Redux: UG is an extremist but is absolutely NOT a libertarian. He's just a fascist asshole. His views are absolutely NOT libertarian. He doesn't know the meaning of the word libertarian, and this means he also knows nothing about what socialism is. He's just an insignificant little turd with a big mouth who knows nothing, but thinks he knows everything. Like most neocon fascist 'tards, he thinks supporting economic conservatism (something the Republicans are no better at than Democrats) makes him a libertarian.

He is clueless about politics domestically and internationally. He knows nothing about history. He's completely dishonest and cowardly. He talks about IQ points when mine are at least double what his are, and that doesn't even make me above average. He's a half-wit.

Don't try to put this braying jackass into the libertarian camp. We don't want him any more than you do. His warped, twisted, backward, and uneducated views are absolutely not libertarian and are beyond stupid.

He's too dumb to even know when I've nailed him to the wall, or too gutless and dishonest to admit it.

He belongs in the Constitution party (aka American Independent Party), because they are equally insane and fascist as him. He would fit in perfectly with them.

Radar....I know its tempting to get in the gutter with UG when he attacks and demeans the intelligence of those who dont share his view of the world.

I think its more fun to hit him from above with facts that he cant refute and wait for his lame attempts to justify his extremism as somehow being mainstream and more "American."

And all who watch the exchange know that he is in over his head.

Ignore Radar. His tumor of an ego prevents use of that intelligence he vaunts. Libertarianism did not fit his tyrannous nature anyway, and he's abandoned it. With Radar, midbrain always trumps forebrain. The poor fool thought Obama was some description of libertarian. Precisely none of Obama's policy initiatives bear this out, and I'm confident none will.

Nor can Radar point to one single post where he's actually nailed anyone to the wall, let alone someone like me whose personality does not militate against his intellect. You may ignore Radar because he is delusional. Press him to show proof of nailing me to anything, and he will weasel frantically, probably ending up by hurling abuse at you. His ideas are defective, and no defective thought can dismay me.

I suppose it bears repeating, to pierce through your reluctance to learn, Redux: whether I want it or not, I seem to have become Middle America. Happens with age, I guess. I have not experienced a great deal of trouble refuting you yet.

I have a great deal to teach you: that your posture towards Islamofascist terrorism is one of moral cowardice and unbecoming a Jew; that socialism will act to destroy the Republic, not enhance it; that progun attitudes are antigenocide attitudes (must set about composing that essay, with refs, as I promised); that white liberal guilt is not the road of virtue; that tested values seem the only worthy ones. The essence of the conservative ideology is not a pigheaded antipathy towards the new, but that one should keep the tested things that work well, not throwing out the baby with the bathwater in order to make room for something new just because it is novel. New, fresh notions have the potential to be good -- but they must actually fulfill that potential, stand the test of time and virtue, to be at all worthwhile.

What can you teach me except what taking the wrong road looks like? Your body of writing adds up to quite the cautionary tale for the man who looks behind the curtain.

UG...when will you take your own advice?
Why cant you address the issues like a man and not a child?

Please explain how temporary bail-outs to address an economic crisis equate to a permanent government take-over of all means of production in the interest of the workers....completely different goals.

Explain how health care reform with a significant reliance on the private sector is socialism....as opposed to a single payer, government subsidized system for all.

How is Obama's war in Afghanistan a socialist ideal when a socialist would call for the immediate closing of all U.S. military facilities at home and abroad.

A socialist would also demand the immediate withdrawal from NAFTA....have you seen that in the Obama/Democratic policy statements.

Socialists oppose the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO.....does Obama?

Explain how government environmental regulation is socialism....NOT government ownership of environmental resources as a socialist would support.

How is Obama's support of the Patriot Act representative of socialism?

I could go on...but address these first, please.

added:

You are intentionally or ignorantly blurring the lines between socialism (as a political rather than economic ideology) and liberalism because they share a few common ideals -- workers rights to organize, civil rights and gender equity, consumer protections, etc -- in much the same manner that libertarians (at least those on the right) and conservatives share a few common ideals -- absolute gun rights, deportation of all illegal immigrants, industry self-regulation, etc.

