What the hell is libertarianism?

Soon you'll be smelling ash. :o

If you say so, herr Doktor

Okay, is it possible to have a functioning and productive society that includes both libertarians and non-libertarians??

Some more questions... what are libertarian takes on:

1. the rights and responsibilities of parents towards their children

2. the rights of children

3. the rights of physically and/or mentally disabled persons (apart from anecdotes about eg. this one handicapped guy who wrote books about computers :p)

4. establishing and maintaining a military force

5. the mission of that military force

??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Children... :downcast:

---

No. Might feel like it sometimes, but no. Not in a scientific sense.

Quote:

---

I would say the parasites are all those who deprive others of wealth or liberty through forcible compulsion (directly or by proxy). So, basically government and (to a lesser extent) the beneficiaries of government's ill-gotten wealth.

---

Are you an anarchist?

Quote:

---

Enh. Like I said the first time ][ear posted that... libertarians object to forcible compulsion (give us money or go to jail) and not the offer of a service (in exchange for $x, we'll protect your house from fires).

---

Do you object to civilization in general? Seriously, you realize all that compulsory money pays for civlization, the technology and economic infrastructure that's provided us all with exceptional standard of living. You would give that all up so you could reduce your taxes? :confused: (I'm assuming you don't object to law enforcement, courts, the military... or do you?)

Quote:

---

Oh, you weren't around for that? Apparently our dear ][ear was drafted to fight in Nicaragua. Well, so he claimed, anyway.

---

I know Tear told a lot of lies but I wasn't aware that he'd been pretending to be a Contra.

Quote:

---

I guess "believe what I say about the military because I was a Contra" was more convincing than "believe what I say about the military because I'm a cum-guzzling coward whose closest experience to combat was getting renal failure from an untreated STD I picked up being gay-for-pay near the local military base."

---

Holy Moly. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Libertarian credo? "Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

You front far more than anybody here, snake, so you should be careful about glass houses. By your own admission, you are a parasite who wants to take as much as possible from the world and give as little as possible in return. Society has put far more into you than you have returned, or ever will returned. You're a taker, not a giver. Are you libertarianisms poster child? Selfish narcissism?

You're a faker. You do nothing but posture, bully and mock. Why should any of us believe the fantabulous back story you present us? It's preposterous. You expect us to believe your Hollywood life story, Cain? None of your posting matches up. The little details are ALWAYS missing. You're nothing but talk, bro. Smoke and mirrors.

And spare me the coward talk. I've been through far more than some fantasy soldier like yourself, who never came within a hemisphere of war. As I've pointed out before, how come you never shared a single relevant detail of your war experience until I mentioned this deficit, eh? Because you had no experience to draw on, so silence was safer. You figured if you dropped a "huah" on us now and then, and refer obliquely to some historical battle, you'd stamp your soldier card.

Fuck you, coward. Your whole personna is BS fronting by some scrawny wuss. You're a disgusting excuse for a human being. You taunt people stuggling to live, and you torment suicidal tweens. Is there anything lower, other than molesting children? You're sickening. Saying things less offensive got Silverlink widely excoriated and banned. I fell confident you won't, you pustule on the ass of humanity. What makes you different from the Westboro Baptist Church, exactly? Let's see, people who died are that way because God hates fags, right? And you claim my kidneys failed because I picked up soldiers for gay sex? WELL DONE. Really, man. Way to stamp your humanity card. We all get it about you now, you evil, sick fuck.

It will be entertaining to watch TWF's powers that be rationalize how they tolerate your evil. Dread, after all, is one of the two people who can verify who I am. I sent him my information before my transplant. Serious character check here, eh?


Edit: OH NO! I forgot. You've got a computer and are well-armed! You threaten to come kill people who disagree with you on the internyets. PLEASE don't kill me Mr. Macho, armed-to-the-teeth military man! PLEASE don't kill me! I've only got 9 lives, and have used 2 up already. Please don't take my life! I'll do anything! I'm so terrified! PLEASE don't threaten me! And whatever you do, don't make homophobic jokes about me! That's so horrible!

