Thompson on the rise

Why not? Too young? Too old? Brokedick? smoke too much pot?

I'm getting sick of you people hawking you bullshit politics at other peoples expense without being willing to take on the fight yourself. The military is not Bushs plaything, or his private police force to settle his pappies old scores, it is for defense of our nation, which, no matter what the bush lapdogs say is not going on in Iraq.

You sure can, just all those ******* illegal criminals from mexico can fly our flag upside down and step on it, but don't expect anyone to give a **** about what they say either.

Figured



Forced? Nope, but if you don't it's your own downfall. Never said anyone should be forced so don't even try to pretend I did.

92b16vx;22635 wrote:

Actually, yea, I did, hence it was first on the list.

Yes... how did I not see that?



So, if I get a girl pregnant and she doesn't want to abort, should I be forced to pay for the child, as part of an obligation?

Yes.

Because, you see, a moral obligation should become a legal obligation.

No American that hasn't signed the contract is obligated to fight in a war he supports. He's obligated to pay for it, if he's able.

And even if you don't support it you're obligated to pay it, as you are part of this country too.

Well said.

You're obviously implying an answer. DrAnal seems to think 2 to 3 million dead. I guess that's one theory. I could just as easily say the death rate will remain about the same, except Americans won't be dying.

I highly doubt you or DrAnal (along with 95% of Americans, don't feel bad) could find Iraq on a map, much less recite even a brief history of the country. Most of our "leaders" can't even tell you the difference between Sunni and Shia, but eveyone has an opinion on how we should run a sovereign nation.

I'm not trying to insult you, but you admit you're too young to join the military i.e. under 18. I would encourage you to avoid the great American tradition of shooting off at the mouth uninformed opinions, and to read a little, study a little, expand your mind a little. No genuine Libertarian would ever associate themselves with supporting the continued occupation of a sovereign nation.

BTW--"Doublethink" is a term used in Orwell's 1984, a book that everyone living in a democratic society should read.

I highly doubt you or DrAnal (along with 95% of Americans, don't feel bad) could find Iraq on a map, much less recite even a brief history of the country. Most of our "leaders" can't even tell you the difference between Sunni and Shia, but eveyone has an opinion on how we should run a sovereign nation.

Forced? No, as a man you should take responsibility and take care of the child. It isn't the states place to make sure you act like a man.



No, it shouldn't. I am not obligated to your moral beliefs, and you are not obligated to mine. You have no more right to push yours on me than I do mine on you.




"Yea, WAR!!! WAR!!! WAR!!!, you guys be safe, I'm gonna flip some burgers and argue with dissentors on the interent in support of the Iraqi people". Talk is cheap. If you beleive in the war, than sign up and fight, as Lanceorbenson said, and I can back up, you are almost 100% garanteed a trip to the sandbox to liberate the Iraqis. If you want to excersice your freedom of speech, and support a war you are not willing to participate in, than I am going to excersice my freedom of speech in criticism.

If you want to excersice your freedom of speech, and support a war you are not willing to participate in, than I am going to excersice my freedom of speech in criticism.

...

No.

It's called a power vacuum. It doesn't take much historical knowledge to see what a power vacuum does.



Bullshit. I can tell you the date Baghdad fell to the Mongols, the Timurids, and the Ottoman Turks.



Then your people skills are sorely lacking.



You assume that I'm uninformed, ignorant, unread, and unstudied because I'm young?

Ad hooooooomiiiiiiiiiiiiineeeeeeeeem everyone now! Ad hooooooooomiiiiiiiiiiiineeeeeeeeem!



No genuine libertarian would forsake an obligation.



Yeah... I knew that.

As far as I know, the term "condescending bastard" was never used in an Orwell book, so I don't think I can cite it, but you get the idea.

No. I know something about history.

Look at Britain after the fall of the Roman Empire. Textbook example of the effects of a power vacuum (all of Europe is, really, but Britain is an ideal example).



Yes, using Wikipedia I figured out who the hell the "Timurids" are.

I also know what their flag looked like. Tell me, is that on Wikipedia?



