Real Victims of Katrina, Part II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Ok, so you wouldn’t want to pay any taxes. Now here are the consequences.

You can’t drive a car. The road is build by tax payers money.
You can’t go to school or send your children to school. The school is payed by tax payers money. You can’t send your children to private school either. The private school is subsidised by tax payers money. The people who teach there are educated and trained by tax payers money.

You can’t go to a doctor. He was trained using tax payers money. You can’t visit a hospital, it was build by taxpayers money.

You can’t go to work. I don’t care where you work. It’s either build, maintained or subsidised with tax payers money.

You can’t workout. You can’t become a member of a gym. The roads leading to the gym are build using tax payers money. You can’t order in your own equipment. The truck would drive on roads payed with tax payers money.

Since you’re not a tax payer, you’re essentially nothing.
You didn’t want to bring anything to the group. And now you’re a cast out.

Now go curl up and die. Your carcass wil be left there to rot. No tax payers money should be spent in covering up your body.
The crows like that.

The end.[/quote]

Great post.

62

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Ok, so you wouldn’t want to pay any taxes. Now here are the consequences.

You can’t drive a car. The road is build by tax payers money.
You can’t go to school or send your children to school. The school is payed by tax payers money. You can’t send your children to private school either. The private school is subsidised by tax payers money. The people who teach there are educated and trained by tax payers money.

You can’t go to a doctor. He was trained using tax payers money. You can’t visit a hospital, it was build by taxpayers money.

You can’t go to work. I don’t care where you work. It’s either build, maintained or subsidised with tax payers money.

You can’t workout. You can’t become a member of a gym. The roads leading to the gym are build using tax payers money. You can’t order in your own equipment. The truck would drive on roads payed with tax payers money.

Since you’re not a tax payer, you’re essentially nothing.
You didn’t want to bring anything to the group. And now you’re a cast out.

Now go curl up and die. Your carcass wil be left there to rot. No tax payers money should be spent in covering up your body.
The crows like that.

The end.[/quote]

Whow, you killed that straw man allmost as fast as you built it…

Great job…

63

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Ok, so you wouldn’t want to pay any taxes. Now here are the consequences.

You can’t drive a car. The road is build by tax payers money.
You can’t go to school or send your children to school. The school is payed by tax payers money. You can’t send your children to private school either. The private school is subsidised by tax payers money. The people who teach there are educated and trained by tax payers money.

You can’t go to a doctor. He was trained using tax payers money. You can’t visit a hospital, it was build by taxpayers money.

You can’t go to work. I don’t care where you work. It’s either build, maintained or subsidised with tax payers money.

You can’t workout. You can’t become a member of a gym. The roads leading to the gym are build using tax payers money. You can’t order in your own equipment. The truck would drive on roads payed with tax payers money.

Since you’re not a tax payer, you’re essentially nothing.
You didn’t want to bring anything to the group. And now you’re a cast out.

Now go curl up and die. Your carcass wil be left there to rot. No tax payers money should be spent in covering up your body.
The crows like that.

The end.[/quote]

You are lurching toward Nominal Prospect territory — outside the bounds of rational thought.

Did you read where I said that not paying has consequences? I think you did, so you therefore regard humans as cattle, to be milked when YOU decide.

Everyone is free to not pay — they then must accept the consequences of their actions. If they don’t pay, there will be no police, roads, army and so forth. That has consequences as well. You are saying that humans can’t be relied upon to make the rational choice to VOLUNTARILY fund those things.

Here again is an example of a Leftie who does not trust his fellow man. He regards men as objects, who should never be allowed a choice. Here again is the Left demonstrating its descent into a fascist mentality.

Keep posting, Lefties. “Let all the poison that lurks in the mud hatch out!” (Claudius).

64

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Ok, so you wouldn’t want to pay any taxes. Now here are the consequences.

You can’t drive a car. The road is build by tax payers money.
You can’t go to school or send your children to school. The school is payed by tax payers money. You can’t send your children to private school either. The private school is subsidised by tax payers money. The people who teach there are educated and trained by tax payers money.

