🚀 go-pugleaf

Billy wrote:
> In article <uIadnZqZBewfRczRnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
> 
>> Billy wrote:
>>> In article <ucydnQi5l5yDoc3RnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Billy wrote:
>>>>> In article <RJKdnQNnjc9LbdPRnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>>>  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Billy wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <0MCdnV4aebO2A9DRnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>>>>>  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Billy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [....]
>>>>>>>>>> Misdirection again, away from the real criminals who are 
>>>>>>>>>> concentrated 
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> Washington D.C. and Wall Street, to the bread crumb sin variety, 
>>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>> to feed their families. Immigrants aren't $tealing trillion$ of 
>>>>>>>>>> dollar$,
>>>>>>>>>> folks. The people $tealing trillionS of dollar$ are investment 
>>>>>>>>>> bankers,
>>>>>>>>>> the military-industrial complex, and their "bought and paid" for
>>>>>>>>>> politicians in both parties, the Kleptocrats. Ain't nothin gonna 
>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>> without campaign-finance reform, re-installment of Glass-Steagall 
>>>>>>>>>> act,
>>>>>>>>>> and the sheep get off their asses and demand change. Otherwise,
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> - Billy
>>>>>>>>> but but but the sheepeople love their gubberment. 
>>>>>>>> We do. We much prefer it to the libertarian system employed in 
>>>>>>>> Somalia.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lol
>>>>>>> Somalia has no central government, it is partitioned among warlord. 
>>>>>>> Whereas here, the central government is unified in its support for 
>>>>>>> corporations, and those who own stock in them.
>>>>>> As well as support for unions and for Grandmas. Our government is the 
>>>>>> reason we can progress as a civilization. If you want to see the results 
>>>>>> of libertarian 
>>>>> Funny, my dictionary describes a libertarian as : a person who advocates 
>>>>> civil liberty
>>>> The way I used the term and the way we have been using it in these 
>>>> forums is as defined by the Libertarian Party of the USA. Their defining 
>>>> characteristic is (from their "Statement of Principles)
>>>>
>>>> "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion 
>>>> over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they 
>>>> choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right 
>>>> of others to live in whatever manner they choose."
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2ahk5a2
>>>>
>>>> They believe that each individual is sovereign. Anarchy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You don't support civil liberty? Hmmm.
>>>> Of course I do. I'm a Democrat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Odd. I don't remember ever 
>>>>> hearing tell of a libertarian government.
>>>> An impossibility.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bolivia under Evo Morales, 
>>>>> maybe.
>>>> I see you are very confused.
>>>>
>>> I'm trying to communicate with you. What does that tell ya?
>>>
>>> If you want an example of a nurturing government, Bolivia is it. No, not 
>>> nurturing to the rich and powerful, but to the common citizen.
>>> Viva Evo.
>>
>> You offered the Bolivian government as an example a of libertarian 
>> government. You were confused. Perhaps even dazed.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> style political philosphy, look to Somalia. 
>>>>> Somalia, of course is an area, like Afghanistan that is ruled by 
>>>>> competing warlords. There almost an unity of government (Islamic Courts 
>>>>> Union), but it was one that was unacceptable to western powers, and it 
>>>>> wasn't allowed to unify the country because of the introduction of US 
>>>>> supported Kenyan and Ethiopian troops (land grabs don'cha' know)
>>>> Just more libertarian style rule. There is no government to restrain the 
>>>> powerful and protect the weak.
>>> Uh, but you said "the defining characteristic Libertarian Party of the 
>>> USA is (from their "Statement of Principles)". "We hold that all 
>>> individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own 
>>> lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so 
>>> long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to 
>>> live in whatever manner they choose."
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2ahk5a2
>>>
>>> It's a contradiction in terms to have a libertarian tyranny, duuuuh.
>>
>> Is it? Weakling "A" thinks that the village water supply belongs to 
>> everybody in common. Strongman "B" thinks that the well should belong to 
>> him, and has the power to deny water to everybody else. There is no 
>> government to judge who is right and to force the outcome of their 
>> decision. Both are operating under the libertarian concept.
>>
>> It is rule of the strongest, anarchy.
> 
> You said that libertarians "hold that all individuals have the right to 
> exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live 
> in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly 
> interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they 
> choose."


That's what THEY claim, not me.


> 
> That would include "A", but exclude "B".
> 
> Are you still drunk?

If I were you, I be checking the status of my own cooking sherry rather 
than accusing others of having too much fun. Clearly you are having a 
hard time comprehending. "B" thinks he owns the water supply. He is 
acting within his sovereign rights to hoard it. Please pay attention.