You have character judgement skills to match your people skills I see.



You want to know what I was doing last night?

I was studying how a bunch of toll-collectors from ports in Acre (do you even know where "Acre" is?) came to form the unified state of Germany.



Let's not pretend the Libertarian Party is built off of libertarian ideals, m'kay?



Why? Because I didn't know what you thought was "doublethink".

That's not hard to figure out.



Hey, at least you're honest AND condescending.

So, are you really a "pissed libertarian"? Defeated so easily? You aren't too pissed if you are giving up already.

Well, what's going to happen if we leave Iraq tomorrow? I can say definitively that we DO spend about $200 million EVERY day we stay there. I can say that we have lost over 3,500 soldiers. I can say that the reasons we went to war were bogus--despite what some blogger says are myths. I'm with Dr. Paul. We made the wrong diagnosis, it's time to change the treatment.

As for the vaunted "power vacuum" that would result in chaos in Iraq? Well, how does that differ really from what's going on right now? Keep in mind that there was a "power vacuum" in the U.S. in the years between the early days of the American Revolution and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Not saying that Iraq will turn into a beacon of liberty when we leave, but rather this repetitive invocation of the term "power vacuum" is fallacious.



I think your interpretation of libertarianism is completely off the mark. Unprovoked aggression toward and subsequent, continued occupation of a sovereign nation runs counter to the principles of libertarianism, the primary one being that political compliance through force or threat of force is illegitimate. It seems ignorant to proclaim yourself a libertarian, while espousing a view that is distinctly non-libertarian.

You'd be wrong

What about the people not for the war but were willing to make a check off it untill there time was up and then desided to say some thing? How brave there were.

One too many ladle fulls of ol' grandpa's grog tonight or what?

Well, what's going to happen if we leave Iraq tomorrow? I can say definitively that we DO spend about $200 million EVERY day we stay there. I can say that we have lost over 3,500 soldiers. I can say that the reasons we went to war were bogus--despite what some blogger says are myths. I'm with Dr. Paul. We made the wrong diagnosis, it's time to change the treatment.

As for the vaunted "power vacuum" that would result in chaos in Iraq? Well, how does that differ really from what's going on right now?

Keep in mind that there was a "power vacuum" in the U.S. in the years between the early days of the American Revolution and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Not saying that Iraq will turn into a beacon of liberty when we leave, but rather this repetitive invocation of the term "power vacuum" is fallacious.

I think your interpretation of libertarianism is completely off the mark. Unprovoked aggression toward and subsequent, continued occupation of a sovereign nation runs counter to the principles of libertarianism, the primary one being that political compliance through force or threat of force is illegitimate. It seems ignorant to proclaim yourself a libertarian, while espousing a view that is distinctly non-libertarian.

No it's not. After the revolution the existing order remained in the local populace, with only a few pockets of Patriot v Loyalist fighting.

If I remember correctly, Paul wants to stay in Iraq.

No it's not. After the revolution the existing order remained in the local populace, with only a few pockets of Patriot v Loyalist fighting.

Umm, hello? The fact that it WAS unprovoked is exactly why I think we should stay.

"We're not making progress there. We should come home."--Ron Paul

I think he probably understands that we're not simply going to airlift our guys out of there overnight, but rather begin a steady, coordinated transplant of our troops from Iraq to our southern border, where they belong. I don't know if he agrees with that last part, but I like the idea.

I guess we can change the definition of a "power vacuum" as we see fit. There's actually plenty of scholarship specifically on the "power vacuum" from the end of Imperial rule and the creation of a centralized government that would eventually become the United States. The "existing order" consisted of British administrative infrastructure, law, and bureaucracies. The premise is that if we left Iraq there would be a "power vacuum" and that would be bad. When the British colonial government began to fail, there was, by definition, a "power vacuum," and the lack of a functioning political structure had consequences like poor distribution of food and necessary goods, Indian attacks, etc.

So we invaded and occupied their country. And the solution for that is continued occupation? The majority of Iraqis want U.S. troops out. That's good enough for me.

What up, what happened to chicken****?