Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
> > I'm criticizing him just as much as I'm criticizing you, Flint, or anyone else who uses the labeling system. At best, avo is associating himself with a loose umbrella of people with some similar ideologies, but not exact to one another.
where do i call myself a libertarian? also, even if i did, i provided a definition of libertarian ideology, so i would of be associating myself with that definition, and not necessarily to any specific individual...
"so what does avo mean when he says "i'm libertarian"--except that he shares the views of other people who call themselves "libertarians"?"
i define libertarian earlier in this thread as "the ideology i think recognizes that people have differences in opinion, and instead of groups forcing their views onto others, individuals should be given freedom as long as it doesnt infringe on other people's freedoms..."
Einstein isnt ignoring me because i consider myself libertarian, he is ignoring me for life because i dont want to bend over and have gay butt sex with every solider that serves in the US military...
decriminalization does not equal support for drug abuse... do you support the criminalization of morphine? if you dont support the criminalization of morphine, it does not mean you support the abuse of it...
no, i dont remember when Larry craig plead guilty to offensive contact.... you seem to be labeling people libertarian just because they are conservative with a liberal flare and you dont really know their ideology... and if a guy "plays footsie" with a woman, its sexual assault? i mean, since when has foot contact with another human being been sexual? next time im waiting in a line and the person behind me makes contact with my heels i can charge him with sexual assault? that poor undercover cop must of been scarred for life making foot contact with another man without his consent...
einstein, when you reply to my posts, even if you direct it at someone else, you arent ignoring the posts
and chris, where have libertarians openly supported sexual assault and drug abuse?
hmmm, libertarians are bad because a very few of them claim to be conservative.... conservatives are bad because they're nazi's that are destroying what our forefathers fought and died to protect.... yeah, i would definitely prefer my children to be libertarian... Einstein has already expressed his homicidal tendencies to people with differing views and lack of moral conscience is something most conservatives have, they openly support murder and intolerance.
this is supposed to be about how to piss off Libertarians, but so far, Conservatives have jsut been bitching about how Libertarians piss them off 
starcraft 2 is just starcraft on a modern engine
lol, what a moron.... gaming laptops are the biggest waste of money ever. they are inferior laptops and they are horrible at gaming... you can buy a laptop that will be a superior laptop and a desktop that will be a superior gaming pc for less money then a gaming laptop costs...
i wont even go into the contradiction of you responding to something that you claim to ignore and merely point out that its fine if you want to continue to act like a toddler and continue to play this game; but there are other people in this thread other then the two of us, so there is no need for you to spam ignored after my posts... because other people can appreciate my posts....
one source for confusion is that libertarian is the name of a party and of a ideology...
the ideology i think recognizes that people have differences in opinion, and instead of groups forcing their views onto others, individuals should be given freedom as long as it doesnt infringe on other people's freedoms...
they dont have to be pro or against the legalization of drugs, they can view the drug addict as an individual and think he has the right to expose himself to those drugs, or you can say the drug's properties are infringing on the individuals's rights and freedoms...
same can be said with abortion, a libertarian could take either side of the debate, either thinking of the fetus's freedoms that the parent(s) are infringing upon or considering the fetus to not have the rights yet, and feeling protective of the woman's freedoms...
libertarians arent against all wars... like einstein said, theres good wars and bad wars...
yep.... einstein thinks everyone who doesnt share his views on everything should be murdered....
i've won elections too... sure nothing important... but from what i gather about einstein's position, its not important either...
yep... theres people that can disprove your arguments so you get away from having to face them by putting them on your ignore list.... what a childish thing to do. just think what would happen if a politician did that to his opponent.... he would lose by a landslide...
nope, key, thats faulty logic. just because something is true for one thing and is true for another thing, doesnt mean the two things are the same...
How to piss off a conservative: disagree with them on any one thing.... think hight axes are beterr: pissed off conservative... think gay marriages are fine: pissed off conservative..... think the death penalty is dated: pissed off conservative.... ect
I Live right next to the largest muslim community in the US, and i have yet to see any war waged on Islam by the US.... in fact, there is practically no issues between with the muslim and non-muslim communities in the US...
it seems like in most modern societies... the OP's view is common... so religious people are people that arent swayed by the negative views their society imposes on them and their religion... which would mean that the opposite of what the OP said is true...
> tommie wrote:
> if america is economically though then europe is superman in economy.
don't see how you can call a nation that's had a list of econom screw ups though.
you have debts al over the place
have to protect your heavy industrie and metallurgie for decades now
keep blowing money out the door like you actually got it.
the dollar's been on a dwindle ever since the euro came out and even before
sure if you go compare america too 3rd world countries yes then america is doing well economically but that's like pitching a heavy weight boxer against a lightweight and say he's doing good. of course he is
compare usa to europe and perhaps even china and also japan and you see that economically you're doing actually quite bad.
the US's economy is so tough that you have to compare it to the combined economies of 40 odd first world countries inorder for it to not look quite as good...
> tommie wrote:
> > VikingKing wrote:
> lol, oh you silly Brits. Like a bad boyfriend calling in the middle of the night drunk and crying, telling us we were the best thing to ever happen to them.
lol not british or anythign but this is a too good of a metafor to pass up:
if the brits are a bad boyfriend does that mean america is the blonde bimbo with more breasts then brains?
considering how economically and militarily tough the US is, the US is probably more like the gf that turned lesbian after dating GB.
theres no physical description, but in the bible they'll occasionally say something about the wrath of God, or that God was pleaseed or that God was angry, ect. and it is humans giving God human-like traits to make him relate able...
> Ehawk wrote:
>
@ avo
sorry for being too defensive. anyways, i have a question for you:
Have you ever considered the posability that God is an atheist?
i try to keep my hypotheticals constructive. lets look at this theory. If i chose to beleive God is an atheist, how would this effect the way i act? it wouldnt. What if God calls black white and white black? so what if he does?
i think if God exists, some type of all knowing, all powerful being; it would be totally unlike anything humans have experienced. the images of God, the descriptions of God, the assigning of human attributes to God, ect.. shouldnt be taken literally. they are there to try to help us relate to him, they are not scientific descriptions of the being...
i wasnt sure of the meanng, so i asked you to elaborate; and me calling you stupid was based completely off of event prior to the statement currently the topic of the thread....
ok, ehawk so your question is about "intelligent" people that would not believe in a God even if there was indisputable proof that there was a God? and your question is if they would be thinking too much outside of the box.
correct?
so hypothetically there is indisputable proof that there is a God, but the people still wont believe in him because for example they believe that Humans are simply animals cursed with cognitive thought...
and you want to know if these people are too far outside of the box.... no. i would say not. if there was indisputable proof that God existed and they didnt believe it, it would be because they are stuck in a notion, in a school of thought, they are so in the box, that when there is a new box, they are left behind...
ehawk, i think you mis-typed that. either you're asking if intelligent people that have a reason other then the lack of proof for beleiving that there is no a God are also thinking too much inside the box, or if they are thinking outside of the box...
as for the question, ehawk, you dont have to worry about this, because you're not an intelligent person. i know, a low blow....
omg, someone actually spelled San Jose with an h?
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.