Look, do us all a favor, go to an SF bathhouse and work out your homoerotic problems. You're fucking insufferable and offensive, you goddamned Larry Craig-emulating, repressed right-wing Republican bigot

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Cain's a psychopath. That's the only term you can define with him as your archetype.

Oh, are you going to shoot me, Cain? Because you've obliquely threatened two posters with shooting recently. Oh noes!

Fuck you, Cain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

That's nice Steely. Does it make your complicity in Cain's behavior go down better, somehow?

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Steely Glint. Whatever he may do, he'll never take a stand, or at least not one that is discernible without carefully sifting and inferring from his posts. Bravery. Balls. Truth. That's Mr. Steely Glint.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Wow. I thought the religious right in *this* country was nutty. I should have known that they'd look sane compared to Germany. :o <shrug> Leave it to Europe to make liberalism look a lot like fascism.



Personal credo. Granted, it's not as clever as yours, but what is yours? "Serving the cause of liberals as a Contra since 1963?"



Well, in that case, it's possible to believe in individual liberty (politically) and still posses the ability to generalize and categorize. :| And it's still baffling that you don't take that as a given.



Really. Why would anyone who hates or distrusts the government... let the government raise their children?




Letting your inner communist out to play, are ya? Sorry that you find the idea of voluntary commerce to be so distasteful.



No, my parents gave me everything. Government, society, self-righteous zealots like you haven't given me anything other than a cold rage for the rest of humanity. Fuck off and die. Seriously, what a fucking waste of a perfectly good donor kidney you are. Should have gone to someone more useful, like a crack whore.



What Hollywood life story? Lower-middle class kid grows into middle class adult? Yeah, shit man, the big studios are always beating down my door to put that one up on the big screen. :haha:



Whatever you say. The jungles of Central America are beautiful this time of year, aren't they?

I *am* curious about what your obsession with war stories is, though... you hoping to pick up a detail or two to make your lies about military service better? Is your secret shame that you're a liberal who gets off on war porn? Have a big boy crush on me?



Yeah, that was pretty funny. But only because he was a drama whore with no serious intention to suicide or even self-harm. I must have a gift for smelling out a phony... probably why you've always had such a problem with me. :D



Aww, come on... if you're gonna do this, you gotta at least bring up my solicitation of underage DBZ kiddie porn, and pretend like I was being serious too.



Holy shit! I actually hit a nerve, didn't I? Now I'm starting to think your kidney disease really is the result of an untreated STD. Damn, I wish I could show you just how big I'm smiling right now.



He may well know your identity, but he's hardly one of the only people who know who you really are. Pretty much everyone on here knows you're a pathological liar who makes himself feel big by pretending to be anyone else. "I'm a contra! I'm an ex-Republican! I'm a born-again Christian who saw the light! I'm a rich Ph.D. with a hot wife and a fabulous home who loves paying his taxes! I'm a poor kid from the street who made it big thanks to government help!"

Seriously... how pathetic are you that you have to pretend to be someone, anyone else just to post online?



Careful now... wasn't it that kind of talk that got you the STD which fried your kidneys? :o



:haha:

You really don't get it, do you? I couldn't give a fuck if you're gay or not... and God knows you can't swing a dead towel-head in the Army without hitting a gay guy. I'm not the one who's got a homophobia problem - you are. That's why you get worked up into a frenzy anytime I suggest you may have had gay experiences, and I care so little about it that I make gay jokes about myself. A liberal closet-homophobe. God-damn, it's fun to have you around again!



Right. For that, you should probably go to the beginning of the thread, where at least three people provided a plethora of definitions of libertarianism. (Both serious, and humorous.)



"And blackjack, and hookers! In fact, forget the blackjack!"



Exactly. What retirement plan isn't largely based in fantasy? But, for the record, this would all be financed through savings, and acquired through voluntary trade. (Buying shit with my savings.) Once I've worked long enough to afford my lifestyle, why not sit around on a beach, relaxing, playing with my toys (guns and computers and the like) and ingesting happiness in its various chemical forms? I guess that males me a man of simple tastes, or something.

