I love how those of you who have differing beliefs just attack the poster who MAY disagree with you. No wonder America has the reputation it has abroad.

:corn:

Shawnee, don't just sit by and watch.

Do something :stickpoke:stickpoke:stickpoke.

Heehee...and let on that I'm on the tw/Radar side? Never!

Crap, did I type that out loud?

Besides, this popcorn is goooooood.

disclaimer: this post in no way means that I am questioning anyone's base intelligence. ;)

You have classicman's quote in your sig line. You must defend him. That's the rule.

HA! I laugh in the face of your rules.

Well then you are all a bunch of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _!

:)

Can I buy a vowel?

No. You have irritable vowel syndrome.

That's because Clinton sent them all to Bosnia.

sure - payable to the mug at the bottom of the page.

Let's see: you'd rather leave tyranny unmolested than spread libertarianism where tyranny reigned. Thus, for all of you, the oppressions and unfreedom all continue.

No, that's not a libertarian idea -- it's kowtowing to fascists and saying yes to genocides. There are a lot of nasty words for that, but I'll just say it's immorality. Not to liberate the oppressed is not to combat evil, but to support it. I do not believe one can be libertarian without being liberationist as well -- not and count for anything but a tacit supporter of fascists and such.

The man who claims social superiority cannot attract an American woman -- and he imports a woman. Oh, very good. Maaarvelous.

You can't get foreign policy right; indeed I understand that your ideas of how to conduct foreign policy will work only in the absence of any foreign country or any foreigners period. My intellect is much clearer than yours, which leaves me in a way you'll never be.

Larry Elder is many times, I am sure, the libertarian you'll ever be -- he takes action in that direction over the air, and of course there are the books he's written. He's not your sort of libertarian, Paul, because he's independent of your thought. This is a good thing, I think based on three years of reading what you post. The least of your sillinesses is your attachment to the idea that nothing short of perfection will avail. This is the perfect recipe for paralysis, not for making libertarianism the order of the day. You'd like me to believe this paralysis is virtue. No way, José... or Pablo.

It seems you have adopted libertarianism as a philosophical bolster to your being a schmuck, having started from a schmuck viewpoint rather than a liberationist one, and you come full circle back to being a schmuck once again. No, the immeasurably better man here is not you, Paul. I wish you'd have both the presence of mind and the graceful self-respect to get better. The self-parody in "me" is not a substitute for self improvement. From time to time it may constitute a symptom, though.

I've been dipping into Winston Churchill's writing a little. My, I want more. Churchill thought quite a bit about conflict, about international relations, and about liberty and just governance. The gulf between Churchill's thought and Paul Ireland's thought is well-nigh immeasurable. Churchill strikes me as far the wiser. Thus my thoughts remain more intelligent than yours, friend. Yours might come to resemble Churchill's were you to crack the books and do some study.

We cling to them, without bitterness. (Your shot groups are better that way.)

Wrong. I want to spread libertarianism, and it can not be spread by force, unless that force is by those who are winning freedom for themselves. Libertarians do not support the initiation of force for any reason, especially for political gain or social engineering. All pre-emptive wars are a direct violation of libertarian principles. All non-defensive wars are a direct violation of libertarian principles. Anything you say to the contrary of these sentences proves your ignorance of libertarianism.

You know nothing about libertarian principles. If you condone the war in Iraq or any pre-emptive wars, or any wars other than those in your own defense, you are not a libertarian... PERIOD.


I've had plenty of American women. It's not a matter of me being able to attract American women. They generally don't attract me. My wife is better looking, classier, more intelligent, and a better person than you will ever be.

You couldn't be more clueless with foreign policy. Your so-called ideas have been tried by plenty of petty tyrants. Your foreign policy is shared by the same people you want to attack...Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, etc. You are no more or less libertarian than these people.


Larry Elder isn't my sort of libertarian in the same way Shaquille O'Neal isn't my sort of midget. He isn't one. Nobody who supports the war in Iraq is a libertarian, PERIOD. End of story. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar. This especially includes you because you constantly lie. Not only are you not a libertarian, you prove that you don't even know the meaning of the word. Larry Elder refers to himself as a "Republitarian". Because he is a Republican who happens to agree with libertarians on a few issues. Larry Elder is independent of thought, but this doesn't make him a libertarian. You on the other hand are devoid of thought.




You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Winston Churchill wasn't a libertarian. It makes a lot of sense that you would agree with him. If it is your opinion that Winston Churchill was more wise than me, you may be right. But he wasn't more libertarian than me. He wasn't a libertarian at all. Nor is Larry Elder. Nor is Bob Barr. But most of all, YOU are not anywhere close to being a libertarian and you're too thickheaded and stupid to probably ever be.

Bosh, top to bottom. A schmuck you began, and a schmuck you remain. I say again you can't really be a libertarian unless you are also a determined liberationist. You can't present a convincing argument otherwise. Dead fascists don't amount, after all, to an obstacle to creating a more libertarian social order, do they?

Attract women? So you say -- on the 'net.

You remove obstacles to libertarianism by force, for the obstacles will act to oppose libertarianism by force, and unless there is countervailing force, they will invariably succeed in quashing it. Hence, no libertarianism. This is where your idea prevents libertarianism's spread, and ought therefore not to be taken for action. Your regrettable intellect avoids understanding this, as you so often avoid understanding in general.

Nondemocracies are the places that would benefit most greatly from going libertarian or in a libertarian direction -- the likelier occurrence, as societies change their political orders only gradually in any circumstance other than badly losing a war.

Most of the human obstacles to libertarianism will become obstacles through warfare and thuggery. I am prepared to neutralize these strategies; you can't do that. I recommend you get the hell out of the way of those who can.

You will note, now that you go back and check, that I did not claim libertarian thinking for Churchill: just wisdom. You shouldn't try having your very own facts yourself.