You can’t go to a doctor. He was trained using tax payers money. You can’t visit a hospital, it was build by taxpayers money.

You can’t go to work. I don’t care where you work. It’s either build, maintained or subsidised with tax payers money.

You can’t workout. You can’t become a member of a gym. The roads leading to the gym are build using tax payers money. You can’t order in your own equipment. The truck would drive on roads payed with tax payers money.

Since you’re not a tax payer, you’re essentially nothing.
You didn’t want to bring anything to the group. And now you’re a cast out.

Now go curl up and die. Your carcass wil be left there to rot. No tax payers money should be spent in covering up your body.
The crows like that.

The end.[/quote]

You go from the current system to no system at all. So, of course it doesn’t work. That doesn’t mean that a different system couldn’t work.

The problem is that, as of yet, everyone who proposes to abolish taxes or to make them “optional” or “user selectable” doesn’t really offer any plausible scenario detailing how such system might work; nor even if it could work at all.

Put a “Don’t pay any taxes” check box on a IRS form and see how many taxes you actually collect…

None of the “no taxes/less taxes” proponents have answers to what to do with all the welfare recipients that would find themselves with zero income, but still mouthes to feed.

Those problems are much harder to resolve (and much more interesting to discuss); but apparently, not even the big fans of “rational thinking” can come up with much in the way of a solution.

It seems that for some, being a fan of “critical, rational thinking” and “the marvelous achievements of struggling men” is only a spectator sport.

65

[quote]pookie wrote:
You go from the current system to no system at all. So, of course it doesn’t work. That doesn’t mean that a different system couldn’t work.

The problem is that, as of yet, everyone who proposes to abolish taxes or to make them “optional” or “user selectable” doesn’t really offer any plausible scenario detailing how such system might work; nor even if it could work at all.

Put a “Don’t pay any taxes” check box on a IRS form and see how many taxes you actually collect…

None of the “no taxes/less taxes” proponents have answers to what to do with all the welfare recipients that would find themselves with zero income, but still mouthes to feed.

Those problems are much harder to resolve (and much more interesting to discuss); but apparently, not even the big fans of “rational thinking” can come up with much in the way of a solution.

It seems that for some, being a fan of “critical, rational thinking” and “the marvelous achievements of struggling men” is only a spectator sport.
[/quote]

Why does a solution have to be complicated? We’re not doing microsurgery here. Just offer people a choice of what they want to fund — military pay, schools, and so forth. Let the politicians come on the tube and try to convince you of funding their program. I suspect that not much ‘pork’ would get funded if the bastards’ spending and plans were out in ‘the light of day’.

Many here are against the war. Just mark on your ballot to not put any of your $$$ into funding it.

The system we have now lets all kinds of trickery, lobbying, scamming go on. Make it simple, keep it out in the open, and go from there.

BTW: Pookie, I greatly respect your intellect and sense of honor. Your ideas are welcome. You may laugh at me but I enjoy reading your posts.

HH

66

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why does a solution have to be complicated? We’re not doing microsurgery here. Just offer people a choice of what they want to fund — military pay, schools, and so forth. Let the politicians come on the tube and try to convince you of funding their program. I suspect that not much ‘pork’ would get funded if the bastards’ spending and plans were out in ‘the light of day’.[/quote]

Your initial idea also included the option to fund nothing at all…

Now, if you look to the very rich, you tend to notice that they do just about everything legally possible (and then some) to avoid paying any taxes. Why would poor Joe Schmoe feel any need to tick the “pay taxes” box?

As for selecting which program you wish to fund, the idea is interesting. The current form of that is voting for the party who most closely represents the values you hold dear. In a two party system, it’s pretty sucky, because it extremely unlikely that any party would have a platform that would be even close to what you’d like to fund.

One problem with that “fund what you want” system is that sometimes unpopular choices must be made and that those unpopular programs might simply get too little funding to actually get done, leaving the country worse off.

