How I see it...

[Shelzin]

2012 - 150 = 1862

Q. What was going on in 1862?

A. In 1862, Congress passed and President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railroad Bill, which granted public land and funds to build a transcontinental railroad.

LOL

Why is that funny?

Lincoln was a Republican; his policy was socialistic and anti libertarianism.

What about his policy was anti libertarianism?

I really don't think there are very many people who know what libertarianism actually means. To be clear... I think you are one of them that don't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is amazing how people use terms around here without knowing the terms mean.

I mean, Wry Catcher is a martian, for heaven's sakes, we all know that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why is that funny?

Lincoln was a Republican; his policy was socialistic and anti libertarianism.

What about his policy was anti libertarianism?

I really don't think there are very many people who know what libertarianism actually means. To be clear... I think you are one of them that don't.

Fine. Educate me.

Q. Would Rand Paul have voted for the RR act of 1862?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is amazing how people use terms around here without knowing the terms mean.

I mean, Wry Catcher is a martian, for heaven's sakes, we all know that.

I'm a "martian"? I never knew. Explain why, please.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's not perfect... But this is how the parties are coming across in this day and age from a economics standpoint.

Republicans = Feudalism
Democrats = Socialism
Libertarians = What America was 150 years ago.

2012 - 150 = 1862

Q. What was going on in 1862?

A. In 1862, Congress passed and President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railroad Bill, which granted public land and funds to build a transcontinental railroad.

LOL

The land was federal land, which the federal government didn't exactly buy. The money to build the railroad was at best a loan public money. There wasn't a lot of public money since there was no income tax. The railroad was financed primarily through bonds, which had to be paid back prior to issuing any more bonds. It was strictly pay as you go. The government fronted some of the costs as a loan, which had to be paid back section by section as the railroad was built.

Now if we financed Solyandra like that, it wouldn't have lost millions of dollars.

 

[Shelzin]

Lincoln was a Republican; his policy was socialistic and anti libertarianism.

What about his policy was anti libertarianism?

I really don't think there are very many people who know what libertarianism actually means. To be clear... I think you are one of them that don't.

Fine. Educate me.

I don't believe you are interested in learning. You do after all have the internet, and obviously a keyboard... Me telling you wouldn't mean a damn thing would it?

Q. Would Rand Paul have voted for the RR act of 1862?

I don't know... You'd have to ask him.

You know how idiots argue in my IMNSHO? They take something and they take it to such extreme that it simply can't be good anymore.

Like... Did you know that you can die from drinking too much water? Not drowning mind you... You can actually drink too much water and die from it. Thus... Water is obviously bad for you.


This Darkwind... this is the type of person I started this thread for... Not you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's not perfect... But this is how the parties are coming across in this day and age from a economics standpoint.

Republicans = Feudalism
Democrats = Socialism
Libertarians = What America was 150 years ago.

2012 - 150 = 1862

Q. What was going on in 1862?

A. In 1862, Congress passed and President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railroad Bill, which granted public land and funds to build a transcontinental railroad.

LOL

The land was federal land, which the federal government didn't exactly buy. The money to build the railroad was at best a loan public money. There wasn't a lot of public money since there was no income tax. The railroad was financed primarily through bonds, which had to be paid back prior to issuing any more bonds. It was strictly pay as you go. The government fronted some of the costs as a loan, which had to be paid back section by section as the railroad was built.

Now if we financed Solyandra like that, it wouldn't have lost millions of dollars.

As usual you missed the point. Let me be the devils advocate: Where in the Constitution did Lincoln have the authority to grant public lands and funds to build the RR? While you're at it, where did Jefferson have the authority for the Louisiana Purchase? Where did Johnson have the authority to prosecute war in Vietnam? Where did Bush have the authority to invade and occupy Iraq? Authority = Constitutional Authority, BTW.

 

[Shelzin]

2012 - 150 = 1862

Q. What was going on in 1862?

A. In 1862, Congress passed and President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railroad Bill, which granted public land and funds to build a transcontinental railroad.

LOL

The land was federal land, which the federal government didn't exactly buy. The money to build the railroad was at best a loan public money. There wasn't a lot of public money since there was no income tax. The railroad was financed primarily through bonds, which had to be paid back prior to issuing any more bonds. It was strictly pay as you go. The government fronted some of the costs as a loan, which had to be paid back section by section as the railroad was built.

Now if we financed Solyandra like that, it wouldn't have lost millions of dollars.

As usual you missed the point. Let me be the devils advocate: Where in the Constitution did Lincoln have the authority to grant public lands and funds to build the RR? While you're at it, where did Jefferson have the authority for the Louisiana Purchase? Where did Johnson have the authority to prosecute war in Vietnam? Where did Bush have the authority to invade and occupy Iraq? Authority = Constitutional Authority, BTW.

You know how idiots argue in my IMNSHO? They take something and they take it to such extreme that it simply can't be good anymore.

Like... Did you know that you can die from drinking too much water? Not drowning mind you... You can actually drink too much water and die from it. Thus... Water is obviously bad for you.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You are wrong, as usual.

In a libertarian society (the flip side of a communist one), the "societies of equals" will own the weaker human beings.

Its spot on. In a voluntary society no man would own another. The south was not a libertarian society it was more of a small government republican type society.

Communism is better than Libertarianism?

To Jakey yes......he doenst even understand it....but he does believe that

 

[Darkwind]

What about his policy was anti libertarianism?

I really don't think there are very many people who know what libertarianism actually means. To be clear... I think you are one of them that don't.

Fine. Educate me.

I don't believe you are interested in learning. You do after all have the internet, and obviously a keyboard... Me telling you wouldn't mean a damn thing would it?

