🚀 go-pugleaf

Phxbrd wrote:
> "mrmcafee" <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message 
> news:F6qdnWEPcs5_f8_RnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> 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.
> 
> What does "forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in 
> whatever manner they choose." mean in your world?  Concentrate on the key 
> words "equal right".  Do you know what 'equal right' means?  How about 
> "forcibly interfere"?
> 
> 


And I guess you really think that everybody agrees what everybody's 
rights are at all times, right Seth? FYI, you are wrong.