What if the war was initially supported; but as bad news amounted, funding dried up? The resulting mess from starting a war and not following up would be bad for everyone.

How would you control the “pick your program” method? Just look at your recent elections to see how a simple two choice (well nearly) vote can turn into a nightmarish morass. Do you think that a form that included hundreds of various programs and ways of funding them (what if I don’t support the war, but am OK with 5% of my taxes going towards it just so we can finish the job properly?) would yield crystal clear results?

What happens when new info comes to light and changes the mind of a large swath of the population? Do you resample the people’s will every year? Month? Every day? Once a term?

[quote]BTW: Pookie, I greatly respect your intellect and sense of honor. Your ideas are welcome. You may laugh at me but I enjoy reading your posts.

HH[/quote]

My sense of honor?

67

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Ok, so you wouldn’t want to pay any taxes. Now here are the consequences.

You can’t drive a car. The road is build by tax payers money.
You can’t go to school or send your children to school. The school is payed by tax payers money. You can’t send your children to private school either. The private school is subsidised by tax payers money. The people who teach there are educated and trained by tax payers money.

You can’t go to a doctor. He was trained using tax payers money. You can’t visit a hospital, it was build by taxpayers money.

You can’t go to work. I don’t care where you work. It’s either build, maintained or subsidised with tax payers money.

You can’t workout. You can’t become a member of a gym. The roads leading to the gym are build using tax payers money. You can’t order in your own equipment. The truck would drive on roads payed with tax payers money.

Since you’re not a tax payer, you’re essentially nothing.
You didn’t want to bring anything to the group. And now you’re a cast out.

Now go curl up and die. Your carcass wil be left there to rot. No tax payers money should be spent in covering up your body.
The crows like that.

The end.

You are lurching toward Nominal Prospect territory — outside the bounds of rational thought.

Did you read where I said that not paying has consequences? I think you did, so you therefore regard humans as cattle, to be milked when YOU decide.

Everyone is free to not pay — they then must accept the consequences of their actions. If they don’t pay, there will be no police, roads, army and so forth. That has consequences as well. You are saying that humans can’t be relied upon to make the rational choice to VOLUNTARILY fund those things.
[/quote]

Free not to pay? And then face the consequences. Sounds more like you’re someone who wants options and CLAIMS he’ll face the consequences. I just pointed out the consequences. You just didn’t like them.

Therefore, I’ve got a sneaky feeling that you had hoped you could weasle out from facing the consequences.

What’s so VOLUNTARILY about checking the boxes for the police and the fire department, if the consequences are that you’re house won’t be protected from burglary or fire. I fail to see option here.

So you the one trusting his fellow man then. As long as he isn’t black and living in NO that is.

Man is a social animal, we live in a society. We exist only through interactions with other people.
Other animals are like that, primates, elephants. Studies show that caring social animals live longer than those individuals who go for the quick profit.

I guess some primates are smarter then you.

68

[quote]orion wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Ok, so you wouldn’t want to pay any taxes. Now here are the consequences.

You can’t drive a car. The road is build by tax payers money.
You can’t go to school or send your children to school. The school is payed by tax payers money. You can’t send your children to private school either. The private school is subsidised by tax payers money. The people who teach there are educated and trained by tax payers money.

You can’t go to a doctor. He was trained using tax payers money. You can’t visit a hospital, it was build by taxpayers money.

You can’t go to work. I don’t care where you work. It’s either build, maintained or subsidised with tax payers money.

You can’t workout. You can’t become a member of a gym. The roads leading to the gym are build using tax payers money. You can’t order in your own equipment. The truck would drive on roads payed with tax payers money.

Since you’re not a tax payer, you’re essentially nothing.
You didn’t want to bring anything to the group. And now you’re a cast out.

Now go curl up and die. Your carcass wil be left there to rot. No tax payers money should be spent in covering up your body.
The crows like that.

The end.

Whow, you killed that straw man allmost as fast as you built it…

Great job… [/quote]

There’s also the straw man of the naturally incompetent government, and the well to do wellfare mother. T just thought I’ld return the favor.