But just for the record, I *will* be naked. I hate pants. Once I no longer need them to be out "in public" without getting arrested, the pants come off. This will, perhaps, be the only non-libertarian law on my island. No pants. Ever. For anyone.



Not sure about that - the natural world is every bit your "master" (at least in the sense you're using it), whether there's a government and a society around you or not. Fat lotta good that civilization does you when the tsunami's bearing down on you, and like that there.



No thanks, man. I prefer chicks. *Without* STDs. :o

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Weren't you referring to felonies? Sounds like you prefer children. That's not a troll: you said it yourself.

It is rather curious to observe a psychopath in action. A pathologically lying psychopath. Why the need to mock my illness, Cain? Is it really different than the Westboro baptist church? Having fun with the suffering of others? What kind of person does that? What kind of sickness thrives on that? Do you kill people? Torture? Rape? What is the boundary of your enjoyment of others' suffering? Where do you draw the line, man? We know that you will try to taunt suicidal tweens into killing themswelves. I've witnessed more than once. Most of us here have. So how reprehensible are you, really?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Why would you assume that if I were to talk a stand, it would be siding with you against Cain?



I already figured it out: none whatsoever, otherwise you would have explained what it was instead of restoring to poorly disguised bluffing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Oh, not necessarily. Really, taking any ethical stand against that kind of behavior. You see, you just want the show, so you can apply your cool, practiced cynicism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Just out of interest, what 'ethical stand' would you like me to take? Maybe following him around to every thread he posts him telling him what a worthless fucking fuck he is?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I wonder if you notice the irony of those two statements given your recent behavior. I'll guess no, but who knows.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Yes, actually. Something like that. You see, when Silver attacked Lolli with all kinds of ugly stuff, I stepped up and took a side. When Cain tried to get the kiddies to commit suicide, I called him on it. When people have said homophobic, racist, sexist whatever, I always step up and say "you've gone too far." That's what decent people do in a community.

When Cain makes grotesque, cruel and homophobic comments about the illness that almost killed me? Nothing. Outrage when Silverlink says stuff less offensive stuff, but nothing against Cain because he is amusing where Silver was abrasive.

You see, Steely. It's not the offender, it's the offense. If you let an abomination pass without comment, you are complicit. If you here somebody drop the N-word at a party and just turn away in discomfort, you are complicit. You are, in fact, ethically compromised.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Oh, well, as a peace offering, I'll mail you a mirror. I just need you to give me your address.



I don't need to, I can quit any time I want to. I just don't want to.



It is. I have to get to know someone and figure out that they're particularly vile example of humanity before I enjoy their suffering. With the Westboro Baptist Church, I think it's more of a hating homos thing. And straight soldiers... and possibly anyone who doesn't hate gays. Actually, I think they just kinda hate everyone.



You know, as was said at the time, and has been said by many different people since... an attention-whoring emo is not actually suicidal, but it's fun to treat them like they are.



I am evil incarnate.

Feel better about yourself now? Standing up to pure evil, for the sake of all that is good and holy, and not just because you're an overgrown, narcissistic little child having a temper tantrum?



If he was capable of learning, or you know, hearing anything he disagrees with, I'd be be worried about you spoiling my fun.



You mean that disgusting, homophobic promotion of anal rape? You should be banned for that. :mad:



It must be that Fuzzy's a homophobe too. Obviously, only a closet homophobe could be unoffended by my blatant bigotry, therefore, Fuzzy must be homophobic. Wait, we're banning for that now, aren't we?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

No, Fuzzy is just a coward. He won't criticize you.

You, you're just psychopathic troll.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Actually it's probably more related to his ability to learn. I'll let him try to explain it to you for the 5th fucking time if he wants to.

---

:popcorn:

(Been waiting a while for the most ideal opportunity to use that emoticon. Thanks guys. :up: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Okay, is it possible to have a functioning and productive society that includes both libertarians and non-libertarians??

---

See above.

(sorry for the multi-posting guys... I figured this thread is so dysfunctional it doesn't matter...)

