Socialist Agencies Destroying America

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Except no. Personal Liberty overrides some Klansman dislike of Nigs. Local government means deciding where your tax money goes and not having Washington decide whats best for your community.

And your a tool if you think the law stops people from being biggots / racists.

It stops them from killing in the name of, or punishes them harshly for doing so. It's called a hate crime, read about it.

Shitty rebuttal btw thanks for proving my point with silence instead of facts. Libertarianism is faulty to the core, and has never been practiced outside of what I mentioned in african and amazonian tribes. Personal freedom, fuck ya!

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Oh man Washington decided it's best for my community that women and minorities can vote, and that killing or injuring or defacing the property of someone that is different than me ethnically or by sexual preference is a crime.

WASHINGTON YOU SON OF A BITCHES FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

[Kuya]

Nice troll thread. I like.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Oh man Washington decided it's best for my community that women and minorities can vote, and that killing or injuring or defacing the property of someone that is different than me ethnically or by sexual preference is a crime.

WASHINGTON YOU SON OF A BITCHES FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Didn't know you got your dick hard to posting like an idiot on BG.

Carry on~

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Didn't know you got your dick hard to posting like an idiot on BG.

Carry on~

Your evasion skill has increased by 0.1.

[Sirrus_Asura]

http://memegenerator.net/Thumbnails/...p-derp-lol.jpg

Riveting point you made there chap.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

By the by, I just crushingly demolished your entire political belief system in one shot and all you can do is call names. Please enjoy the extremely poignant yet ostensibly overused meme:

http://m2.wnymedia.net/files/2009/08...at_Success.jpg

[Sirrus_Asura]

By the by, I just crushingly demolished your entire political belief system in one shot and all you can do is call names. Please enjoy the extremely poignant yet ostensibly overused meme:

http://m2.wnymedia.net/files/2009/08...at_Success.jpg

Don't fool yourself kiddo. I just refuse to argue with

Oh man Washington decided it's best for my community that women and minorities can vote, and that killing or injuring or defacing the property of someone that is different than me ethnically or by sexual preference is a crime.

WASHINGTON YOU SON OF A BITCHES FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Inb4 ih8minorities or some other troll stank.

[Leif]

Socialist
Fascist
NAZI
Communist
Marxist
its all the same to teabaggers

Not surprisingly, all those people are generally found on the left of the political expression, also known as you guys.

A Libertarian is what a Conservative would be if religion did not enter into their policies.

Libertarians are weak on abortion.

Thankfully with a large federal gumment we pass laws like this:

Hate Crimes Bill Approved By Congress, Extends Protection To Gays

I think everyone knows I'm against the left and their victim classes. But to expand on this point, when Eric Holder made the argument for hate crime legislation, he cited three cases where local authorities declined to prosecute. Then, when they were hauled off to federal court, they were given three acquittals.

Considering that federal prosecutors proudly proclaim their conviction rate to be well above 95%, the fact that three acquittals were given is only evidence that in the Obama administration's best example, there really was no evidence at the local level.

So why are hate crimes really bad? Well, there are generally a few arguments that destroy the argument for hate crimes.

1) The difference between killing a person and killing a person while thinking bad things about their sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or disability status (aka every fake victim that has a lobby in Washington) is an additional federal trial and extra time in prison.

2) "Hate crimes" are thought crimes. Your intentions, bias, or "why you did it" should only be relevant when establishing motive, providing the jury a reason why you did the crime. If you kill somebody, you go to prison for murder. It doesn't matter why you actually did it.

3) A: This fundamental right prevents a defendant from being re-prosecuted for the same crime under the same set of facts.
Q: What is double jeopardy?

Correct!

When you allow alleged criminals, who are acquitted at a local level, to be re-prosecuted at the federal level, you are breaking the spirit of the constitution our legal system has vowed to uphold.

Why mess with such matters? Because liberals think certain "classes" are more important than others, of course! (when they aren't race-baiting, promoting racial discrimination, or calling opponents gay).

[Cadsuane]

It stops them from killing in the name of, or punishes them harshly for doing so. It's called a hate crime, read about it.