Its a cheap trick and doesnt fly.

It's not a matter of getting into the gutter. I made a wholly accurate statement by letting you know that UG is in no way a libertarian. Not in the slightest. His fascist views, bigotry, complete lack of any common sense, understanding of history, science, current events, politics (domestic or international), the U.S. Constitution, the founders of America, etc. prove the adage that those with the least to say talk the most and the loudest. He has shown that he is incapable of coming up with a single cogent thought or rational argument to support any of his disgusting and anti-american positions.

He is genuinely clueless. It's laughable that he considers his warped, twisted, backwards, and extremist views to be "middle-America". He is middle-America the same way that Charles Manson is middle-America.

I do beat him up with the facts. I get the added satisfaction of rubbing his nose in it with a little insult added to that injury and I intellectually stomp his stupid ass into the ground each and every single time we've ever had a conversation on anything.

He wants to know where I've nailed him to the wall. The answer is in EVERY SINGLE POST where we've had any discussion. ALL OF THEM, including this one.

I think Obama should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Hiya Monkeytaco! :welcome: to the cellar. Would it be polite to offer you a banana or something?

I hope you're less bananas than the last newb we picked up. ;)

No, you don't beat me up with facts, Radar. Never once, and you'll never be able to link to a post where you did anything of the kind. Everybody knows that but you. I know it, Redux knows it, Bruce knows it, Griff knows it, Classicman knows it.

A big part of how libertarian my thinking is is measured in how little it resembles your thinking, which is solely about gratifying your narcissism and your narcissistically disordered personality. I have a broader view and wider concerns than my precious amour propre. You are so unlettered in psychology that you psychologically project your narcissism onto me, like a man who has never heard enough of it to be wary of it.

Indeed, your wild remarks show you have no wariness left. You're out beyond Pluto, past Eris, trying to find the buckle on the Kuiper Belt. You're merely throwing an uncomplimentary word salad my way in the hope something might stick, and are speaking without sense. This is why you don't have friends, Radar: you're dishonest, deep in denial, and you just plain don't get humanity, on some deep level. I know you, and I dislike you, as any man not two-fifths insane would.

Ahhh, now our unlibertarian, pathologically lying, psychotic, narcissist accuses me of having no friends. I certainly have more friends on the cellar and everywhere else than he does, but that really doesn't matter. Now he demands a link to the posts where I've nailed him to the wall with facts, logic, reason, and an intellect superior to a hundred of his own.

As I've said before, that would be each and every single post where I have addressed him directly. He'll deny it because his "amour propre" (self-esteem to those of us not trying to impress people with our word of the day calendar) is actually an unhealthy narcissism he most likely developed in response to a well-deserved inferiority complex. I say well-deserved because he actually is inferior, not only to myself but to any human being with an IQ over 50. I could literally become the wealthiest man on earth if I could buy UG for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth.

Here's a link to my posts. The search by key word isn't working so you'll have to comb through the ones where you are addressed. The truth is he can't come up with a single thread where we were having a discussion where I didn't destroy him.

http://cellar.org/search.php?searchid=1978554

UG claims to know me and dislike me. This is true. He knows me as the man who repeatedly and unmercifully destroys each and every single one of his feeble attempts to argue against me on each and every single topic he's ever tried to discuss. He knows me as the man who owns him. He knows me as his daddy because I constantly dish out spankings to this dishonest, gutless, worthless, waste of human flesh without an ounce of honor, integrity, honesty, or intellect.

This is also why he doesn't like me. It bothers him that I'm showing everyone that his ego is the size of the Hindenburg but his true worth is the size of the fart bubbles he bites when in the bath. He can't stand me interfering with his delusions of grandeur....or delusions of adequacy for that matter.

Every uncomplimentary remark I've made does stick to him because they are all accurate descriptions of him.