Thank you for hiding my questions beneath that post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Some more questions... what are libertarian takes on:

1. the rights and responsibilities of parents towards their children

2. the rights of children

3. the rights of physically and/or mentally disabled persons (apart from anecdotes about eg. this one handicapped guy who wrote books about computers :p)

4. establishing and maintaining a military force

5. the mission of that military force

??

---

There ya go!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Thank you for hiding my questions beneath that post.

---

It's not like you were going to get constructive and/or honest answers, either way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Some more questions... what are libertarian takes on:

1. the rights and responsibilities of parents towards their children

2. the rights of children

3. the rights of physically and/or mentally disabled persons (apart from anecdotes about eg. this one handicapped guy who wrote books about computers :p)

4. establishing and maintaining a military force

5. the mission of that military force

??

---

Since I'm procrastinating, I figured I'd answer those (no, I'm not a libertarian).

1.Most libertarians accept that children aren't mentally developed enough to take care of themselves. Therefore, parents are meant to act in their children's best interests. A libertarian would resist having the government tell them how to bring up their child as long as they provide it with the necessities though.

2. See point 1.

3. Probably in same category as children.

4. Most libertarians support a minimal military force.

5. The goal of that military force is to repel foreign invasions, not anything more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Since I'm procrastinating, I figured I'd answer those (no, I'm not a libertarian).

1.Most libertarians accept that children aren't mentally developed enough to take care of themselves. Therefore, parents are meant to act in their children's best interests. A libertarian would resist having the government tell them how to bring up their child as long as they provide it with the necessities though.

2. See point 1.

3. Probably in same category as children.

4. Most libertarians support a minimal military force.

5. The goal of that military force is to repel foreign invasions, not anything more.

---

Remembering that like any other political philosophy, there are different viewpoints amongst the individual Libertarians. (Yes I am one)

Loki hits it pretty well on 1, 2, and 3. (and I think most people regardless of political affiliation agree on those)

Points 4 and 5 are some of the many points where libertarians disagree with each other.

There are plenty of classical liberals who don't support 4 and 5, but I don't think I've seen any hardcore libertarians who did not. The likes of Cato and the Libertarian Party in the US certainly support those points.

Okay, so, in essence, Libertarians don't see the need to defend the rights of children who have the misfortune of being born to eg. fuckwits?

I'm not clear on who would be responsible for the disabled. I mean, not all disabled people are children, after all.

I think what I'm trying to figure out is what degree of libertarianism you can have in a functioning nation or in a functioning society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

There are plenty of classical liberals who don't support 4 and 5, but I don't think I've seen any hardcore libertarians who did not. The likes of Cato and the Libertarian Party in the US certainly support those points.

---

Yes, because those two orgs speak for all of us.

The group is not big enough at this time to have enough mouthpieces for the subsets of the group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Okay, so, in essence, Libertarians don't see the need to defend the rights of children who have the misfortune of being born to eg. fuckwits?

I'm not clear on who would be responsible for the disabled. I mean, not all disabled people are children, after all.

I think what I'm trying to figure out is what degree of libertarianism you can have in a functioning nation or in a functioning society.

---

Define fuckwits a bit more precisely.

Eg. parents who either abuse or severely neglect their children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Eg. parents who either abuse or severely neglect their children.

---

Physical/Mental Abuse = assault. Against the law. (Hint: Libertarians are not anarchists, we do believe that the role of government is to protect us from harm from others, just not ourselves)

Severe neglect can = Physical Abuse = assault.

Jebus...stop trying to paint us a mindless slaves to an (your) extreme view of Libertarianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Eg. parents who either abuse or severely neglect their children.

---

Did you read my response to point 1? :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Did you read my response to point 1? :bored:

---

This is why I tend not to get involved with these discussions. He has no intent of digesting what I or you would say on this as it does not fit his preconceptions of Libertarianism (THEY ARE JUST ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES!!!111!!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Did you read my response to point 1? :bored:

---

I missed the implication that someone else could intervene on the behalf of a child.