Shitty rebuttal btw thanks for proving my point with silence instead of facts. Libertarianism is faulty to the core, and has never been practiced outside of what I mentioned in african and amazonian tribes. Personal freedom, fuck ya!

No, you're wrong, that's not what libertarianism is.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

A challenger appears!

What's libertarianism then? I've already put Sirrus in an identity crisis let's go for victim #2.

[zoobernut]

It was said only 1 or 2 posts above yours that the Libertarian platform is about maximizing individual liberties and minimizing government in peoples lives as long as one person does not impede or step on an-others liberty. That doesn't mean that lynching and all that junk would be ok.

How can you make such a logically crappy leap from minimizing laws about victimless crimes to making it legal for them to burn witches and lynch people in the south?

[Kryssan]

How can you make such a logically crappy leap from minimizing laws about victimless crimes to making it legal for them to burn witches and lynch people in the south?

With great finesse, obviously.

[Acturus]

It was said only 1 or 2 posts above yours that the Libertarian platform is about maximizing individual liberties and minimizing government in peoples lives as long as one person does not impede or step on an-others liberty. That doesn't mean that lynching and all that junk would be ok.

How can you make such a logically crappy leap from minimizing laws about victimless crimes to making it legal for them to burn witches and lynch people in the south?

It's like Sir Bedemir himself is here to debate witchcraft!

http://www.inmyhumbleetc.org.uk/wp-c...y-grail-05.jpg

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

It was said only 1 or 2 posts above yours that the Libertarian platform is about maximizing individual liberties and minimizing government in peoples lives as long as one person does not impede or step on an-others liberty. That doesn't mean that lynching and all that junk would be ok.

How can you make such a logically crappy leap from minimizing laws about victimless crimes to making it legal for them to burn witches and lynch people in the south?

Right, because when the KKK was lynching people and destroying property in the south ( i.e. maximizing ones personal liberties with disregard to anothers ) until Federal tax dollars were used to send Federal agents and pay Federal congressmen to pass laws making such action illegal.

In a small 'libertarian' community there is no federal intervention and a unilateral use of tax dollars to prevent such horrific crimes.

Personal liberty and freedom isn't free, and it's not an illogical jump. I went right for the throat of this poorly though ideology about "smaller gumment" and more "local governments" and pointed out exactly what would happen, as it has happened before with a lack of federal intervention.

That mirror is a bitch and it burns the eyes, but this is why we need a large federal government because people left on their own don't know what the fuck or how to handle it.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Right, because when the KKK was lynching people and destroying property in the south ( i.e. maximizing ones personal liberties with disregard to anothers ) until Federal tax dollars were used to send Federal agents and pay Federal congressmen to pass laws making such action illegal.

In a small 'libertarian' community there is no federal intervention and a unilateral use of tax dollars to prevent such horrific crimes.

Personal liberty and freedom isn't free, and it's not an illogical jump. I went right for the throat of this poorly though ideology about "smaller gumment" and more "local governments" and pointed out exactly what would happen, as it has happened before with a lack of federal intervention.

That mirror is a bitch and it burns the eyes, but this is why we need a large federal government because people left on their own don't know what the fuck or how to handle it.

I'm sure Anti-Hate-Crime laws work as well as Anti-Drug Laws.

[Vuitton]

A challenger appears!

What's libertarianism then?

I am not a libertarian, but I do like Ayn Rand ('s books).

The Ayn Rand Institute: Ayn Rand's Q & A on Libertarianism

Ayn Rand’s Q & A on Libertarianism

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Censorship: Local and Express,” 1973]

AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: “?” 1976]

AR: My answer should be, “I haven’t.” There’s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP’s “Objective Communication,” Lecture 1, 1980]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

I thought some of her answers were hilarious.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Because prisons are overpopulated and we're spending billions of dollars preventing people from murdered just like the drug wars.

Bad analogy is horrible try again

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I am not a libertarian, but I do like Ayn Rand ('s books).

The Ayn Rand Institute: Ayn Rand's Q & A on Libertarianism



I thought some of her answers were hilarious.

A+++ would read again.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Alright, read through the entire PDF link in my signature and get back to us.

If you can argue against Libertarianism without bringing up the KKK or some Nagger getting lynched, we'll have made great progress.