Q. Would Rand Paul have voted for the RR act of 1862?

I don't know... You'd have to ask him.

You know how idiots argue in my IMNSHO? They take something and they take it to such extreme that it simply can't be good anymore.

Like... Did you know that you can die from drinking too much water? Not drowning mind you... You can actually drink too much water and die from it. Thus... Water is obviously bad for you.


This Darkwind... this is the type of person I started this thread for... Not you.

Ah....I understand.

I have to warn you. You are beating your head against a wall. Many, like Wry Catcher, aren't here for a free exchange of ideas, nor do people like that have any tolerance for people who have a different world view. It is becoming very easy to just toss an invective at them and move on.

Maybe it is time I stopped coming here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Didn't say that.

Both libertarianism and communism are philosophies that govern by elites ( a society of equals or a cadre of technocrats) that brutalize and terrorize the masses.

Absolute truth.

You are wrong, as usual.

In a libertarian society (the flip side of a communist one), the "societies of equals" will own the weaker human beings.

Communism is better than Libertarianism?

To Jakey yes......he doenst even understand it....but he does believe that

 

[Shelzin]

Fine. Educate me.

I don't believe you are interested in learning. You do after all have the internet, and obviously a keyboard... Me telling you wouldn't mean a damn thing would it?

Q. Would Rand Paul have voted for the RR act of 1862?

I don't know... You'd have to ask him.

You know how idiots argue in my IMNSHO? They take something and they take it to such extreme that it simply can't be good anymore.

Like... Did you know that you can die from drinking too much water? Not drowning mind you... You can actually drink too much water and die from it. Thus... Water is obviously bad for you.


This Darkwind... this is the type of person I started this thread for... Not you.

Ah....I understand.

I thought you would.

I have to warn you. You are beating your head against a wall. Many, like Wry Catcher, aren't here for a free exchange of ideas, nor do people like that have any tolerance for people who have a different world view. It is becoming very easy to just toss an invective at them and move on.

I think it's likely we won't agree on everything. I have yet to find anyone that has happened with... But I believe it is the responsibility of those who educate themselves on a given topic to stand up for what they believe is right. Nothing changes if you let the ignorant stay that way.

Maybe it is time I stopped coming here.

No... I think you should stay. Post less maybe... The batteries just need recharging is all...

 

[Shelzin]

Didn't say that.

Both libertarianism and communism are philosophies that govern by elites ( a society of equals or a cadre of technocrats) that brutalize and terrorize the masses.

Absolute truth.

Like this post here... This is the kind of post I normally wouldn't take the time to insult. Because quite frankly if I take the time to insult it then it's a show of respect to the poster. I mean this is so flat out stupid and ignorant that I wouldn't even bother calling him a poo-poo head.

This is a "Ok then" or just "Ok" type of response that I would normally give. It's unworthy of anything other than to say... "I read it and it's unworthy of any response either thoughtful or insulting." I mean if I insult you I'm at least giving you enough respect to say you are wrong and I believe your opinion means something on the subject.

This shit? Pfft.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shelzin, certainly don't believe you offer any thinking of worth here.

You are one of the slowest and strangest posters on the Board.

The ignorant stupidity is that libertarians think they are any better than communists when they come up with a stupid idealism that just won't work, either, because of the nature of mankind.

The fact that you can't factually refute it and go Eastwooding on me merely proves the point that you have nothing America wants.

Didn't say that.

Both libertarianism and communism are philosophies that govern by elites ( a society of equals or a cadre of technocrats) that brutalize and terrorize the masses.

Absolute truth.

Like this post here... This is the kind of post I normally wouldn't take the time to insult. Because quite frankly if I take the time to insult it then it's a show of respect to the poster. I mean this is so flat out stupid and ignorant that I wouldn't even bother calling him a poo-poo head.

This is a "Ok then" or just "Ok" type of response that I would normally give. It's unworthy of anything other than to say... "I read it and it's unworthy of any response either thoughtful or insulting." I mean if I insult you I'm at least giving you enough respect to say you are wrong and I believe your opinion means something on the subject.

This shit? Pfft.

 

[Shelzin]

Shelzin, certainly don't believe you offer any thinking of worth here.

You are one of the slowest and strangest posters on the Board.

The ignorant stupidity is that libertarians think they are any better than communists when they come up with a stupid idealism that just won't work, either, because of the nature of mankind.

The fact that you can't factually refute it and go Eastwooding on me merely proves the point that you have nothing America wants.

Ok.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK.

Shelzin, certainly don't believe you offer any thinking of worth here.

You are one of the slowest and strangest posters on the Board.

The ignorant stupidity is that libertarians think they are any better than communists when they come up with a stupid idealism that just won't work, either, because of the nature of mankind.

The fact that you can't factually refute it and go Eastwooding on me merely proves the point that you have nothing America wants.

Ok.

 

[AmyNation]

 

[CausingPAIN]

What are you guys kidding me? You don't even want to refute or call me names? Hot damn...

no tea

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's not perfect... But this is how the parties are coming across in this day and age from a economics standpoint.

Republicans = Feudalism
Democrats = Socialism
Libertarians = What America was 150 years ago.

Republicans are no more ‘feudal’ than democrats ‘socialist,’ but you’re spot-on with the libertarians.

 

[djosepholmes]

It's not perfect... But this is how the parties are coming across in this day and age from a economics standpoint.

Republicans = Feudalism
Democrats = Socialism
Libertarians = What America was 150 years ago.

I don't agree... I think it is not that simple
Republicans = Keep Military The Strongest in the World, Less Laws for Business, Biblical Morality
Democrats = Combine Forces with Other Countries, Laws for Business (that keep them from being too big), Compassionate Morality
Libertarians = Military only for defense, No Laws for Business,Darwinism