What are libertarians?

[kaz]

A private air traffic control system wouldn't involve putting anyone in prison, so I hardly think think the analogy is valid. Furthermore, although I know turds like you complain constantly about private prisons, I haven't seen any evidence that they're a failure. Why would local governments pay private prisons to house their inmates if they weren't cost effective?

I have never seen an example of government doing a better job than private enterprise. That's the bottom line.

Government is incompetence institutionalized.

You're right that the comparison is ridiculous. However, For a private prison to work, it has to be outsourced by government, which means it is government. Government utilities are government.

You cannot put people in prison effectively without a generally agreed system, and the name for that generally agreed system is government whatever form it takes. Prisons are depriving liberty from someone, they are not just preventing planes from crashing into each other.

 

[Pogo]

And the other liar waddles back. Also emptyhanded.
Hard to tell 'em apart when they come in all bereft like that.

You seem to believe we're at your beck and call to carry out whatever task you assign. This is the real world, Po-po. We don't take assignments from an internet Napoleon.

So you're going with option 2 -- since you can't back up your shit you admit you're a liar?

Just say it so we can move on. I got people in line here.

 

[Pogo]

And once again the coward tosses textual grenades he can't pull the pin on. I challenged you to back this shit up, and all you have is repeating the same crapola over and over and over. Pee Wee ******* Herman.

And nice job editing my post down so that it's got my name without any of my words, you dishonest hack.

Stop crying like a little girl and make your points without the emotions. No wonder you're obsessed with gender identity.

So ---- no quote then? No documentation, no link, no nothing? And no admission you're making shit up and editing shit down?

Coward.

Grow a pair, dumb ass. You document nothing, can't follow a discussion or give coherent replies to anything, you need to do that before you demand it of others. Though flagrant hypocrisy is the liberal way. Unfortunately, only other liberals recognize your right to do that.

Still emptyhanded, huh Peewee? At least Fingerboy had enough sense to run away. You keep bumpin'. It only spikes the mendacity discount rate.

Poor lying hack.

I didn't run away, numbnutz. I just don't take homework assignments from imbeciles.

I don't think Kaz gave you a "homework assignment". But you do post bullshit you cannot prove. Why is that?

Look I know Kaz (liar #1) was here first but there really isn't an ordered list on admitting making shit up. When you recognize your own guilt just shout it out, don't wait. It'll feel adult.

Maybe that's scary though. Are you a coward too then?
Wassamatta Fingerboy? Can't find the words?

 

[Pogo]

Yes, the guns one was a hoot. You kept saying we don't know who is the criminal and honest citizens having guns is just escalation and then denied it even when I showed you the quotes over and over while you kept repeating that honest citizens having guns is dangerous. You are not a bright guy.

As for here, document what point? That you keep arguing with anarchists and then think you're debating small government libertarians? Do you even know the difference? We have yet to reach the bottom of your cavernous stupidity, maybe we just need to keep going down.

You're a ******* liar. As before, you are hereby challenged to document with quotes.

You won't, because it doesn't exist. ******* lying hack.

You're the liar and you're stupid as shit. You said that shooting back is "escalation," like putting gasoline on a fire. I showed you the quote over and over and you didn't man up to it. Will you man up to it this time?

Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.

And right back to clueless square one. Never fails. Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion. Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.

That's my post, a good old cartoon.

So -------------- where does it say anything about "honest citizens having guns is dangerous"?

Read much?

Well?

 

[Pogo]

.

Pure Libertarian ideas just aren't workable or reasonable at a macro level, and the influx of libertarianism into the GOP has caused the party quite a bit of damage by introducing so much libertarian absolutism into widespread political thought and debate.

That said, I used to like having them around as a reminder that we can't stray too far from the power and benefits of individualism. Right now, though, the reminder is a little too loud.

I call 'em "Randbots". Enslaved to a half-baked ideology too often removed from any sense of practicality -- e.g. as someone posted not far back, the idea of getting rid of FDA and FAA. Just let the planes crash into each other. An illustrative metaphor.

You're a moron, Pogo. Where is your proof that air traffic control can't be accomplished by a private corporation? In fact, the FAA was once considering selling off the air traffic control function to private corporations.

You are a congenital moron. Everything you post is based on premises lacking any visible means of support.

You're not asking the questions here Fingers -- you're answering.
Where's your documentation from the other day? Post 464 -- last Wednesday. Four days and 141 posts ago.
Where is it?

Did you make it up?

 

[kaz]

And the other liar waddles back. Also emptyhanded.
Hard to tell 'em apart when they come in all bereft like that.