69

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
orion wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Ok, so you wouldn’t want to pay any taxes. Now here are the consequences.

You can’t drive a car. The road is build by tax payers money.
You can’t go to school or send your children to school. The school is payed by tax payers money. You can’t send your children to private school either. The private school is subsidised by tax payers money. The people who teach there are educated and trained by tax payers money.

You can’t go to a doctor. He was trained using tax payers money. You can’t visit a hospital, it was build by taxpayers money.

You can’t go to work. I don’t care where you work. It’s either build, maintained or subsidised with tax payers money.

You can’t workout. You can’t become a member of a gym. The roads leading to the gym are build using tax payers money. You can’t order in your own equipment. The truck would drive on roads payed with tax payers money.

Since you’re not a tax payer, you’re essentially nothing.
You didn’t want to bring anything to the group. And now you’re a cast out.

Now go curl up and die. Your carcass wil be left there to rot. No tax payers money should be spent in covering up your body.
The crows like that.

The end.

Whow, you killed that straw man allmost as fast as you built it…

Great job…

There’s also the straw man of the naturally incompetent government, and the well to do wellfare mother. T just thought I’ld return the favor.[/quote]

He does not need those strawmens to support his case, you have no way to attack the core of his argument without one.

It?s just not the same…

Naturally incompetent government is a strawman? Hardly, government is very bad at a lot of things which is a natural result of the legal restraints that are necessary for government actions in a democracy.

The only thing that governments can do better than any other organisation is taxing and killing people.

So, in their area of expertise, governments actually might be quite effective…

But that is not what you meant, isn?t it?

70

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why does a solution have to be complicated? We’re not doing microsurgery here. Just offer people a choice of what they want to fund — military pay, schools, and so forth. Let the politicians come on the tube and try to convince you of funding their program. I suspect that not much ‘pork’ would get funded if the bastards’ spending and plans were out in ‘the light of day’.

Your initial idea also included the option to fund nothing at all…

Now, if you look to the very rich, you tend to notice that they do just about everything legally possible (and then some) to avoid paying any taxes. Why would poor Joe Schmoe feel any need to tick the “pay taxes” box?

As for selecting which program you wish to fund, the idea is interesting. The current form of that is voting for the party who most closely represents the values you hold dear. In a two party system, it’s pretty sucky, because it extremely unlikely that any party would have a platform that would be even close to what you’d like to fund.

One problem with that “fund what you want” system is that sometimes unpopular choices must be made and that those unpopular programs might simply get too little funding to actually get done, leaving the country worse off.

Many here are against the war. Just mark on your ballot to not put any of your $$$ into funding it.

What if the war was initially supported; but as bad news amounted, funding dried up? The resulting mess from starting a war and not following up would be bad for everyone.

The system we have now lets all kinds of trickery, lobbying, scamming go on. Make it simple, keep it out in the open, and go from there.

How would you control the “pick your program” method? Just look at your recent elections to see how a simple two choice (well nearly) vote can turn into a nightmarish morass. Do you think that a form that included hundreds of various programs and ways of funding them (what if I don’t support the war, but am OK with 5% of my taxes going towards it just so we can finish the job properly?) would yield crystal clear results?

What happens when new info comes to light and changes the mind of a large swath of the population? Do you resample the people’s will every year? Month? Every day? Once a term?

BTW: Pookie, I greatly respect your intellect and sense of honor. Your ideas are welcome. You may laugh at me but I enjoy reading your posts.

HH

My sense of honor?

[/quote]

These are all good questions. I’m sure that many highly intelligient people can think up reasonable answers to each one. Perhaps shrinking the government is an option, or somehow limiting the items explicitly put on a ballot. Creating a general fund with specific sub-projects, things of that nature. Considering the mess we’re in now (our currency here will be pretty worthless sometime in the next 50 years and we’ll have to declare bankruptcy), I’d try ANYTHING to avoid that. That usually precedes a dictatorship.

And yes, having read many of your posts, I consider you an honorable man.

