Re: Ron Paul and his followers (aka Ron Paulbots)

You're not a baby. When you post "WELL ABORTION," we both know you haven't made a point. You haven't challenged anything: You've referenced unrelated topics and made no point by referencing them. I've pointed this out repeatedly and still you refuse to explain what you think you meant. You didn't make any points with your various irrelevant references. I've challenged you to tell us what point(s) you think you've made, but you've declined to enlighten us.

I additionally inquired what "repression of social consensus" you claim was responsible for the downfall of the Klan's popularity. You've again declined to enlighten us.

"Apparently you're spouting high-falutin ideas to which history is "irrelevant" and complaining about that is "incoherent"."

The pyramids exist and Rome conquered a lot of territory too. But referencing these facts is not a point.

"I admit that squatting behind a tree and bitching that everybody is out to get you, nobody understands you, and you're bummed about it is an acceptable debate style -- check the career of Michel Foucault -- but it isn't widely used online."

Which is exactly what you're doing here.

I've repeatedly asked you what point you sought to make with your random references of other topics. You made no points with them at all, let alone clear ones. I've asked you to explain another reference as well, but again you're not interested in telling us.

You're not a baby. If you choose not to participate in a discussion, don't cry when I point out that you're rambling incoherently. I've asked you specifically what you were trying to get at with various pointless references. You've declined to explain/clarify/enlighten us. I've asked you what you were referring to with a vague reference. You again declined to explain/clarify/enlighten us.

I was specific in what I asked about. Repeatedly. You've refused to clarify/explain a single statement/reference. Refusing to address questions does not win debates or further discussion.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Ron Paul and his followers (aka Ron Paulbots)

Your last substantive post was to complain that I could not really challenge libertarianism by alluding to facts, because libertarianism is not anchored in reality.  Once you admitted that you lost 99% of the audience.

For some time, your answer to my posts was that I was beating a strawman and making false comparisons.  Of course this is completely incompatible with random, unconnected and unclear posts of irrelevant facts.  You understood my point well enough to complain it didn't apply to you.  Now on page 3, having admitted that you can't refute attacks by appealing to any record of human experience and must rely on thoughts and dreams, you complain that its time I restate the whole thread.

Go back and read the thread.

If you have nothing but complaints that I'm off your script, save them.  I'm not obliged to offer a political philosophy devoid of practical facts and I won't spare you arguments that your system doesn't work and isn't anything like what has worked.  I'm not going to accept your direction.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Ron Paul and his followers (aka Ron Paulbots)

"Your last substantive post was to complain that I could not really challenge libertarianism by alluding to facts, because libertarianism is not anchored in reality."

The pyramids exist. Rome conquered a lot of territory. Oooo I just challenged you by alluding to facts, because your positions are not anchored in reality!

"For some time, your answer to my posts was that I was beating a strawman and making false comparisons.  Of course this is completely incompatible with random, unconnected and unclear posts of irrelevant facts."

You occasionally made silly claims which weren't bizarre, pointless references. I argued against these silly positions. Of the bizarre references I asked questions, all of which you ignored.

"Go back and read the thread."

You're just being an angry douchebag. You won't answer legitimate questions about your inane rambling, and now you're mad that I called you on being stupid and incoherent. This isn't about a system or philosophy, this is about you acting like a childish douchebag who doesn't want to discuss anything, only cry that I called you on this fact. My direction was coherence and explaining your pointless rambling. My direction was discussion. But you're too good to make any sense or participate in an exchange.

Lying about the Klan is a poor attempt to make a point, and you gave up on it. I asked for what you were talking about with a specific reference at least twice. You declined to respond. Point conceded.

Arguing as if Libertarians support no laws is attacking a straw man. This was just stupid. Point conceded.

Mentioning abortion is not a point in and of itself. You've been given plenty of chances to tell us your supposed point. Point conceded.

I look forward to your crying about it.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Ron Paul and his followers (aka Ron Paulbots)

All of my posts were to show that your philosophy does not work, and is contrary to the spirit and practices of American reform throughout history.

Your response was to insist that Libertarianism is justified without regard to the facts.

GAME OVER no discussion of facts can prove or disprove such a philosophy.  It is not, by definition, a practical political viewpoint. 

Once you got hit with that, you swerve into bitching about the way it all went down.  I don't give a damn what your scorecard says chump, who's up on points is irrelevant when one guy is kissing the mat in the 6th

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Ron Paul and his followers (aka Ron Paulbots)

"All of my posts were to show that your philosophy does not work...."

Except most of them lacked points. When I asked what you were attempting to get at, you declined to enlighten us.

"and is contrary to the spirit and practices of American reform throughout history."

Except you were vague and frequently factually incorrect. When I asked what you were referring to with a reference, you declined to enlighten us.

"Your response was to insist that Libertarianism is justified without regard to the facts."

Which of course I never said. And you refuse to discuss facts.

You've refused to talk about the topic and yet you continue to post. You're making things up. You're raging. Did someone knock you out and replace you with an angry 7 year old? I'm asking seriously. This is embarrassing. Grow up.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Ron Paul and his followers (aka Ron Paulbots)

And I struck by proving evil exists and that evil wishes to grow.

Ignoring it does not provide safety from it. Killing it makes you safe.


Ignoring evil is how Mao rose, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mousillini (sp?), dozens of African dictators, the Ayohtollah (sp?), Saddam, the Taliban, Bin Ladin, and Imperial Japan as well.


