>> ^ghark:

@NetRunner I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election. Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
@bcglorf Your 'protesters' were mercenaries paid for with oil profits, as I already mentioned (and verified with links) in our last discussion, it seems you do not learn. You also cannot decide what others can and cannot think, as you seem to suggest is possible. Part of the official mission statement of the OWS protesters is the recognition that America has "perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad". I would say that hiring merceneries to secure oil supplies and then installing a friendly dictatorship to ensure trade agreements is pretty damn close to colonialism. The most sickening irony of your statement is that, unlike your fairyland mass graves that don't exist (see below), the rebels actually have been killing government supporters and burying them in mass graves.
Your mass graves
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/06/rebel-claims-of-li
bya-mass-graves-come-up-empty-again/
The real mass graves
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world
/about-900-bodies-in-libya-mass-graves-20111006-1lbth.html
By all means, continue to spread propaganda like your life depends on it, you're completely transparent.


So your view on Libya is that Gaddafi didn't leave behind any mass graves, was not on the verge of prosecuting a genocide that he had publicly announced his intentions for, AND there are actual mass graves in Libya but only those dug by the rebels opposing Gaddafi?

So you support Gaddafi then. History won't remember your side well.

@NetRunner I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election. Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?

@bcglorf Your 'protesters' were mercenaries paid for with oil profits, as I already mentioned (and verified with links) in our last discussion, it seems you do not learn. You also cannot decide what others can and cannot think, as you seem to suggest is possible. Part of the official mission statement of the OWS protesters is the recognition that America has "perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad". I would say that hiring merceneries to secure oil supplies and then installing a friendly dictatorship to ensure trade agreements is pretty damn close to colonialism. The most sickening irony of your statement is that, unlike your fairyland mass graves that don't exist (see below), the rebels actually have been killing government supporters and burying them in mass graves.

Your mass graves
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/06/rebel-claims-of-libya-mass-graves-come-up-empty-again/

The real mass graves
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/about-900-bodies-in-libya-mass-graves-20111006-1lbth.html

By all means, continue to spread propaganda like your life depends on it, you're completely transparent.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

Piers Morgan is a shit stirring mercenary tabloid c t.
With any luck he'll be summoned back to the UK to answer for going through peoples bins and voicemails for the last 20 years along with the Murdoch monsters.
And then hung.
In case that's not clear, I don't really like him.


He's got a hell of an investigative crew though. Seth was genuinely amazed he found this crap out.

Piers Morgan is a shit stirring mercenary tabloid c**t.
With any luck he'll be summoned back to the UK to answer for going through peoples bins and voicemails for the last 20 years along with the Murdoch monsters.
And then hung.

In case that's not clear, I don't really like him.

>> ^lampishthing:

Not to be mercenary, but given the purse of that match...>> ^Kofi:
Ortiz headbutted Mayweather then went called on it he hugged Mayweather as a form of apology. The ref was looking at the judges or somesuch and when Ortiz backed away from the hug Mayweather clocked him.
Mayweather said that you "need to keep your guard up at all times" yet when you have just hugged someone in a sportsman like gesture how can you possibly have your guard up when your arms are wrapped around your opponent.
This undermined boxings claim to be a gentlemans sport. Long live UFC.



You god damn mercenaries

Not to be mercenary, but given the purse of that match...>> ^Kofi:

Ortiz headbutted Mayweather then went called on it he hugged Mayweather as a form of apology. The ref was looking at the judges or somesuch and when Ortiz backed away from the hug Mayweather clocked him.
Mayweather said that you "need to keep your guard up at all times" yet when you have just hugged someone in a sportsman like gesture how can you possibly have your guard up when your arms are wrapped around your opponent.
This undermined boxings claim to be a gentlemans sport. Long live UFC.

"Security Contractor". Changing the language. Call them what they are. Mercenaries.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.
But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.
It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.
Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.


It may seem unlikely that some super rich individual would want to form his own state but there are alot of crazies out there, I wouldn't think it too far fetched to think that some super rich evangelical christian would want to impose his philosophy on people via the barrel of a gun (or many guns as the case may be).
So if someone did decide to take over with his mercenary army I would have to fight? I don't know about you but i'm a lover not a fighter I would rather pay a small portion of my wages to fund an opposition, a tax if you will. Also Switzerland was invaded and held by Napoleon for a period of 17 years (1798-1815) and it was after that, that the neutrality of Switzerland became internationally recognized not because many of its inhabitants are armed.
I do believe that libertarianism would be a massive step back after all wasn't the world originally libertarian by some definition, no countries, people working for themselves trading with other individuals and groups of individuals. Wouldn't it be better to have a form of government actually run by the people, a direct democracy with no representatives to become corrupt with true accountability, rather than to tear it down and descend into a Somalian style anarchy.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.


There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.

But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.

It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.

Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.

>> ^marinara:

i doubt a group of atheists would have started beating on christians. islam is factional and agressive and will always be so.


Ah hahahaha. No, Christians are peace lovers duh, like the shit bag Christian who runs Black Water (the gun for hire mercenary killers), aka Erik Prince. On another 'crusade' to slaughter the bible into 'heathens'. The whole US army is fanatical Christians, who think the bible = make wars, make money, fuck everything else. Yeah, Jesus wants you to have guns and drive your SUV past homeless people. Yeah, Jesus would be totally be against health care. What about the bat shit crazy Evangelicals that love a good disaster, one day closer to seeing the man in the sky. Christians, hypocritical douche bags of the world.

Uncle Sam can't but in the UK we get free health care (Although no free soda).
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I don't know--I did get a free strawberry/lemonade from McDonald's last week. Can Uncle Sam top that?
>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

I don't know--I did get a free strawberry/lemonade from McDonald's last week. Can Uncle Sam top that?

>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)


I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.


Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?

The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.

Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.