EDIT: Are libertarians okay with any degree of oversight over their parenting??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

This is why I tend not to get involved with these discussions. He has no intent of digesting what I or you would say on this as it does not fit his preconceptions of Libertarianism (THEY ARE JUST ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES!!!111!!)

---

Actually I was just wondering how it worked, because I've always just assumed Libertarians are very close to being anarchists but I don't know much about what they really believe about different issues. Wow, it's like it's illegal to be curious on this forum :confused: :down:

Maybe you tend to avoid these discussions because you're really bad at having discussions with other human beings :-D :-D that's an explanation that fits with my preconceptions of internet nerds anyway :up: or maybe we can just give each other the benefit of the doubt for once...??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Actually I was just wondering how it worked, because I've always just assumed Libertarians are very close to being anarchists but I don't know much about what they really believe about different issues. Wow, it's like it's illegal to be curious on this forum :confused: :down:

Maybe you tend to avoid these discussions because you're really bad at having discussions with other human beings :-D :-D that's an explanation that fits with my preconceptions of internet nerds anyway :up: or maybe we can just give each other the benefit of the doubt for once...??

---

Pardon me, but your curiosity smacked of obtuseness and a predetermined result/view, especially after it being pointed out multiple times on this forum and The Other Place, that we are not anywhere near anarchists.

If that is not the case, mea culpa. It just looked like you were asking for info, and then disregarding it so you could point to a pile of poo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Pardon me, but your curiosity smacked of obtuseness

---

eye of the beholder :downcast:

Quote:

---

and a predetermined result/view

---

well duh I have preconceptions, but I posted this thread because I realised I didn't actually know much about libertarians! Furthermore, I didn't even know we had any self-identified libertarians here besides Cain. That's how little I knew about them :p

Quote:

---

especially after it being pointed out multiple times on this forum and The Other Place, that we are not anywhere near anarchists.

---

I haven't been particularly involved in those discussions, alas.

Quote:

---

If that is not the case, mea culpa. It just looked like you were asking for info, and then disregarding it so you could point to a pile of poo.

---

Look, I'm pretty sure libertarianism goes against my own beliefs and values and that I'll find plenty of things in libertarianism that bother me, but I am nevertheless interested in knowing what libertarians believe. I'm also interested in knowing what others more politically and philosophically savvy than myself believe about libertarianism. I'm just trying to make sense of things for myself, there's absolutely no reason for you to get so upset. It's not as if I'd gain anything of value from upsetting you, or from pointing at a pile of poo :confused:

okay i can see how my initial posts could have been perceived as being aggressive and accusatory, didn't think about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Okay, is it possible to have a functioning and productive society that includes both libertarians and non-libertarians??

---

Yes, of course. Why wouldn't it be?

I was thinking that systems that eg. place a greater emphasis on social security would require a level of government involvement that would be unacceptable to libertarians. I was wondering whether or not it'd be possible to have a functioning and acceptable compromise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Since I'm procrastinating, I figured I'd answer those (no, I'm not a libertarian).

1.Most libertarians accept that children aren't mentally developed enough to take care of themselves. Therefore, parents are meant to act in their children's best interests. A libertarian would resist having the government tell them how to bring up their child as long as they provide it with the necessities though.

2. See point 1.

3. Probably in same category as children.

4. Most libertarians support a minimal military force.

5. The goal of that military force is to repel foreign invasions, not anything more.

---

1, 4, and 5 are certainly accurate, but in my experience, libertarians trend toward somewhat more expansive views of children's rights, like privacy, than other groups. This is countered somewhat by the biggest flaw of libertarian movements, most of the people are really thinking more about their own freedoms than anyone elses. So you've also got trends toward those who see their family as themselves, and object to things like child-abuse laws. Certainly they object to the idea of social services departments and monitoring or acting against unsafe environments. Most will accept some level of police-work, but the idea of other regulatory or enforcement agencies with similar powers is mostly anathema.

For the physically and mentally handicapped, they'd object to involuntary institutionalization, and would tend to regard them like they do everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I was thinking that systems that eg. place a greater emphasis on social security would require a level of government involvement that would be unacceptable to libertarians. I was wondering whether or not it'd be possible to have a functioning and acceptable compromise.