He has no grasp of reality or real human behavior among those of us who aren't clinically insane like him. He genuinely believes he represents the "norm" in society when they more accurately represent the norm in an asylum for the criminally insane.

He likes to think he's a libertarian but he has no comprehension whatsoever of what that means. He is clueless about libertarianism as he is about most things. He is too witless and stupid to comprehend the truth that President Obama, while not a libertarian, was more libertarian than any of the other candidates running for President. At least those who had any realistic shot of winning or who appeared on the ballot in all 50 states.

He's a troll every bit as much as Emma, but Emma has an excuse for her ignorance, backward philosophy, and anti-American attitudes. She's a stupid kid. UG, on the other hand, has had to work hard to remain that wantonly stupid. He's purposefully avoided anything remotely resembling the truth, facts, logic, reason, accurate historical records, current events and geopolitical conditions. Even when presented with the truth and having his feeble arguments shattered into a million pieces, he simply denies losing the argument and continues spreading lies, propaganda, and stupidity.

From the thread Monkeytaco just posted, I am guessing this is the last newb.

Actually a sock-puppet of the temporarily banned.

Yeh! The celebration is not far off. . .

Radar, your intellect remains in ruins, brought low by your personality. (I will never know what that is like. Sounds terrible.) Not one of your posts exhibits the superiority you claim and your mind is therefore disordered, your thinking invalid. There is no proof of your excellence, and much of your narcissism -- in all that.

I see you're working up on psychologically projecting "clinically insane," too. Jeezus, are you ever wretched at this. No common sense at all. Not that I'm actually disappointed; datapoints on your madness are helpful -- to me anyway.

Your argument for your position amounts to "did too did too did too," you childish, grotesquely aberrant Obama-believer. There is no libertarianism whatsoever in Obama's soul, Administration, Cabinet, political philosophy, or policymaking -- and I know you shall never show the contrary. You believe he's libertarian, but what of that? You cannot even show libertarianism in yourself; it does not connect with the one thing that ever mattered to you: your unbalanced ego and your utter lack of people skills, which make you incapable at either forensics or politics. You are incompetent. You are not permitted any input into whether I am a libertarian or no, and you insist on offending on that score, rather than accepting that which you cannot change and should not change. Your egotism does not sufficiently impress me to make any difference in what or how I think, or the quality of my thought, which will ever be better ordered than yours, as evidenced by the words you write. Your whole body of work here does not add up to excellent thought -- after all, you were the one voting for Obama under the belief he was the libertarians' best candidate, but it is now clear you are a supporter of nanny-state socialism. Were it otherwise, you would have voted for the Republican, an act of which for no reason you are incapable.

Well, enough. I don't need the last word, so long as I may have the best. No doubt I will continue to brush you aside for a while yet, as is your deserts.

In other words... blah blah blah blah narcissistic personality disorder...blah blah blah....word of the day....blah blah blah I'm a libertarian...no really.....blah blah blah Obama isn't a libertarian.....blah blah blah....you did not prove me wrong......blah blah blah...nuh uh....blah blah blah....


Time to come up with a new act sport, this one is worn out.

I'd love to see you eventually post a single original thought or well-organized and cogent argument rather than idiotic ramblings and incoherent blathering. It would be nice to finally be challenged by you rather than just swatting you like a fly. I'd love it if you could logically justify a single one of your positions, but you can't. You are wrong on the issues, you try to use lies and propaganda to justify your untenable position, and because you are the antithesis of libertarianism, you think war mongers with a long history of corruption like Mr. Keating 5 McCain are more libertarian than a President who supports the freedom to do what you want with your body and who actually tells the truth to the American people.

UG, you're a fucking joke. You're a puppet. I wind you up and make you dance at my whim. I've owned you from the day you first ran your stupid mouth and I'll continue to own you and destroy your weak arguments effortlessly until you leave this site or you die. I know who you are when you're posting here or anywhere else because your stupidity, and dishonesty shines through.

Oh well, just being polite.

Where's tw when you need someone to start talking about 'big dic' thinking. lol

. . .85% of the time he's meeting with upper management.

