are always the ones who says shit that isn't true and merely serves to back up their viewpoints. If I don't accept it when GabonX makes a wildly outrageous claim about something, why should I accept you doing it?

Fortunately the Lancet's analysis has been commented on throughout the web, so even a cheapie goggle search will turn up tens of articles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Oct28.html That in fact it did, but reading about it only makes your claim sillier.

It is laziness that you don't look, or political bias that doesn't even allow for the fact to be true?

It is very much laziness. I am not here to do your work. I only back up my posts and I expect that everyone does the same.

[F1fth]

And here, I thought that you were really trying to make sound arguments... I have to now laugh in your face obnoxiously...

Actually, Libertarians used to be called Liberals. That was untill the fucking communists came along and ass raped the term. Now "Liberal" actually means, "give-me-a-big-ass-controlling-government-so-I-don't-have-to-have-freedom-or-responsibility"

No, liberal means socially ... do what you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but don't you DARE tell me how to live my life!

bull shit meter! 95%
Liberal, in its political use, refers to a political mindset that believes that larger government roles in everything from education to economics is the best way to homogenize every aspect of life. So far, they seem to have done a BANG up job in everything that they have done. Welfare works swimmingly, does it not? Oh, and our education system is wonderful! Here is a great ides! lets turn over the health care system to them. that should work well! Just look at all of the other successes that Government has had... I mean, its not like social security has been pilfered or anything like that.


Economically, it means that we need a basic "safety net" because people are not perfect, make bad mistakes, get sick, etc... and its far CHEAPER to pay for some housing and food than to have to deal with rampant theft (anyone hungry enough WILL steal), etc. When it comes to kids... it is FAR FAR CHEAPER to fill their bellies with decent food and provide decent medical care than to watch them become adults with poorer abilities because they were malnurished as kids.

Yes, yes, its much better to file them into a system where they are pumped full of pharmaceutical wonder drugs that turns them into homicidal maniacs when they come off their meds. What better way do you know of to make a case for getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens?

Economically it means go ahead and make money, but you better pay your employees enough so they can have a reasonable house, decent food and medical care! If you cannot afford to do so, you cannot afford to stay in business! When those employees are paid so poorly so that stockholders in some remote city, even another country, can make a hefy check or so that CEOs can make a huge bonus ... its plain criminal.

How about economically, it means that you pay people what they are willing to do the job for. Oh, because that means that you will have to raise costs, which, oh... whats that you say... raises tax revenues? You don't say... tell me more about how its cheaper to just give money away when you can simply have people work for their living? Oh, and if more law abiding citizens were armed, I assure you that crime would be lowered. More criminals would get their asses blown off, essentially ending their criminal careers.

Politically Its creating laws that protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. That allow anyone to think, say or do anyting so long as it is not directly harmful to those around. Its also about not getting into other people's.other countries business unless we are asked/needed. And when it is necessary, we do what Is necessary and not just what will benefit us, because in the LONG run, that really will benefit us the most.

Bullshit meter just popped over 100%... we are saturated!

Liberal Clinton never did anything aggressive militarily... Oh no! say it with me...H.R. 4655. Nor did he spin up military efforts
in Somalia. Just a little nation building here folks... nothing to see... move along!


But this is a thread on Liberatarianism, not liberalism.

So true. I was only pointing out that You communists have stolen the term liberal, which is a joke, since you support nothing that resembles freedom.

I can't even get over the fact that you are such an arrogant prick that you've decided you can tell other people what they mean by liberal. And then call every liberal a communist.

Fortunately, you've shown me what I've been doing wrong: oversimplifying an opponent's position in you own terms and then attacking it -- it's what most everybody (from politicians to the people on these boards) seem to do these days (and perhaps always have done, I don't know). I do it, too.

I think what gets people is that we use one or two terms to describe such a wide variety of things -- and that the meaning of those words change all the time (unless you're captain.crazy, in which case the meaning of the word is stolen by commies). The fact is that liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, whateverthefuckism, etc., almost always exist not in absolutes, but in spectrum with opposing values. But no: all liberals are tree-hugging commies. All conservatives are gun-crazed rednecks. The other guys want to destroy the world. We are trying to save it. They bad. We good. This kind of bullshit only breeds resentment, but we see it all the time. It's all so... spiteful.

Call me naive, for I very well may be, but those are my thoughts. And lest I come across as way too srs for teh interwebs: lol jk dude. (i.e. feel free to poke fun at the extreme over-seriousness of this post, or all my posts for that matter).