You seem to believe we're at your beck and call to carry out whatever task you assign. This is the real world, Po-po. We don't take assignments from an internet Napoleon.

So you're going with option 2 -- since you can't back up your shit you admit you're a liar?

Just say it so we can move on. I got people in line here.

So by your standard, you are a liar, so what difference do serious answers to you make?

 

[kaz]

I didn't run away, numbnutz. I just don't take homework assignments from imbeciles.

I don't think Kaz gave you a "homework assignment". But you do post bullshit you cannot prove. Why is that?

So out of curiosity, did you not understand what he said or were you just going playground? Can't tell with you.

Look I know Kaz (liar #1) was here first but there really isn't an ordered list on admitting making shit up. When you recognize your own guilt just shout it out, don't wait. It'll feel adult.

Maybe that's scary though. Are you a coward too then?
Wassamatta Fingerboy? Can't find the words?

Um...he nailed you with the "imbecile" observation...

 

[kaz]

Yes, the guns one was a hoot. You kept saying we don't know who is the criminal and honest citizens having guns is just escalation and then denied it even when I showed you the quotes over and over while you kept repeating that honest citizens having guns is dangerous. You are not a bright guy.

As for here, document what point? That you keep arguing with anarchists and then think you're debating small government libertarians? Do you even know the difference? We have yet to reach the bottom of your cavernous stupidity, maybe we just need to keep going down.

You're a ******* liar. As before, you are hereby challenged to document with quotes.

You won't, because it doesn't exist. ******* lying hack.

You're the liar and you're stupid as shit. You said that shooting back is "escalation," like putting gasoline on a fire. I showed you the quote over and over and you didn't man up to it. Will you man up to it this time?

Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.

And right back to clueless square one. Never fails. Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion. Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.

That's my post, a good old cartoon.

So -------------- where does it say anything about "honest citizens having guns is dangerous"?

Read much?

Well?

Already answered this.

 

[Pogo]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.

That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!

If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.

It's ridiculous to conclude that what people know came from "school". Mine sure didn't.

To the topic -- I've seen posters on this very board suggest that the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is, literally, the "size" of government, whatever that's supposed to mean. Presumably once government grows either side of size 7 it becomes one or the other.

"Small" government, if by "small" we mean "non-intrusive", equates with Liberalism. Conservatism as far as I know doesn't really take a position on that.

Every libturd in this forum supports Obamacare. Is that your conception of "non-intrusive?" How about Dodd-Frank? How about the CRA? Can you post any example of something liberals support that is "non-intrusive?"

They're not opposites. In the Founders' days when they jumped in the time machine to read Das Kapital ( ) 'conservatism' meant, as it does now, keeping the old order, which at that time was the hierarchy of clergy and nobility on top, proletariat on the bottom. That was the cart that Liberalism upset with the then-revolutionary concept that "all men are created equal".

Nothing could be more moronic than the spectacle of modern liberals pretending they have something in common with the Founding Fathers. They have far more in common with Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini.

Back to the top of your point though -- I agree that (a lot of) people don't have a clue about terms and political philosophies, but that's not because "schooling" mistaught them in the past; it's because media is misteaching in the present.

You're one of them, Po-po.

I don't know what the **** a "libtard" is but I've never "supported Obamacare". Let's start there. Find me any post anywhere any time, or admit you're a liar. Not to mention a sad little boy who can't argue his point.

And the other liar waddles back. Also emptyhanded.
Hard to tell 'em apart when they come in all bereft like that.

You seem to believe we're at your beck and call to carry out whatever task you assign. This is the real world, Po-po. We don't take assignments from an internet Napoleon.

So you're going with option 2 -- since you can't back up your shit you admit you're a liar?

Just say it so we can move on. I got people in line here.

So by your standard, you are a liar, so what difference do serious answers to you make?

Nope -- see, I don't make claims about people that I can't back up.
Would you like to go first then? I'm sure Fingerboy won't mind, he's been dragging his feet for four days already.

Just say, "Hi everybody, my name is Kaz and I'm a liar". You'll get a warm welcome.

 

[kaz]

Nope -- see, I don't make claims about people that I can't back up.
Would you like to go first then? I'm sure Fingerboy won't mind, he's been dragging his feet for four days already.

Just say, "Hi everybody, my name is Kaz and I'm a liar". You'll get a warm welcome.

I don't know if you're a liar, just stupid, or a hormone driven teenager, there is so much evidence for all three. Which one is it? Or which ones?

 

[Pogo]

No, that's not it. It's in the post quoted. Just read your script - no ad libs.
Look, I'm making this real easy. I gave you a script and you don't even have to reveal your gender. Prices will never be lower.