No, Radar. You are more and more deluded, and more and more friendless. You cannot think, much less think as a human thinks -- your narcissism forbids coherent thought, if not necessarily correct grammar. Post 194 is your latest lie. Post 190-something will be your next one. You shall continue self-destruction, and be the Unter'tard who lost an argument on the Internet -- by talking. It is hard to make the man who is pointing out your humiliation to dance, and you aren't accomplishing it. A smart man does not try and win a political-policy debate by railing and vituperation. So, you being you, you didn't try the smart thing, but picked the Radar thing, and ranted and railed, and you lose, I win big.

You are incompetent, and shall remain so.
You give no proofs, no adequate support to your positions, and that shall remain so also.
You have no claim to high intelligence, because you do not evidence it. Of available choices, you consistently choose poorly.
You thought Obama was something like a Libertarian. No credible Libertarian agrees. And you are out of the Libertarian Party, who did not go into mourning or disarray on your departure.
You are madly prejudiced against Republicans, for no known reason. Not even an unfactual one.
You gratuitously abuse avowed Christians, just out of the blue. This is not the behavior of an intelligent man. It is the behavior of a spherical asshole -- an asshole regardless of what direction you look from.
You are impolite. Stupid is as stupid does. Guess what you do.
Your only God is yourself. You don't qualify for godhead, trust me. I know more about it than you do.

Thanks for proving my point from post #194.

Just reinforcing the impression you create.

Oh, I wanted to give you credit. You accidentally said something that was correct for a change. I am indeed no longer a member of the Libertarian Party. I have this in common with the vast majority of libertarians in America as the Libertarian Party is no longer being run by actual libertarians and the Republicans who took over the party gutted the party platform. You almost got something right when you said my only god is myself, but to correct you...as I often do.... I am not my own god. I have no god, and require none. I see the worship of any so-called deity as a crutch for those too weak or frightened to realize that this is all the life you get. Anything you haven't done in this life will not be done by you in another. If your life is miserable here, the only life you'll ever have is a miserable one and you'll likely end up miserable as you clearly are.


Everything else you said, as usual, is a complete lie and fits the pattern I described in post 194.

Oh you boys...just stop this ruckus right this minute or you'll both get a spanking. ;)

It's the politics forum. Let them ruck.

Ruck and Maul.

Right on! Of course neither of them has ever successfully changed anyones opinion, if that is the goal...

UG and Radar are locked in a battle until DEATH! Who will win?

A) UG
B) Radar
C) The entire Cellar community

I wish I could draw as well as my imagination. This would make an awesome Celebrity Death Match.

I think it would be great as a regular death match.

You have him in weight, but he has you in knives.

UG could get it put on line live and we could all pay the Cellar to watch.

He's dumb enough to bring knives to a gun fight, but I'd beat him if neither of us had weapons.

You are unlikely to manage it by force of wit, that is certain. Remember your personality forbids use of more than two digits of your IQ at any single juncture, as evinced by your voting choice and your anti-Republican irrationalities. In any case, my working assumption is I will be the one able to kick your ribs to flinders, boot your balls up into your medulla, gouge your eyes, snap your elbows and knees backwards, bust your teeth out on my patio rail and tie your ears in a knot. Then I'll be warmed up enough to get rough.

It is apparent that underneath, you know you have erred in attributing anything libertarian to Obama -- or your reaction would never have been so intemperate and at such length, too. But ohhhh, no -- can't confess to having been so signally fooled -- when I was not fooled and current events prove me accurate. Might sour your narcissism just the least little bit; can't have that.

Dance to your tune, did you say? You who have not managed to vex or annoy me enough to even put you on Ignore? Suuuuuuure you can make me dance, Rad...iolarian.

Hell, what's the likelihood Obama received ANY Libertarian's vote? -- pointedly excluding you from that company. I think I'll trust Reason magazine over the ideas of some gratuitously assholic jerk on the Internet. I'm too good a man to bow to any person of that description, besides which I am the classy one here, as our respective postings show.

