Why did that nice girl Emma get banned?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I reckon you're both at least half nuts. Should we do a poll?

Radar = Cashew
UG = Dog testical

[Radar]

Thanks....I think. At least you picked a good nut.

Cashew, Pistachio, Almond, and Macadamia are all good.

[classicman]

They are two sides of the same coin. Fun to read their interactions.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

None of what you claim you've done have you done, Radar. Pretend to have destroyed me all you want if that is what your decaying mind wants to hypnotize itself into believing; I think I'll forego that entertainment.

If his name ought to be edited out that's well enough.

Third party politics often degenerate in this direction -- yelling over who's the purer. I have never thought that pure Libertarianism would actually go anywhere, so I seek some blend of things that would. Radar's perspective is too narrow -- it's isolationist, and there is no point to isolationism. Libertarianism ought to go global in order to benefit those places that need it most. Without exception, these are undemocratic places, primarily run by oligarchies, who will resort immediately to aggression to retain a primacy that likely they should not have. There is essentially no concern about "initiating aggression" therefore. It is also impossibly poor strategy to allow the slavemongers the first blow. What do you do then, sacrifice your initial agents of change in the name of a principle that is too idealistically framed?

Yeah, right, like that would promote or promulgate libertarianism. We humans can be a pretty damned beastly lot, and none of us want to be lambs to the slaughter. Radar is certainly in no hurry to offer himself.

Nor am I. Slay the goons working for the slavemakers instead, disrupt and slay the slavemakers too, and do it too efficiently for them to catch up. There's also the rest of it, as libertarianism doesn't take hold until enough people there want it. This "don't initiate aggression" principle is one designed to keep libertarianism a parlor game, not a political movement; a debating society, not a responsible administration. It is sabotage.

[Radar]

My position is neither narrow, nor isolationist. Don't confuse military non-interventionism with isolationism. They are entirely different. I support trading with other nations, establishing non-aggression treaties, and even working together to boycott nations with poor human rights records. This is far from isolationism.

I just do not support using the U.S. Military to defend any nation but our own or to win freedom for any people but our own. I wish freedom, liberty, prosperity and security for all, but not if it requires endangering or spilling the blood of a single American soldier.

Libertarianism should go global, and the best way to do that is by example. One of the two core beliefs of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. It means the only valid use of force is in your own defense. Libertarianism isn't to be forced onto anyone. That is like raping girls to preserve chastity.

If you feel strongly about helping those in other nations to win freedom for themselves, you should be allowed to give your time, money, weapons, and even yourself to do it, but you should never use the DEFENSIVE U.S. Military to attack any nation that has not attacked our own...PERIOD.

Why does the statue of liberty hold a torch? To being a shining example of freedom that other nations can emulate. She's not holding a rifle. Our founders thought we should be like a lighthouse to lead others toward freedom, but never to become involved in tangling alliances or force our views onto others.

Libertarianism in other nations is something you hope for, not kill for. To attack another nation because they don't embrace libertarian beliefs or western democracy, means you don't embrace those things either.

Freedom is to be enjoyed by those who value it enough to fight for it and to keep it. Our freedom was ours to win and to protect. If others want the kind of freedom Americans have, they must win it for themselves and work to defend it. People value what they've worked for a thousand times more than something that was handed to them, and the blood of American soldiers should never be spilled unless it is in our own nation's defense and there is no other way to avoid bloodshed.

The non-aggression principle isn't a parlor game. It's the core belief of libertarianism. It's one of the two defining characteristics of libertarianism. For instance, two defining characteristics of a Christian include A) The belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God and B) Jesus died and was resurrected 3 days later to absolve all sinners who accept him as their savior of their sin and allow them into heaven.

If you only believe one of these but not the other, you are not a Christian, by definition. Christianity has more than 2 defining characteristics, but if you aren't retarded, you get the point.

One cannot be a libertarian without accepting BOTH of the 2 core principles of libertarianism. If you believe in one, but not the other, you aren't a libertarian.


