Kemp: Am I a 1910 communist?

I'm old enough to remember that 4th Internationalists aren't Commies

I said that they would say it was a good example, because they did.... The Paris Commune was upheld as the ideal communist society for a very long time. possibly still is....

yes Commies still pretend the Paris Commune was awesome sauce, that's because le French have to feel bad about shooting le French*
actually they were a bunch of rateating hostage shooters
might as well feel bad about the Kaiser's army having to lose a war on enemy territory.

*somebody does, don't they

You knew someone named Buffy in high school?

Yell: welcome to any thread involving Flint an Kemp...

Kemp: It was never any interest, other than disproving a stupid remark made by flint.... then to get you to actually read the words I wrote and not to just make up what you want me to say.... both these outcomes would be positive...

> Einstein wrote:

> The communist of 1910 couldn't point to a single real-world instance of his utopia;

That.  Might not be a good example... but it's there.

Kemp: Once again, I am not trying to find a good example of communism, i doubt there is one, however when I see a glaring error I will correct it, even if it is minor on the scale of things... or would you prefer to let flint have all his falsehoods when he is speaking "facts" in which case you may as well stop wining about his lack of knowledge about libertarians....

My reply to Kemp.

> Mister Spock wrote:

> I found 6 threads, 5 of which fit the the criteria pretty well *snip* 

Kemp knows Genesis has blocked me in the past for bringing old threads back. He uses this strawman a lot even though mods specifcally prevent old threads from being 'topped'.

 You support the mugging of the American people by the Federal Reserve banking system. This is the single biggest factor which makes Democrats and Republicans and Socialists and Communists whores under the control of the NWO and international banks. On this topic you have never voiced disagreement with any of these groups. That's pretty "Liberal" of you, in the new and redefined usage it sees today. (Not "Liberal" as in free thinking or challenging the status quo) 

Notice the false claims tied in with a negative. His claim I support muggings is absurd of course but he used it. Note the use of whores as well. Then he goes to lump Republicans, as a whole, with groups most of us would consider polar opposites. In fact we Conservatives in the Republican Party know what Agenda 21 is and will fight against it tooth and nail. Nor do we support the NWO. Never have I heard 'international banks' used in context of those so no comment there. Yet I guarantee Kemp will keep using this canard, keep saying we represent those interests, because he is a Libertarian and libertarians must spread blatant lies to support their radical agenda.

I take no pleasure *snip* wars of foreign aggression against nations which are absolutely no threat to us whatsoever, 

quick moment here. The shoe bomber did not require a complicated infrastructure. No tanks were required for the under wear bomber. The lockerby bombing was done by a nation he considers stone age. Not only does he show his ignorance he revels in it. Never mind napalm is easy to make, that most explosives do not require rocket science to make. He ignores what secondrate machine shops in Palestine can make. Never mind Oklahoma City was a fertalizer bomb, that a primitive group in Oregon did Samonella poisoning attacks, or that we have been lucky in stopping most of the larger arsenal smuggling into the United States. The mall shooting in Oregon, the school shooting in Conneticut, the movie shooting, the Giffords shootings all done with low tech guns. He ignores what ten of them smuggled in can do, would do. All because he wishes to think of them as stone age. How naive of him.

*snip*expansion of federal power. In the past few days you advocated your own version of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Yes, I believe that's pretty liberal. 

two things here... he believes I would expand the Government or for his lying acts if thus, when I have nonstop advocated, like all Conservatives, reducing the Government. And of course a Free Market principled ideal to replace a liberal ideal, mine reducing the Government involvement, theirs always increasing government involvement earns his wrath. His libertarian head is up his principled arse so high he cannot see the advantages in reducing cost, changing lobbying from more government pay to less government control...

That you don't want gay people to "marry" doesn't negate all of these much-more-important topics that you agree with Liberals are. I can respect that you think homosexuality is more important than these things, but I don't. I can respect that you think a tiny difference in preferred government size is significant, but I don't. 