See, that is why UG missed out on the peace prize this year.

Yep. He's a real keyboard commando. I love how each and every post he makes fits the pattern I described. Once again I've nailed him to the wall and all he can do is make empty denials.

I have to admit, though, there aren't too many people who would threaten to boot your balls up into your medulla. :nadkick:

Although I am left wondering just what kind of kick this would be:
Medical uses include:

* Medulla oblongata, a part of the brain stem
* Renal medulla, a part of the kidney
* Adrenal medulla, a part of the adrenal gland
* Medulla ossea, the marrow inside a bone
* Medulla spinalis, an alternative name for the spinal cord
* Medulla of ovary
* Medulla of thymus
* Medulla of lymph node
* Medulla (hair)

Non-medical uses of the term include:

* Medúlla, a 2004 music album by Icelandic singer Björk
* Medulla, Florida, a U.S. city
* Las Médulas, Ancient Roman gold mines in León, Spain
* Medulla Grammatice or Medulla Grammaticae, a fifteenth-century Latin–Middle English dictionary.

Probably the latter. He's probably got a collection of them.

Radar is more the keyboard commando than he is the politician, that is abundantly certain. He's hands down the most impolitic man I know. Impeached on the facts, he tries to bully his way out of the pitfall he's in -- of all things! Failure is his consequent lot -- he can't argue the merits of a case that has none, and he isn't even trying to argue on the merits. This nonlibertarian dumbshit voted to buy the destruction of the American economy and the US dollar, in part by the buying of inflation through trillion-dollar deficit spending. Thanks for doing your bit to fuck up my Republic, you socialist-Democratic-voting, inflation-buying, maybe-antifascist-war-losing, Republican-hating asswipe. What is the daily fate of an asswipe? To be covered in shit in normal use.

My "pattern," such as it is, is the pattern of a better, more rational, and humbler man than you are, Radar. I like it that way. I am what better mannered than you looks like, I am what better-read than you sounds like. We're not intellectual equals? True enough; I am immeasurably your moral superior, as your posts show. My personality does not attack my own intellect.

I'm humble, take my word for it. In fact I am more humble then you are. I LOLed. I couldn't make this stuff up. This is true entertainment. I would like to thank you two, UG and Radar, for brightening my day today. Right when I was feeling a little of the ole mid-deployment blues. Thanks guys. :D

Nice catch! I might've scanned right past that gem.

Glad to cheer you up Joe. Any time my humiliating and destroying UG will brighten your day, let me know and I'll do it again. After all it's effortless because I'm his intellectual, social, moral, and physical superior. But then again, so is pretty much everyone else here. He's upset because I'm more libertarian than he is, and while President Obama is not a libertarian, he's more libertarian than the other candidates and more libertarian than UG himself.

I voted for a more fiscally responsible president than we had with George W. Bush. But then again, over the last 30 years Democrats have always been more fiscally responsible than Republicans if you go by how much each administration has increased the national debt.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/...06c1614d_o.jpg

That chart doesn't make me feel good at all. It makes me ill just looking at it. Sure, the Republicans are much worse, but the debt is still growing. Look at the debt as a percentage of GDP. We were at 33% at the end of Carter's term, and we are at 83% now? That sucks no matter how you look at it.

Not to worry, glatt. We're only paying $200,000,000,000 a year interest on that debt. :mg:

To who?

Most of it is going to China and Japan.

Here's a complete list.

China, Japan, and the World Bank.

When you adjust for inflation, eliminate defense spending, social programs and everything other than discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush grew government faster than any other president in modern times (President Johnson forward) and he vetoed spending bills less than any other president. He grew government at double the rate of Bill Clinton.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51342

If you think that's bad, look at the per-capita numbers.

http://www.presidentialdebt.org

Isn't part of the issue, as per many previous discussions in other threads, that the preceding presidential policies affect the next?
I don't see where this graph really explains shit as far as who "you" want to blame for what. What it shows me or rather confirms for me is that politicians as a whole will spend other people's money with reckless disregard - doesn't matter if they are D's or R's.