HH

71

[quote]orion wrote:
I’d like to see you crush the underlying premisse in his point against welfare…

That would be seriously impressive…

The fact that NO is probably the worst example he could choose does not mean that he has no case.[/quote]

I don’t take an issue with his stance on welfare. His argument is completely run-of-the-mill for anyone who is familiar with traditional conservative/libertarian viewpoints, as I am. I happen to be in agreement with him on this topic.

What I take issue with, as indicated by the third paragraph I wrote, is the utter hypocrisy he exhibits when dealing with other issues, namely foreign policy. And particularly, his demeanor of extreme arrogance coupled with ignorance, which he continually reinforces by refusing to engage certain topics in debate.

In his refusal to address legitimate topics of debate that are brought up by others with whom he disagrees (of which I am one, obviously) he typically spouts off-topic diatribes grounded in speculation that, more often than not, is pulled straight out of his ass. As proof, allow me to cite his latest response to me.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Hmmm…since I say things like: “All relationships between human beings should be voluntary on all sides — anything else involves slavery.” or “Your life, your work, your property are YOURS. No one may take these things from you; they are sacred.” or “Your integrity is priceless.”, this means that you are going to argue against these ideas.

It is for this reason that I don’t debate you — you are a moral cannibal without any principles (except perhaps of destruction). Since we have no common ground, I being civilized and you not, no rational discussion is possible. We must have common definitions, in other words.

However, I do want you to continue to post. You, by way of example, demonstrate how the Left is real nothing more than a bunch of Fascists. Please DO attack individualism, freedom, private property, the individual mind, rationality, capitalism. Evil understood is evil defeated.[/quote]

In this post, I am being libeled by him as a left-wing radical who opposes capitalism and traditional American values.

This is utter nonsense in light of my major point of contention with him, which is the lack of consistency he exhibits in applying his ideals throughout the entire spectrum of politics. The irony of this is that I’m who is essentially chastising him for his departure from traditional conservative viewpoints in the realm of foreign policy, yet he is trying to portray an alternate reality in which I’m a militant Lefty!!! Fucking nutcase behavior. Well, it only qualifies as insane if you truly believe in his utter sincerity. As I wrote earlier, I think he’s fully aware of the bullshit he is spouting, of the infantile tactics he employs, and that he enjoys doing it.

This man, who calls himself a teacher and rails against government intervention in domestic affairs, cannot be bothered to justify or even address the question of how a government that fails to educate it’s citizens, to care for the poor, etc, etc…can possibly be expected to police the entire world without fucking up the task as royally as any other to which it has been assigned.

This is the core issue which I have been calling him, and other neocons, out on over the span of multiple threads. Others have responded earnestly, and some of them have provided solid arguments worthy of good-natured debate. Headhunter, on the other hand, has merely evaded and distorted any argument that did not suit his tastes. He is the despicable equivalent of a boastful gladiator who touts his skill in the arena yet carefully (and discreetly) selects all his opponents from the ranks of the wounded.

Arrogance is typically a privileged domain of those in power, i.e. those who have earned it. Headhunter (and certain others on this board) have attained no such status in any real sense, yet they employ overwhelming arrogance simply because the circumstances of this debate forum (it’s virtual nature) allow them to do so without getting their asses whooped in real-time.

Rather than working to the advantage of those who choose to employ it, the strategy of arrogance tends to immediately identify the participants as hopeless ideologues, beyond reasoning with and more-often-than-not severely lacking in the capacity for rational thought.

If HH truly has read my posts, as he claims, he would know that my political leanings are anything but leftist or anti-capitalist, that I routinely link to sites such as LewRockwell.com, the creed of which is plainly visible on the front page, reads “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market”, and Antiwar.com, which, in it’s mission statement, cites traditional conservative ideology:

[i]Our politics are libertarian: our opposition to war is rooted in Randolph Bourne’s concept that “War is the health of the State.” With every war, America has made a “great leap” into statism, and as Bourne emphasizes: " . . . it is during war that one best understands the nature of that institution [the State]." At its core, that “nature” includes the ever-increasing threat to individual liberty and the centralization of political power.

