|
|
#121
03-04-2007, 10:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome?
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, I'm sorry, but you are the worst debater in the history of 2+2. [/ QUOTE ] But one of the best trolls! 
|
|
#123
03-04-2007, 10:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and we are pissed at you for continually quoting him so his text shows up anyway. [/ QUOTE ] lol, sorry. Won't have to worry about that now at least (from me anyway).
|
|
#124
03-04-2007, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome?
[ QUOTE ]
And of course you're a neutral party here to make that decision...NOT. Too ridiculous. [/ QUOTE ] Hey bud, you need to lighten up on these clowns like now or you're gonna flip and get banned. Go eat a cheeseburger and lose some more money at the track or something and don't make me kick your punk rock ass.
|
|
#126
03-05-2007, 12:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And of course you're a neutral party here to make that decision...NOT. Too ridiculous. [/ QUOTE ] Hey bud, you need to lighten up on these clowns like now or you're gonna flip and get banned. Go eat a cheeseburger and lose some more money at the track or something and don't make me kick your punk rock ass. [/ QUOTE ] I guess arguing with the ACers has driven Sharkey completely mad. He has taken to arguing with himself now.
|
|
#127
03-05-2007, 12:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome?
[ QUOTE ]
I guess arguing with the ACers has driven Sharkey completely mad. He has taken to arguing with himself now. [/ QUOTE ]  edit: PS lolz!!1!
|
|
#128
03-05-2007, 01:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I agree skidoo, every war has, and does, enrich some people, but definitely not the ones laying their life on the line because of a belief in, or adherence to, idealism! [/ QUOTE ] Do you even understand what you're arguing for? You do realize that without a state, war profiteers wouldn't be able externalize the costs onto everyone else! [/ QUOTE ] Without the brakes of a government and its mechanisms (democratic, however pseudo processes), it would be a free for all and that would be heaps worse in my opinion, [/ QUOTE ] What brakes? [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Haliburton? [/ QUOTE ] This is one of the dumbest things I've heard today. Who funded the Iraq war, was it halliburton? If halliburton tred to wage war itself, how successful of a business plan would it be? [/ QUOTE ] Don't you think that Haliburton interests had no play in going to war and keeping it going? [/ QUOTE ] YES! IT DID! That's precisely the point. Had their been no state for haliburton to use to benefit itself, how is Haliburton going to wage war? Does Haliburton risking everything and funding an aggressive war to get oil at $5,000/barrel (cost of he war divided by barrels of oil shipped out) make any business sense what so ever to you? Most of your posts in politics are bashing the war profiteers, so I just don't understand why you support a state, which makes wars profitable (by externailizing the costs on "citizens" that are under the impression they "need" the state to protect them). [/ QUOTE ] Bump for Midge
|
|
#129
03-05-2007, 03:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] AC is bothersome because people fear the unknown and become confortable with routine. [/ QUOTE ] The state has been caught serving up some fearful unknowns and uncomfortable breaks from routine as well. [/ QUOTE ] Think of the state as our Mother (providing comfort, shelter and food) and Father (providing rules, protection and punishment). We humans long to have our archetypes confirmed in our everyday lives. Mickey Brausch
|
|
#130
03-05-2007, 05:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Is AC/Libertarianism So Bothersome?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I agree skidoo, every war has, and does, enrich some people, but definitely not the ones laying their life on the line because of a belief in, or adherence to, idealism! [/ QUOTE ] Do you even understand what you're arguing for? You do realize that without a state, war profiteers wouldn't be able externalize the costs onto everyone else! [/ QUOTE ] Without the brakes of a government and its mechanisms (democratic, however pseudo processes), it would be a free for all and that would be heaps worse in my opinion, [/ QUOTE ] What brakes? [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Haliburton? [/ QUOTE ] This is one of the dumbest things I've heard today. Who funded the Iraq war, was it halliburton? If halliburton tred to wage war itself, how successful of a business plan would it be? [/ QUOTE ] Don't you think that Haliburton interests had no play in going to war and keeping it going? [/ QUOTE ] YES! IT DID! That's precisely the point. Had their been no state for haliburton to use to benefit itself, how is Haliburton going to wage war? Does Haliburton risking everything and funding an aggressive war to get oil at $5,000/barrel (cost of he war divided by barrels of oil shipped out) make any business sense what so ever to you? Most of your posts in politics are bashing the war profiteers, so I just don't understand why you support a state, which makes wars profitable (by externailizing the costs on "citizens" that are under the impression they "need" the state to protect them). [/ QUOTE ] Bump for Midge [/ QUOTE ] 1) What brakes? The tendency to slowing down response time and avoiding extreme decisions. 2) The government is in the pocket of Haliburton and others, imo, mostly those who have increased their wealth since the start of the war, not those who died for it, by the way. Sorry about the need of a bump. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