[Snorri1234]

Here is a great ides! lets turn over the health care system to them. that should work well!

Yes actually, it would work far better than your retarded system does now.

Yes, yes, its much better to file them into a system where they are pumped full of pharmaceutical wonder drugs that turns them into homicidal maniacs when they come off their meds. What better way do you know of to make a case for getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens?

Wait, how does that have any link to what Player said?

How about economically, it means that you pay people what they are willing to do the job for. Oh, because that means that you will have to raise costs, which, oh... whats that you say... raises tax revenues? You don't say... tell me more about how its cheaper to just give money away when you can simply have people work for their living? Oh, and if more law abiding citizens were armed, I assure you that crime would be lowered. More criminals would get their asses blown off, essentially ending their criminal careers.

Oh shit yeah, societies with guns are always sooo much more peacefull.

[Snorri1234]

Fortunately, you've shown me what I've been doing wrong: oversimplifying an opponent's position in you own terms and then attacking it -- it's what most everybody (from politicians to the people on these boards) seem to do these days (and perhaps always have done, I don't know). I do it, too.

Strawmanning is always good.

[mpjh]

Have another beer Snorri, you not quite there yet.

I am glad you searched for Lancet material. It is controversial, but well done and verifiable. It has been corroborated by subsequent surveys, and is certainly consistent with the anecdotal experience of medical personnel who are familiar with the Iraqi experience.

[Snorri1234]

Have another beer Snorri, you not quite there yet.

I know, it's like my second.

I am glad you searched for Lancet material. It is controversial, but well done and verifiable. It has been corroborated by subsequent surveys, and is certainly consistent with the anecdotal experience of medical personnel who are familiar with the Iraqi experience.

The problem is that it extrapolates from a small survey. While I don't doubt that the number of deaths is far higher than previous estimates (particularly those of the White House) extrapolating is always dangerous. Then again, it could also be that their estimate is too few and that there have been even more deaths.

[john9blue]

I can't even get over the fact that you are such an arrogant prick that you've decided you can tell other people what they mean by liberal. And then call every liberal a communist.

Fortunately, you've shown me what I've been doing wrong: oversimplifying an opponent's position in you own terms and then attacking it -- it's what most everybody (from politicians to the people on these boards) seem to do these days (and perhaps always have done, I don't know). I do it, too.

I think what gets people is that we use one or two terms to describe such a wide variety of things -- and that the meaning of those words change all the time (unless you're captain.crazy, in which case the meaning of the word is stolen by commies). The fact is that liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, whateverthefuckism, etc., almost always exist not in absolutes, but in spectrum with opposing values. But no: all liberals are tree-hugging commies. All conservatives are gun-crazed rednecks. The other guys want to destroy the world. We are trying to save it. They bad. We good. This kind of bullshit only breeds resentment, but we see it all the time. It's all so... spiteful.

Call me naive, for I very well may be, but those are my thoughts. And lest I come across as way too srs for teh interwebs: lol jk dude. (i.e. feel free to poke fun at the extreme over-seriousness of this post, or all my posts for that matter).

The inherent selfishness in human nature means that people need someone to hate. They need order in their minds, so they label groups as "good" or "bad" based on their own personal beliefs. As long as they can validate themselves by placing themselves clearly above others, the actual truth doesn't matter.

In psychology, there is a very important concept called cognitive dissonance. Basically it means that people will distort reality so that it makes sense to them. That's why we give labels like "redneck" and "hippie" to certain groups- because it is too much for us to process the fact that everybody is different. That's why we get strawman arguments.

[mpjh]

Have another beer Snorri, you not quite there yet.

I know, it's like my second.

I am glad you searched for Lancet material. It is controversial, but well done and verifiable. It has been corroborated by subsequent surveys, and is certainly consistent with the anecdotal experience of medical personnel who are familiar with the Iraqi experience.

The problem is that it extrapolates from a small survey. While I don't doubt that the number of deaths is far higher than previous estimates (particularly those of the White House) extrapolating is always dangerous. Then again, it could also be that their estimate is too few and that there have been even more deaths.

Yes, it is not perfect, but it points out that the "collateral" damage from the western nations invasion of Iraq has been outrageous, which is the whole point of this tangent. The original assertion (player I believe) was that we didn't kill innocent civilians. Well we do, we are, and we will in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Nobunaga]

... Libertarians are against the federal ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs.

...

[captain.crazy]

... Libertarians are against the federal ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs.

...

source and reason?

I think that the florescent are terrible. They are full of mercury, and people won't dispose of them correctly.