…

In 1952, Garet Garrett, one of the last of the Old Right “isolationists,” said it well:

“Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other.”

This is the perception that informs our activism, and inspires our dedication. Non-interventionism abroad is a corollary to non-interventionism at home. Randolph Bourne echoes this sentiment: “We cannot crusade against war without implicitly crusading against the State.”[/i]

Sure, label me a Commie and try me, while you’re at it – or have we departed with such tedious procedures in this day and age of “benevolent American hegemony”?

HeadHunter – The quintessential internet forum jackass. Utterly convinced of his own originality and wit, he trods down the very same intellectual path that has been taken by countless morons before him. He is an amalgam of several common personality types found on the net:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/centurion.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm
And most tellingly:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

72

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

This man, who calls himself a teacher and rails against government intervention in domestic affairs, cannot be bothered to justify or even address the question of how a government that fails to educate it’s citizens, to care for the poor, etc, etc…can possibly be expected to police the entire world without fucking up the task as royally as any other to which it has been assigned.

[/quote]

Yawn…I explained this to you before. I explained this because it was the only part of what you wrote then that had any bearing on anything. That holds true here as well.

YOU calling ME arrogant! That was a good chuckle!

Nice caricature of yourself, btw.

HH

73

The dynamic of the world is POWER. In the history of the world, it is when one nation has overwhelming, smashing power that there is order. It is when a hegemonic power falls (such as the Roman Empire, the British Empire) that the world descends into chaos. One need only look at the Dark Ages or the years 1919-1945. Luckily, for the world, a clean and honest champion was waiting in the wings at the end of British hegemony. This noble country, which has rescued and liberated the world several times, is the United States of America, the noblest and most moral country in history.

For maintaining order and justice in an evil world, you’d think the United States would be praised. A country that sends its young people to fight and die for Justice should be lauded and praised.

Instead, we are villified. “How dare you prevent us from destroying ourselves!!” — the world cries. Instead, we get people like Nominal Prospect, who pledges to attack any idea I propose or suggest, even the ideas that built this country. We get a cretin with no philosophical principles who would attack individualism, freedom, and voluntary choice. He has sworn to attack these ideas, as he himself quoted above. He, a self-proclaimed ‘libertarian’ attacks libertarian principles. He ends by calling ME a jackass, as if the words spewed by left-wing litter could somehow insult me.

Goodbye, Nominal Prospect. Move to North Korea. We don’t want you or your hatred of our country. You are not much of a prospect at all.

Headhunter

74

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The dynamic of the world is POWER. In the history of the world, it is when one nation has overwhelming, smashing power that there is order. It is when a hegemonic power falls (such as the Roman Empire, the British Empire) that the world descends into chaos. One need only look at the Dark Ages or the years 1919-1945. Luckily, for the world, a clean and honest champion was waiting in the wings at the end of British hegemony. This noble country, which has rescued and liberated the world several times, is the United States of America, the noblest and most moral country in history.

For maintaining order and justice in an evil world, you’d think the United States would be praised. A country that sends its young people to fight and die for Justice should be lauded and praised.

Instead, we are villified. “How dare you prevent us from destroying ourselves!!” — the world cries. Instead, we get people like Nominal Prospect, who pledges to attack any idea I propose or suggest, even the ideas that built this country. We get a cretin with no philosophical principles who would attack individualism, freedom, and voluntary choice. He has sworn to attack these ideas, as he himself quoted above. He, a self-proclaimed ‘libertarian’ attacks libertarian principles. He ends by calling ME a jackass, as if the words spewed by left-wing litter could somehow insult me.

Goodbye, Nominal Prospect. Move to North Korea. We don’t want you or your hatred of our country. You are not much of a prospect at all.

Headhunter

[/quote]

Having confirmed that you are indeed a self-proclaimed Christian, I unfortunately have to tell you that your philosophical foundations have cracks I could hide a medium sized brothel in…

Ann Raynd AND being a Christian?