It is how we grew from a forming nation to a nation needing a civil war... because the founders chose to ignore an evil rather than confront it at that time.


I also showed how drugs can be abused, can be addictive, can result in negative actions on society, which you dismissed out of hand with no true evidence to show that I was incorrect.


When the United States is the meanest it can be, evil plummets. Libya gave up a nuclear weapons program... Iran waited an additional three years before starting theirs, and dictators quietly give up portions of power and ambitions to rule over more people.

Oh and when Reagan attacked Libya they stopped for decades their ambitions. When Reagan attacked Iran for mining the Suez and messed up their navy they stopped being arseholes for two decades (except to Israel).


Sometimes you gotta slap an evil person or nation around for them to become aware that they could lose everything.

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Ron Paul and his followers (aka Ron Paulbots)

""Your response was to insist that Libertarianism is justified without regard to the facts."

Which of course I never said. And you refuse to discuss facts."

right here

""What Justinian I thinks of "established morality" is irrelevant insofar as Libertarian principles/ideals don't necessarily require a basis in reality." - V Kemp, page 2

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

58 (edited by V.Kemp 09-May-2012 19:19:36)

Re: Ron Paul and his followers (aka Ron Paulbots)

Libertarians principles do not preclude belief in evil or supporting actions to fight it. I haven't ignored anything: You're attacking a straw-man and I am not obligated to defend the straw-man to hold my position.

Libertarian ideas tend to stress the fact that our elected officials -- and, indeed, our electorate -- are not nearly responsible or educated enough to "combat evil" responsibly. The notion that Bush or Obama or Clinton or Bush Sr. were remotely equipped to fight evil responsibly is laughable. They've killed more Americans and foreigners who were no threat to Americans than I care to think about. Combating evil is not out of the picture as a justifiable course of action, but Libertarians are stuck pointing out to murderous zealots like you that you're not doing a good job at fighting evil. Libertarians are stuck pointing out that murderous zealots like you frequently are evil. Maybe some of them would agree with you that evil must be fought, but they're too busy trying to point out to your sheep-like self that you're frequently part of the evil that needs fought.

"Ignoring evil is how Mao rose, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mousillini (sp?), dozens of African dictators, the Ayohtollah (sp?), Saddam, the Taliban, Bin Ladin, and Imperial Japan as well."

You forgot to mention recent actions in which we bombed the hell out of and even invaded nations which are barely out of the stone-age and were no threat to us. Or pressuring regime change where we're supporting the take-down of evil authoritarians by even more evil authoritarians. Do you know nothing of American history? Half of the time our meddling is unjust, only done in the name of corporate interests which are neither morally defensible nor economically beneficial to America at large. Not exactly free of evil. Half of the time our military matters are messed with by idiot politicians, getting countless Americans killed. Not exactly free of evil.

That you can mention a small handful of examples which were arguably done responsibly and free of evil is not evidence of innocence in the bigger picture nor is it suggestive that we're capable of getting it right more than a tiny portion of the time.

"It is how we grew from a forming nation to a nation needing a civil war... because the founders chose to ignore an evil rather than confront it at that time."

And here you confess absolute ignorance of American history. You obviously have no idea what the founders did, let alone why. You obviously have no understanding of what the civil war was fought over, let alone why. Maybe you shouldn't form opinions based purely on ignorance. You'll be right more of the time and avoid looking like a clueless idiot. Just a suggestion.

"I also showed how drugs can be abused, can be addictive, can result in negative actions on society, which you dismissed out of hand with no true evidence to show that I was incorrect."

I pointed out the ineffectiveness of drug laws in reducing usage by citing unchanged usage rates in nations which used to prosecute drug use and now have it decriminalized. You ignored this. I pointed out that billions are spent on the drug war for no gain. You ignored this. I pointed out that law enforcement personnel lose their lives in the drug war for no gain. You ignored this. I pointed out that innocent civilians not involved in the war are caught in the cross-fire (literally and, mostly, figuratively) lose their lives in the drug war for no gain. You ignored this.

You haven't responded to a single thing I've said on the topic. It's embarrassing.

You "showed" that you're an arrogant prick who thinks having been homeless makes him an expert on drug use and addiction. You "showed" that you think pot has all kinds of effects which science has shown it doesn't. You "showed" that you're an ignorant sucker who wants to bend the world to fit his view, who isn't willing to look at the real world, let alone look at it, think about it, and talk about it. You cited teenagers whining about tummy-aches on a forum as evidence of pot's horrible withdrawal effects. You cited what homeless junkies said as fact, while having no knowledge of science and academic study on the topic.

How cocky and arrogant you are with absolutely no knowledge on most of these topics is disturbing. It explains Bush, McCain, Romney, and Obama. Everyone who says you're right is a valiant warrior of freedom and justice and can be as socialist as he wants, bomb whoever he wants! Everyone who disagrees with you on some topics is evil, misguided, crazy, and clearly wrong. Nevermind that you have no interest in learning about any of the topics you so arrogantly talk about anyway. Nevermind that you're not equipped to nor even interested in educating yourself and being able to make remotely responsible judgements.

You're not even capable of discussing these topics. And you know it: You choose not to respond to them in any way. Yet you're committed. You don't know why you're right--and you certainly won't talk about it--but damnit, you know you're right!

[I wish I could obey forum rules]