---

Uh, we're talking about democracy right? Everyone ends up unhappy with things at some point. You literally cannot have a society where everyone finds things acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I was thinking that systems that eg. place a greater emphasis on social security would require a level of government involvement that would be unacceptable to libertarians. I was wondering whether or not it'd be possible to have a functioning and acceptable compromise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Uh, we're talking about democracy right? Everyone ends up unhappy with things at some point. You literally cannot have a society where everyone finds things acceptable.

---

Unless Amy's implying the US is not a functioning society, then I'm not sure what the point of the question is since here we have Libertarians and Liberals and Conservatives and everything else, all wrangling and fighting and cooperating and so on. We're not a failed state or sliding into totalitarianism, though to hear whatever opposition talk you might think we were....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Uh, we're talking about democracy right? Everyone ends up unhappy with things at some point. You literally cannot have a society where everyone finds things acceptable.

---

No, of course not. But can you have a society wherein some people live as libertarians and others do not? Basically have two subgroups that play by different rules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

No, of course not. But can you have a society wherein some people live as libertarians and others do not? Basically have two subgroups that play by different rules?

---

Since we're talking about libertarians, which is a politcal ideology, so we're talking about politics, which is about governance and law, which applies to everyone then no, we can't have two political subgroups which play by different rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

No, of course not. But can you have a society wherein some people live as libertarians and others do not? Basically have two subgroups that play by different rules?

---

Do you mean those living as Libertarians get to not pay taxes for most stuff in lieu of the benefits those taxes pay for? I'm not sure that's possible since many of the benefits the taxes buy are non-specific, like economic prosperity and general standard of living...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Do you mean those living as Libertarians get to not pay taxes for most stuff in lieu of the benefits those taxes pay for? I'm not sure that's possible since many of the benefits the taxes buy are non-specific, like economic prosperity and general standard of living...

---

Well, yes and no, but to a certain limit you can have a mix of sorts...(wow, did that not sound like political double speak or what?)

With the multiple layers of local, county, state, and then federal government it is possible.

The first 3 could have a minimal government and then the fed is there.

The ideal (and will never happen) is that The Fed is the least intrusive (for the lack of a better term) and the more nitpicky governing bodies are get more intrusive as they get closer to the local level.

And...in some ways it does. Example: The Fed and State does not give a rats ass if I build a deck on my house, by the Town does.

Libertarians advocate deregulation, no taxes, open markets, which is the ideal situation for oligopolies and monopolies to get bigger and more powerful.
Ironically libertarians say they oppose monopolies.
So they say something, and they support measures to achieve the exact opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Yes, actually. Something like that. You see, when Silver attacked Lolli with all kinds of ugly stuff, I stepped up and took a side. When Cain tried to get the kiddies to commit suicide, I called him on it. When people have said homophobic, racist, sexist whatever, I always step up and say "you've gone too far." That's what decent people do in a community.

---

What people do in a crowd though, is gather round accidents, rubbernecking. All of your posts have been massive multi-car wrecks since that post by Cain.

How spastic do you have to be not to know that getting a reaction like the one you have given is pretty much him going fishing and landing a fish "THIS BIG"?

His post was much more shocking before you started shrieking about it in every fucking post and thread on this site. Now I wish him luck with his next riposte.

And honestly tear, i like you, i really do.

This bears repeating...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ar81

Libertarians advocate deregulation, no taxes, open markets, which is the ideal situation for oligopolies and monopolies to get bigger and more powerful.

---

Tear, this is the internet. Don't take it seriously. I bet Cain spends his weekends volunteering at an orphanage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Young Mage

Tear, this is the internet. Don't take it seriously. I bet Cain spends his weekends volunteering at an orphanage.

---

You're on. How much?

AR81 bears repeating?

ya...sure:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

You're on. How much?

---

FIIIINE, I'll be more realistic; I bet Cain spends his weekdays tending blind puppies and helping the autistics.