Jesus Christ, the sinless creature that acted as a sacrifial lamb for all of humanity?

“Original sin”? Sinful, no matter what we do, an idea that has been exploited by the church for centuries?

Recognize anything?

“If we can make them feel guilty…”, “the only thing we have to fear is the guiltless man…”…

No?

Does not ring any bells?

I agree with NP, you seriously have to bring your philosophical house in order…

75

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The dynamic of the world is POWER.[/quote]

You’ve written this before and acted as though it was some sort of revelation. I’ll have you know that I’ve spent years studying power dynamics at all levels (not just in international relations) and doubtless understand it far better than you – judging from your shoddy intellect in other areas.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
In the history of the world, it is when one nation has overwhelming, smashing power that there is order. It is when a hegemonic power falls (such as the Roman Empire, the British Empire) that the world descends into chaos.[/quote]

Those are far too ambiguous descriptions of “order” and “chaos”. You could say that the history of the world is a constant power struggle between nations. When one decisive victor emerges, it reigns until it is toppled by another. In the interim, there is a period of relative stability as the ruling class attempts to impose its own status quo. This can only be considered “orderly” from the perspective of those who are members of that status quo. I guarantee you that if China conquered the US and imposed its ways on this country, you would not be reciting praise about the new order. But you are far too dense to see this because of your massive double standard in favor of the U.S. Like all nationalists, you’re hopelessly biased without even knowing it.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
One need only look at the Dark Ages or the years 1919-1945. Luckily, for the world, a clean and honest champion was waiting in the wings at the end of British hegemony. This noble country, which has rescued and liberated the world several times, is the United States of America, the noblest and most moral country in history.

For maintaining order and justice in an evil world, you’d think the United States would be praised. A country that sends its young people to fight and die for Justice should be lauded and praised.[/quote]

This just ruined the half-decent argument you had. Give me a fucking break. Do you really believe this tripe? Every individual, group, society, and nation acts in its own interest. Always has, always will. It has never been any different with this country. Historically, it has done what it needed to protect its own interests, often times resulting in death and destruction for other parties. Colonialist expansion into Native American lands. Carrying a big stick in Latin America. Gunboat Diplomacy. The annexation of Hawaii. Cuba. The Philippines. Paving the way for the rise of Hitler and Communism by tipping the balance of power in WWI. Antagonizing Japan into launching an attack in WWII. Propping up oppresive regimes in South Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, China, the Philippines, and numerous countries in Africa.

And for this, you expect gratitude. You’re out of your damn mind.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Instead, we are villified. “How dare you prevent us from destroying ourselves!!” — the world cries.[/quote]

That’s more BS.

Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq was generally considered to have the best educational system and medical facilities in the Middle East.

In an interview conducted by John Miller for Esquire in February 1999, Osama bin Laden said: “This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack others, their lands or their honor. And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves.”

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Instead, we get people like Nominal Prospect, who pledges to attack any idea I propose or suggest,[/quote]

The only thing I “pledged” to do was to address you every time you tried to bring up a new argument. This is significant for two reasons:

  1. You rarely attempt to formulate a legitimate argument, usually reserving the special occasion for the creation of a new thread (which leaves no doubt as to how high of an opinion you have of yourself)

&

  1. You make a habit out of evading your intellectual foes, so I shall be your antithesis - for this reason, I will address and rebuke everything that you put forth (not in the way of flames or nonsensical babble, but on the rare occasions that you try to advance a coherent point).

Which you have no grasp of.