He ignorss my desire to shutter the education department, cut the energy department to less than 1/10th, shutter the interior department, handcuff and restrain (and gut) the EPA. hell he could not admit Conservatives wish all this and more if his life was at stake. He must lie on this portion no matter the cost! If I could i would bolb and underline this: HE CAN NEVER CONCEDE THE TRUTH OF CONSERVATIVES!

 The Founders' ideas were Libertarian, not "Conservative" as you define it today. *snip* 

He makes a bold claim here, one which is notsupported by history. Barbary, Canada, the almost war upon France (which Napolean detected, he sold Louisana instead), and more. Thats just military adventurism. However the founders were Conservative in nature.

I have but one life to give for my country.

"Kemp knows Genesis has blocked me in the past for bringing old threads back. He uses this strawman a lot even though mods specifcally prevent old threads from being 'topped'."

No, can't say that I was aware. I went back far enough to go past the locked threads to more unlocked ones beyond. I just searched for "libertarian." Wasn't difficult. Since I did, in fact, respond to your ridiculous statements here, I obviously wasn't relying on "strawman" references to previous arguments.

The straw-man fallacy is where one responds to fictitious arguments which others aren't making. Referring to the fact that you have made threads on this subject in the past and never actually engaged in a discussion is not an example of a straw-man fallacy. If it wasn't true, it'd just be false. That doesn't randomly make it a type of fallacious logic which it is not.

Again you are incoherent, rambling with absolutely no basis whatsoever for what you're saying. At least you're being consistent.

"Notice the false claims tied in with a negative. His claim I support muggings is absurd of course but he used it. Note the use of whores as well. Then he goes to lump Republicans, as a whole, with groups most of us would consider polar opposites."

Your party supports the Federal Reserve system. This is a fact. A vast majority of your party have supported it every year since its creation 100 years ago. Again, your statements are baseless. You suddenly, all of a sudden, now claim to be against the Federal Reserve, and you claim that Republicans are against it. Yet literally not one (save Ron Paul, whom you hate and reject) even speaks out against it, let alone voices the desire to vote against it. You have absolutely no grounds to claim that Republicans are against the Fed.

"In fact we Conservatives in the Republican Party know what Agenda 21 is and will fight against it tooth and nail. Nor do we support the NWO."

As usual, you claim to be against them in name only. But your claim is, as always, baseless, since you continue to support funding them with wealth inflated out of the American people's pockets.

"Yet I guarantee Kemp will keep using this canard, keep saying we represent those interests, because he is a Libertarian and libertarians must spread blatant lies to support their radical agenda."

I'm just pointing out that your party (who you vote for) supports it. You can cry and claim you don't support it all you want, but the fact is that your party votes for it consistently and literally none of them, save Mr. Paul, say a word about it.

I'm really not interested in an "exchange" on this level. Literally nothing you're saying is true. You're lying. You're pretending that you disagree with things you've literally never spoken a word of disagreement with before, and you're pretending that your party disagrees with things they've consistently voted in support of for a century. Actions matter; words in conflict with actions are lies. And that's all you've got. You have absolutely no basis for a single thing you said that I've responded to above. I'm not interested in reading pages more of nonsense with absolutely no basis in reality.

OooOo you wanna cut FEMA and the energy department! Big deal. As long as you support the Fed, you support the NWO. They'll give you all the symbolic cuts you want as long as it shuts you up while they continue robbing the American people. Crying about a mugger while a bank is robbed does not make you a big anti-crime advocate. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I said that Republicans and Democrats both wholeheartedly support the Federal Reserve system.

What part of that was "tricks and lies?"

You haven't made one argument that Republicans don't support the Federal Reserve system. Where are your examples of Republicans campaigning against it? Voting against it? ...Even speaking about it, at all, ever? You have none. They support it. It's a fact, just like it's a fact that Democrats and Socialists and Communists (all Globalists) do.

Being a fact, you cannot dispute it. I said it. It's true. But you don't like it. So you're calling me names, rather than disputing it in any way whatsoever. Cute.