1) Self-Ownership - We own ourselves and the contents of our body and we hold sole-dominion over our body. No other organism, person, or group of people regardless of their number has any claim to our body, our labor, the fruits of our labor, etc. Nobody has the right to tell us what foods or drugs we can put into our body, what consenting others we can marry or have sex with, etc.

and

2) The Non-Aggression Principle - The only justifiable use of force is for your own defense. It is NEVER ok to initiate force against others, especially for political gain or social engineering.


Those who would invade other countries to force them into western democracy don't believe in either of these principles. They believe that we have more of a claim to other people than they have for themselves so it's up to us to decide what form of government they should have, and what laws they should live under. They also think unprovoked violence is ok to obtain the political and social changes they want in other nations.

In other words, no matter what they say, they are not libertarians. They are no more libertarians than someone who eats meat is a vegetarian. They no more qualify as being a libertarian than someone who doesn't believe that Jesus is the son of god qualifies as being a Christian.

It's a clear cut, black and white, irrefutable, undeniable, absolute truth.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

No one is expecting to "force Western democracy" on anyone, Radar. The force part of the scenario, as I never tire of repeating so eventually even one so blockheaded as yourself will be unable to deny, is there to remove the antilibertarian forces -- which make no mistake will be in play. They should be anticipated, and neutralized. It matters damned little except in dollars and cents how much effort or forcibleness the neutralization requires.

The "don't force Western democracy" is a leftist-liberal trope, anyway, Radar. Heck, it is remarkable how much an alleged Libertarian sounds just like a blame-America-first leftist Democrat -- not enough faith in the goodness of democracy which had to originate somewhere, north, south, east, or west. Too lame.

Your position is narrow because it is confined within the borders of the United States, Radar. That's too small, particularly for me. It is isolationist because, well, the US paradigm is, reversing the British Empire dictum, "Trade follows the flag," "The flag, when necessary, follows trade." On numerous occasions when banana-republic autocrats have trespassed upon American business' property rights within their nations, it has been found necessary. Until autocracy is banished from the globe, there is not much prospect that it will ever become unnecessary. Your position resembles old-fashioned American isolationism in another particular in that neither those old grumps nor you aimed to cut off trade. Even the worst policymaking gaffe in the protectionist Smoot-Hawley tariffs was only aimed at rejiggering trade, not at ending it altogether.

Example, hah? Just what effin' example -- and where? Yep, that's what I thought. No "example" can be found. The LP isn't even trying missionaries. You are banking upon a zero, but I am unhappy with the results so far of this banking upon an absence. Out upon this "example" blithering.

The US military, happily, is not Constitutionally defensive, and you shall not and cannot make it so. When will you learn I will not hear that unfounded idea? Sometime in the Third Millenium? You adduce no proof, so you can only become offensive. How's that working for you in the debate, eh? Honestly, your inability to learn anything suggests a two-digit-only IQ, jiving with the way your personality forces your ratiocination down. If the US military is defensive, then tyranny wins. Tyranny, I say, must not win. You, contrariwise, care nothing about that. This is not the mentality of an intelligent man, but of a brute.

So, being acquainted with you for some time now, I conclude that you have absolutely no business in politics whatsoever. You may have talent in IT; stick to your last. Mankind -- about mankind you know less than you do of the Constitution.

[Radar]

1. "Anti-libertarian forces" is a euphemism for the military of nations do not accept western democracy or libertarianism. We have absolutely no legitimate reason or authority to attack such a force if it is running a country in a non-libertarian way.

2. The authority of the U.S. Government ends at our own borders. That is as wide as our position can legitimately be. No other sovereign nation on earth requires the permission of the United States, or the UN to run their country in any way they want whether it's Sharia law, a Monarchy, a Fascist Dictator, or a Communist totalitarian government. Nor do they require the permission of the U.S. or the U.N. to develop any weapons they choose.


3. Free nations have no authority or mandate to "liberate" nations that are not free, and nations that do embrace libertarianism do not EVER practice pre-emptive military action because it is not defensive force.

4. One does not need to sign a mutual military defense treaty, especially with nations that have no military to speak of, in order to have free trade with them. That's an absurd notion without an ounce of reality to back it up. We traded with virtually every nation on earth before WWI, and we had very few military treaties with anyone at the time.

5. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, and the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution defines the role and scope of the U.S. Military as being for the "common DEFENSE" of America. This means we have a DEFENSIVE military and anyone who denies this is a liar. This irrefutable, indisputable, undeniable, and 100% factual statement won't stop being the truth because you refuse to hear it. Article 1, section 8 also limits war making powers to being reserved for Congress alone and this power is granted to Congress in order to carry out the "common DEFENSE" of "we the people of the USA". Congress is given the power to make a formal declaration of war in order to make a defensive war. Congress is not given the power to grant this power to the President. This could only be done legally through an amendment.

The U.S. Military is Constitutionally a DEFENSIVE one because only when our military is limited to the DEFENSE of our own country, does freedom, liberty, justice, and libertarianism win. When it is used for anything other than our own defense, freedom loses and tyranny wins.

Because I know you better than you will ever know me, or even know yourself, I've accurately assessed that you are absolutely clueless about politics, history, logic, science, debate, geography, the U.S. Constitution, human nature, morality, psychology, the role and scope of the U.S. Military, and generally everything else. This is why I'm compelled to refute the never-ending stream of lies that you pollute this board with. I set you straight and shut you down each and every single time. You've failed to ever beat me in any debate on any subject at any time in the history of your time trolling this board, but your dishonesty, inflated ego, and stupidity prevent you from admitting it.

My positions aren't leftist. They are libertarian, but you're so polarized into the neocon, war-mongering, anti-libertarian stance, everyone is a leftist in comparison.



The U.S. Military is not here to defend any nation but our own or enforce UN resolutions. It's not here for humanitarian aid or peacekeeping missions. It's not here to overthrow dictators or to prop them up. It's not here to spread democracy or to overthrow it. It's not here to prevent other nations from developing nukes or any other weapons they want. It's not here to stop the flow of drugs from other nations or to protect U.S. "interests" abroad. It's not here to train the military of other nations or nation building. It's not here to cover the earth like the Roman empire or bully other nations or be the police of the world. It's not here to secure sources of oil. It's not here to take part in every petty dispute among other nations. It's not here to do anything other than defending our own country when we attacked. Attacking someone who MIGHT have weapons that they MIGHT use at some point in the future IS NOT DEFENSE.

You refuse to acknowledge the word DEFENSE in the Constitution even though it was listed twice as a way of limiting the scope and role of the military, yet you somehow think "police of the world" or "champion of global freedom" are in it when this flies right in the face of everything the founders said.

The founders didn't even want to have a standing army. They correctly saw it as a threat to our own freedom and knew idiots would see a large military and want to find ways to use it or to stick our nose where it doesn't belong.



Military non-interventionism IS NOT isolationism, but is one of the platforms of the Libertarian Party and a core belief of libertarian philosophy. This is why despite all of your empty claims, you are nowhere near being a libertarian. You ignore the most basic core principle of libertarianism. In order to join the Libertarian Party you have to sign a pledge that says you adhere to the non-aggression principle.

Claiming to be a libertarian who doesn't adhere to the non-aggression principle is like claiming to be a vegetarian who eats meat. Repeat it a billion times. It still won't be true.


Lastly, in your incoherent, twisted, and moronic rant, you asked for an example. An example of what? I am not in favor of protectionist policies. I'm in favor of free trade. FREE trade, not managed trade, and not any trade that requires the use of our military to defend any other nation as part of the deal.

[Yznhymr]

It's almost like listening in on a deep and intimate conversation. Entertaining, yet odd.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Radar & UG, sittin' in a tree...

[Radar]

Thanks for that visual Bruce...

[Crimson Ghost]

Originally Posted by wolf

Most of the time it happens quietly behind the scenes. UT, Bruce, and I are kind of like The Shadow.

Mainly it's spammers. Every now and again someone behaves so badly that they cross the line into insufferably annoying, which is the most heinous of the three banning criteria here.

Ooooooh. A goal for the new year.

[SamIam]

[Shawnee123]

So, uh...why did that nice girl Emma get banned?

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

So, uh...why did that nice girl Emma get banned?

we found out she was in mensa and, well, you know how we feel about mensa...

[Shawnee123]

I swear I'm getting close to mensa: hot flashes and all that...sigh.

I thought Emma was a lot younger than I am.