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

I’ve explained my philosophical foundation far better than you have yours. The fact that you subscribe to a different set of principles does not mean that I haven’t got any because I disagree with you. Now, show me how I’ve attacked “individualism, freedom, and voluntary choice”, you imbecile.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
He has sworn to attack these ideas, as he himself quoted above. He, a self-proclaimed ‘libertarian’ attacks libertarian principles.[/quote]

You attempt to pass off such statements without even providing a word of supporting evidence? Hahaha. What a joke.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
He ends by calling ME a jackass, as if the words spewed by left-wing litter could somehow insult me.[/quote]

I have one-hundred-and-one links, quotes, and citations from Libertarian and conservative websites that I can tie perfectly into my arguments and utterly crush your notion of me being a leftist. What have you got? Jack shit.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Goodbye, Nominal Prospect. Move to North Korea. We don’t want you or your hatred of our country. You are not much of a prospect at all.[/quote]

Weak. Just pathetic, in all seriousness.

76

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

You make a habit out of evading your intellectual foes, so I shall be your antithesis - for this reason, I will address and rebuke everything that you put forth (not in the way of flames or nonsensical babble, but on the rare occasions that you try to advance a coherent point).

[/quote]

Can we all say ‘obsessed stalker’?

Why did I come back and read the ranting of someone who attacks individualism and yet claims to be an individualist? Why, why, WHY…

You have no philosophic principles and are attacking me for having some. Wow.

Beyond pathetic.

Headhunter

77

Good post Nominal. Way over his head though.

78

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Paving the way for the rise of Hitler and Communism by tipping the balance of power in WWI. Antagonizing Japan into launching an attack in WWII. [/quote]

Here we have a classic example of a true ‘America-hater’. The United States paved the way for Hitler to unleash the Holocaust and the enslavement/deaths of 10s of millions. The United States paved the way for the creation of the Soviet Union and Communist China. The United States provoked Japan into attacking us; we baited them to do it!

You, sir, are just plain fucking nuts! I earlier resolved that you are not rational and not worthy of any response. Why I responded to you since escapes me — why, why, WHY?

Put on your tinfoil hat, boy! They’re coming for you!!

What a fucking nut!! And I thought I was psycho! You make me look like an amateur.

Goodbye, you ‘essence of manhood you’! (Others: see the Jacked thread, for more of this guy’s insanity.)

Headhunter

79

HeadHunter,

I’ve only read a few posts in here as I rarely browse the politics forum but from what I can tell you got your Ass handed to you by NominalProspect. He kicked every leg of your suspect argument out from under you and then kicked you in the Ass for grins. If I were you I’d STFU and quit posting since he is WAY out of your league. (Pookie and a few others too)Maybe you should move down to AA ball?

80

This is one of those things that fucks with me on a personal level.

My 6 year old son’s two best friends are an illegal immigrant and a Katrina evacuee. I don’t know a whole lot about the Katrina kid’s family situation, just that there are a lot of them crammed into their apartment. I have conversations with them when dropping off/picking up kids at the bus stop and when our kids are outside playing. They seem like good people, and I’ve never probed into the details of what their exact situation is.

Then last week my son climbed up on my lap after Katrina kid left, hugged me, and said he feels sorry for Katrina kid. I asked why and he said, “Because his dad died in the hurricane.” Shit.

Then a day or two later, the Katrina kid (who comes over and plays Gamecube with my son daily) knocked on the door. When I opened it, he handed me a Gamecube game and said he wanted to give it to my son because his Gamecube was gone. I told him to keep it and bring it with him when he comes over to play.

Then yesterday while I was cooking dinner, my son came in and said that Katrina kid wanted to sell the game for $2. My son was so excited.

Shit. First I asked him if he was sure it was OK with Katrina kid’s mom that he sold the game and my son assured me it was. Shit. Then I asked him if he thought that $2 was fair and it took a couple of beats, but then he looked like I had slapped him. My son is TIGHT with his money. I was stupid with mine, and I’ve made a very serious effort to explain the importance of being smart with your money to him. I could see him being ripped apart by his love of the other kid and his love of the unbeatable deal of a $2 game.

After a couple of moments he said, “Hold on” and went to his room. He came back with $12 and said, “That’s how much it cost at the game store.”

I don’t know what I’m trying to convey with this story, other than that it is easy to be libertarian in theory. When the little Katrina kid who talks like Mush Mouth from the Cosby cartoon is looking at you, it’s a whole different thing.