 

[bripat9643]

And the other liar waddles back. Also emptyhanded.
Hard to tell 'em apart when they come in all bereft like that.

You seem to believe we're at your beck and call to carry out whatever task you assign. This is the real world, Po-po. We don't take assignments from an internet Napoleon.

So you're going with option 2 -- since you can't back up your shit you admit you're a liar?

Just say it so we can move on. I got people in line here.

No, I'm going with option #3: I don't give a shit.

 

[bripat9643]

.

Pure Libertarian ideas just aren't workable or reasonable at a macro level, and the influx of libertarianism into the GOP has caused the party quite a bit of damage by introducing so much libertarian absolutism into widespread political thought and debate.

That said, I used to like having them around as a reminder that we can't stray too far from the power and benefits of individualism. Right now, though, the reminder is a little too loud.

I call 'em "Randbots". Enslaved to a half-baked ideology too often removed from any sense of practicality -- e.g. as someone posted not far back, the idea of getting rid of FDA and FAA. Just let the planes crash into each other. An illustrative metaphor.

You're a moron, Pogo. Where is your proof that air traffic control can't be accomplished by a private corporation? In fact, the FAA was once considering selling off the air traffic control function to private corporations.

You are a congenital moron. Everything you post is based on premises lacking any visible means of support.

You're not asking the questions here Fingers -- you're answering.
Where's your documentation from the other day? Post 464 -- last Wednesday. Four days and 141 posts ago.
Where is it?

Did you make it up?

I already told you I don't take homework assignments from internet Napoleons.

I don't even recall what the issue you're whining so petulantly about was.

 

[Pogo]

.

Pure Libertarian ideas just aren't workable or reasonable at a macro level, and the influx of libertarianism into the GOP has caused the party quite a bit of damage by introducing so much libertarian absolutism into widespread political thought and debate.

That said, I used to like having them around as a reminder that we can't stray too far from the power and benefits of individualism. Right now, though, the reminder is a little too loud.

I call 'em "Randbots". Enslaved to a half-baked ideology too often removed from any sense of practicality -- e.g. as someone posted not far back, the idea of getting rid of FDA and FAA. Just let the planes crash into each other. An illustrative metaphor.

You're a moron, Pogo. Where is your proof that air traffic control can't be accomplished by a private corporation? In fact, the FAA was once considering selling off the air traffic control function to private corporations.

You are a congenital moron. Everything you post is based on premises lacking any visible means of support.

You're not asking the questions here Fingers -- you're answering.
Where's your documentation from the other day? Post 464 -- last Wednesday. Four days and 141 posts ago.
Where is it?

Did you make it up?

I already told you I don't take homework assignments from internet Napoleons.

I don't even recall what the issue you're whining so petulantly about was.

That's uh... why I listed the post number right above Duh?
I believe what you still owe me is a link to somewhere that substantiates your claim that I supported "Obamacare".

Since you can't do that, you're going with option 2, which as I recall the wording was that you're a lying little smegma staine bag of shit.

Or as I remember you posting way back on another topic, "I went back and read your post and revised my response, not that I give a flying ****". Basically exactly what you just said here, which is as close to that concession as I guess you're capable of.

Some things just never change. You either have ethics or you don't.

 

[Bfgrn]

How things REALLY worked before FDR ushered in THE MOST successful program in American history...

Yes, comrade, redistributing more wealth than any other program in history makes it the "MOST successful." To a Marxist like you? Yes, it does.

People like getting checks of other people's money! They like it! Who saw that coming! LOL, you're a tool...

WOW, another script right out of the FAR right wing parrot school.

It is NOT other people's money pea brain. Every working man and woman PAY INTO Social Security, Even FAR right wing parrots like you. Hey asshole, why not just fire off a letter to SS and tell them you don't want their Marxist money.

 

[Bfgrn]

How things REALLY worked before FDR ushered in THE MOST successful program in American history...

Social Security reduces the proportion of elderly people living in poverty from nearly one in two to fewer than one in eight, according to a new study released today of Census data. The study found that in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor.

As a result, the study said, Social Security raised out of poverty more than one in every three elderly Americans. The program lifted 11.4 million elderly people above the poverty line.

Without Social Security, the study found, 15.3 million elderly had incomes below the poverty line. After Social Security, only 3.8 million elderly did. Three-fourths of those elderly people who would have been poor without Social Security were lifted from poverty by it.

Your "study" is obviously a con. In the first place, without Social Security the elderly would have had 13% more income their entire lives to invest in a retirement program. Furthermore, they would have had a much greater incentive to do so since they knew they couldn't count on the taxpayers paying their bills.

