If we dont eradicate LIBZ, DUMZ, PROGZ we have no future worth living

[Busybody]

They are worse then MUSLIMS

 

[hashtag45]

hah! 10 points for creativity, BB. You never run out of'em
Looking forward to users' answers, although your other thread might outshine this one.

 

[Busybody]

every thread of mine is THE BEST

and

no one reads me

 

[hashtag45]

'm just sucking up to you a bit more :
lol your recent post in the other forum !

 

[Busybody]

there is ONLY one way to suck up to me

so far, you have

FAILED

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Why aren't you celebrating the two century-old right-wingnut dream of enabling the church to dictate the nature of religion and religious activities? The wall of separation has come down Berlin-style...



You should be dancing, dancing in the streets!

Doing it Gangham style!

 

[eyer]

They are worse then MUSLIMS

I finally figured-out why you hold such an unreasonably hateful, unwavering position on "MUSLIMS"...

...it's projection.

You hate yourself for all the years you personally financed the murder of your own republic, while deflecting by whining and moaning about the killers who you were all along paying to do it...

...and now that the republic has been lost, you must find another target to vent the holy hate you quite obviously hold for yourself for still financially and culturally supporting the killers after the fact.

Thus. "MUSLIMS".

What made you hate America so much...

...that you paid the killers while they beheaded it?

 

[Busybody]

Outed, I have been outed by, ire

Yeah projection

 

[badbabysitter]

hehe funny

a jew endorsing a Final Solution

 

[hashtag45]

They are worse then MUSLIMS

You're talking shit
I dated this guy once. His mother was middle-eastern
They make the best………..

 

[homewa]

hehe funny

a jew endorsing a Final Solution

The problem with this is that once we've eradicated all of them, there will still be liberals, they'll just be less liberal than before, then we'd have to go around killing people, and it'd be nothing but work, work, work all the time. Eventually only Glen Beck would remain, because in the end, there can be only one.

 

[Yardley]

The problem with this is that once we've eradicated all of them, there will still be liberals, they'll just be less liberal than before, then we'd have to go around killing people, and it'd be nothing but work, work, work all the time. Eventually only Glen Beck would remain, because in the end, there can be only one.

Heh.

This is also sort of why the Libertarians fail. No one is pure enough for their individual brands of Libertarianism. So called Conservatives are not a problem. They are just Liberals lite and bend how the wind blows to maintain some sort of coalition.

 

[DesEsseintes]

Heh.

This is also sort of why the Libertarians fail. No one is pure enough for their individual brands of Libertarianism. So called Conservatives are not a problem. They are just Liberals lite and bend how the wind blows to maintain some sort of coalition.

The problem with almost all libertarians is that they don't have the courage of their convictions. There have been various attempts to set up genuine pure libertarian - which is to say, anarchistic - societies, but the right-wing ones always fail. The only attempt which ever succeeded for any length of time was Barcelona under the POUM during the Spanish Civil War, and even that was crushed by Franco's Fascist forces.

There is a brilliant book by Ursula Le Guin - The Dispossessed - in which a world has a just about inhabitable moon, and an anarchistic society is living there, having been offered it as a sop to prevent revolution on the planet. It is far from utopian, but it is the best description I know of how it could work, in practice. And although there are no laws, as such, it still depends heavily on the kind of social approval that the Ayn Rand types despise.

 

[homewa]

The problem with almost all libertarians is that they don't have the courage of their convictions. There have been various attempts to set up genuine pure libertarian - which is to say, anarchistic - societies, but the right-wing ones always fail. The only attempt which ever succeeded for any length of time was Barcelona under the POUM during the Spanish Civil War, and even that was crushed by Franco's Fascist forces.

There is a brilliant book by Ursula Le Guin - The Dispossessed - in which a world has a just about inhabitable moon, and an anarchistic society is living there, having been offered it as a sop to prevent revolution on the planet. It is far from utopian, but it is the best description I know of how it could work, in practice. And although there are no laws, as such, it still depends heavily on the kind of social approval that the Ayn Rand types despise.

Well I think the main issue isn't just one of conviction, it's that "small government" isn't really an ideology so much as a slogan. There are many governments of contrasting sizes that hold different ideologies, we've had big government right wing powers, and big government left wing powers. And we've had small governments. The chief problem is that smaller governments are generally not very effective at justly ruling large countries, or at least we have no real precedent for that. So outside of theory we have no real example of what a real libertarian government would look like.

We also have the issue that very libertarians are in agreement on most points. I have many viewpoints that would be considered libertarian, I am for reduced regulation on persons, I am for removal of government involvement in religion and family. But I am also for increased government control of corporate interests, or at least the separation of the same. While this could be a strength for the Libertarian Party, in that it could attract people from both sides, it's instead become a weakness.