What it shows me is that Republicans always claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and lately the party of "god". They are neither of these things.

While I wouldn't classify either of them as fiscally responsible, it's obvious that Republicans spend more than Democrats. Then if the following administration happens to be a Democratic one, Republicans complain that Democrats raise taxes to pay for the bills they inherited from the previous administration.

Once again, neither Republicans, nor Democrats are libertarians, but Democrats are closer, even if only by a little bit.

As a Constitutional Scholar, Radar, whom would you say is in charge of federal spending?

Exactly. So I improved your chart.

http://cellar.org/2009/radarchartfix.jpg

Who signs the bills again UT? Oh that's right the President. Even with your attempt to shift the focus to congress, the chart shows that when Carter (A Democrat) had a Democratic Congress, the national debt grew at 10.6% per year. When George W. Bush (A Republican) had a Republican Congress, it grew at 11.1% per year. The difference is Carter vetoed a lot more spending bills even against his own party than George W. Bush did. In fact every president in history has vetoed more spending bills than George W. Bush.

The president proposes a budget. Congress can either go with that one or create their own and vote on that. Either way if the President vetoes it, it won't be passed without 2/3 of both houses voting for it. This is highly unlikely and was not the case during the Reagan years, the Bush years, etc.

Clinton's years were so much better because he FORCED the Republican Congress to balance the budget. He kept using his veto power and the Republicans allowed government to shut down in an effort to get Clinton to bend to their will. It didn't work. Eventually public pressure got to the Republicans and they had to propose the first balanced budget in the last 30 years in order to get Clinton to sign it.

If the President signs it, it is as though he is spending it. So my original statement stands.

As a Constitutional Scholar, Radar, whom would you say is in charge of federal spending?

oh fuggit . . .

<crickets chirping>

As a Constitutional Scholar, I'd say since the President is signing it and allowing it to pass, he's responsible for it unless congress overrides his veto with a 2/3 majority vote and then Congress alone is responsible. If you go to dinner with 4 people and you take the bill from the waitress, hand them a credit card, and sign to pay for the bill it is your responsibility even though everyone else at the table is responsible for increasing the bill, you took responsibility when you signed. If Congress overrides a veto of the President on their spending bills, they have essentially taken the bill away from the president and signed for it themselves.

Congress can put anything they want in spending bills but unless the president signs it, they have nothing. So when the president signs bills for federal spending, the president is responsible for that spending. If he vetoes spending and congress overrides the veto, congress is responsible.

Ah - but what if I go to dinner with four people, and agree to pay the bill if they don't order lobster, but then one person orders lobster, but then I realize lobster will improve the person's disposition such that they will sleep with me, so I just settle for a cheap salad... but when the bill comes I point out that lobster was ordered, and get another person to kick in $5 and stiff the waiter on tips. Who's responsible then?

Oh yeah, well...

Almost as scary as Lookout's picture:
Attachment 25578

The debtor irresponsibility of both the (R) and the (D) is a big reason I remain an (L) over Radar's objections. He thinks the Libertarian treehouse is only big enough for him. Nowadays, I believe he has climbed out of its window and is now well out on a trembling limb over a deep pit of socialism -- inhabited by its collectivist serpents.

The Libertarian Party has not yet had the learning experience of getting corrupted by necessities. Where they particularly shine is in their habit of reevaluating just what "necessities" are: fundamentally it's the question "Does the State do anything important enough to go into debt over?" When a State goes into debt it drives inflation, as the currency is a monopoly of the State.

Without a timeline and a inflation index it really means nothing.

Half-agree: most of those figures are RFN, so inflation doesn't really matter. The Marshall Aid was apparently adjusted for inflation. The foreign aid since 1970 does need adjusting.

The bailout could have paid off damn near every home loan in the US. I wonder how things would have turned out if they had just done that.

Insanely high inflation would be my guess. All the dumbshits who had twice the house they could afford would now have a free and clear home and available cash to do whatever they want with. I'm guessing boats and hummers would top the list.