Also, your claims about the poverty rate among the elderly before Social Security are pure fiction. The government didn't measure the poverty rate before 1958, so where did the authors of this "study" get there information on poverty rates among the elderly prior to Social Security?

Even if the poverty rate is lower now, that doesn't prove that Social Security is the reason. The defenders of OSHA claim it's a great success because since its creation the workplace accident rate has decreased by so many accidents per 100,000 people. What these apologists conveniently ignore is the fact that workplace accident rate decreased just as fast or faster before the creation of OSHA.

Therefore, the data you posted doesn't support your claim that Social Security has reduced poverty among the elderly. Your claim is nothing more than cheap propaganda for the dumb masses.

Hey pea brain. The elderly HAD that 13% BEFORE Social Security and Medicare. It FAILED. We tried a 'charity only' approach. It FAILED. The elderly went from the MOST likely group to face poverty to the LEAST likely group to face poverty. ALL thanks to Social Security and Medicare.

How successful is Medicare?

American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.



Samuel Metz, M.D.

 

[bripat9643]

SO, you would let old people fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism.

You and you libturd friends might be willing to let your mothers starve if they had no pension to live on, but most people would be willing to take care of their parents in their old age. That's typically how things were done before the age of Roosevelt and the kleptocracy he ushered in. Foisting your personal responsibilities onto others is the hallmark of liberalism.

LOL, not his helping his family himself isn't even an option. If he doesn't get you to pay for it, then that's leaving them on their own. At least he's honest about that.

Yep, liberals admit all the time that they wouldn't lift a finger to help the poor f the government didn't provide them with welfare, medical care and housing.

The biggest opposition to social security was churches. They said charity was their job, not government's. The liberal view that charity is government's job, not theirs, obviously won out. Then when they plunder "the wealthy" and "corporations" they blame the victim to justify it all. Liberals really are just morons, there is no sense to it.

You can never make sense when you're trying to convince someone that you are entitled to their money.

 

[bripat9643]

How things REALLY worked before FDR ushered in THE MOST successful program in American history...

Yes, comrade, redistributing more wealth than any other program in history makes it the "MOST successful." To a Marxist like you? Yes, it does.

People like getting checks of other people's money! They like it! Who saw that coming! LOL, you're a tool...

WOW, another script right out of the FAR right wing parrot school.

It is NOT other people's money pea brain. Every working man and woman PAY INTO Social Security, Even FAR right wing parrots like you. Hey asshole, why not just fire off a letter to SS and tell them you don't want their Marxist money.

The money you paid in was spent the minute the politicians got their hands on it. The money you collect, if you collect any, will be paid in by someone else. If it was really your money it would have been saved in the form of some kind of fungible security, not worthless IOUs.

 

[Pogo]

SO, you would let old people fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism.

You and you libturd friends might be willing to let your mothers starve if they had no pension to live on, but most people would be willing to take care of their parents in their old age. That's typically how things were done before the age of Roosevelt and the kleptocracy he ushered in. Foisting your personal responsibilities onto others is the hallmark of liberalism.

LOL, not his helping his family himself isn't even an option. If he doesn't get you to pay for it, then that's leaving them on their own. At least he's honest about that.

Yep, liberals admit all the time that they wouldn't lift a finger to help the poor f the government didn't provide them with welfare, medical care and housing.

The biggest opposition to social security was churches. They said charity was their job, not government's. The liberal view that charity is government's job, not theirs, obviously won out. Then when they plunder "the wealthy" and "corporations" they blame the victim to justify it all. Liberals really are just morons, there is no sense to it.

You can never make sense when you're trying to convince someone that you are entitled to their money.

That's why you're not entitled to your own facts, liar.

 

[bripat9643]

SO, you would let old people fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism.

You and you libturd friends might be willing to let your mothers starve if they had no pension to live on, but most people would be willing to take care of their parents in their old age. That's typically how things were done before the age of Roosevelt and the kleptocracy he ushered in. Foisting your personal responsibilities onto others is the hallmark of liberalism.

LOL, not his helping his family himself isn't even an option. If he doesn't get you to pay for it, then that's leaving them on their own. At least he's honest about that.

Yep, liberals admit all the time that they wouldn't lift a finger to help the poor f the government didn't provide them with welfare, medical care and housing.

The biggest opposition to social security was churches. They said charity was their job, not government's. The liberal view that charity is government's job, not theirs, obviously won out. Then when they plunder "the wealthy" and "corporations" they blame the victim to justify it all. Liberals really are just morons, there is no sense to it.

You can never make sense when you're trying to convince someone that you are entitled to their money.

That's why you're not entitled to your own facts, liar.

Apparently you believe that made some kind of sense.