Once again pointing out the elephant in the room

[bripat9643]

How am I making it difficult? what could be easier than you explaining what you meant? How do you even imagine that I'm supposed to divine what you intended?

By actually reading what I said and not reading into what I said.........
I'll relent as you obviously haven't a clue.
I was pointing out the difference between socioeconomic models and reality (human application of those models), basically you said that only applied to socialist/communist systems. How are capitalist system models perfect? Are the people in those system God like? Not human?

I asked you to explain it so I wouldn't have to read anything into what you said. If my interpretation is wrong, then your statement is nonsensical. You don't' want to explain it because you know it was idiotic.

Wrong. It was because I was trying to give you the opportunity to reread it and figure it out utilizing rational application. You refused so I simply gave you what you deserved, ridicule.

You're a coward who said something stupid and then ran away.

Who do you think you're fooling, douche bag?

Can't man up and admit you fucked up...... and continue to be stupid about it. Hey, no problem Sputz, we both know what you are.

How did I "fuck up" by asking you to explain yourself rather than play 20 guesses?

You're a douche bag. That's the crux of this threadlet.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat9643

I have noticed that every conversation with Ringel05 becomes a back and forth where he puts your intellectual honesty in question, which is ironic given it is obvious deflection from the arguments.

Should I tug on my non existent forelocks.......

You're intellectual honesty isn't in question, it's your intellectual dishonesty......

No one questions the fact that you're a lying douche bag.

My my my, talk about being defensive....... I know high schoolers with more maturity than that.....

I'll bet you do, plenty of them.

 

[Ringel05]

bripat9643

I have noticed that every conversation with Ringel05 becomes a back and forth where he puts your intellectual honesty in question, which is ironic given it is obvious deflection from the arguments.

Should I tug on my non existent forelocks.......

You're intellectual honesty isn't in question, it's your intellectual dishonesty......

No one questions the fact that you're a lying douche bag.

My my my, talk about being defensive....... I know high schoolers with more maturity than that.....

I'll bet you do, plenty of them.

Is that a specific insinuation? Really? Are you that moronic?

 

[Ringel05]

By actually reading what I said and not reading into what I said.........
I'll relent as you obviously haven't a clue.
I was pointing out the difference between socioeconomic models and reality (human application of those models), basically you said that only applied to socialist/communist systems. How are capitalist system models perfect? Are the people in those system God like? Not human?

I asked you to explain it so I wouldn't have to read anything into what you said. If my interpretation is wrong, then your statement is nonsensical. You don't' want to explain it because you know it was idiotic.

Wrong. It was because I was trying to give you the opportunity to reread it and figure it out utilizing rational application. You refused so I simply gave you what you deserved, ridicule.

You're a coward who said something stupid and then ran away.

Who do you think you're fooling, douche bag?

Can't man up and admit you fucked up...... and continue to be stupid about it. Hey, no problem Sputz, we both know what you are.

How did I "fuck up" by asking you to explain yourself rather than play 20 guesses?

You're a douche bag. That's the crux of this threadlet.

I explained it, you didn't like the explanation because it did fit your macho "I can't be wrong no matter what" mentality. Can't help ya with that Sputz.

 

[bripat9643]

I asked you to explain it so I wouldn't have to read anything into what you said. If my interpretation is wrong, then your statement is nonsensical. You don't' want to explain it because you know it was idiotic.

Wrong. It was because I was trying to give you the opportunity to reread it and figure it out utilizing rational application. You refused so I simply gave you what you deserved, ridicule.

You're a coward who said something stupid and then ran away.

Who do you think you're fooling, douche bag?

Can't man up and admit you fucked up...... and continue to be stupid about it. Hey, no problem Sputz, we both know what you are.

How did I "fuck up" by asking you to explain yourself rather than play 20 guesses?

You're a douche bag. That's the crux of this threadlet.

I explained it, you didn't like the explanation because it did fit your macho "I can't be wrong no matter what" mentality. Can't help ya with that Sputz.

Doooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuche bag!

 

[bripat9643]

bripat9643

I have noticed that every conversation with Ringel05 becomes a back and forth where he puts your intellectual honesty in question, which is ironic given it is obvious deflection from the arguments.

Should I tug on my non existent forelocks.......

You're intellectual honesty isn't in question, it's your intellectual dishonesty......

No one questions the fact that you're a lying douche bag.

My my my, talk about being defensive....... I know high schoolers with more maturity than that.....

I'll bet you do, plenty of them.

Is that a specific insinuation? Really? Are you that moronic?

Doooooooooouuuuuuuuche bag!

 

[JakeStarkey]

One of the legitimate functions of a constitutional republic is taxation.

Get over that simple fact, freeks.

There is no such thing as "the legitimate functions of a constitutional republic." There is no such thing as legitimate government.

Of course there is. That you disagree means nothing.

 

[Pop23]

It would occur to me that any group of people that wish to live in common will have the shared cost of that arrangement.

Call it taxes, fees or shared labor. It is simply sharing that cost.

So be it.

What "shared cost" is that?

Anything provided in common. Roads, police, fire, defense......

Why would we want to "provide them in common?" Why not people pay for whatever roads, fire protection or police protection they want? We already have hundreds of companies that provide each of these services.

Call it a tax a fee or whatever.

 

[Iceweasel]

So how long did those anarchists last? One failed effort spawned another?

Now there are more anarchists today than there were back them.

Notice the close synthesis between anarchists, extreme libertarians, conservatives that are distrustful of the government, and liberals which hate the police and military industrial complex.

The anarchist movement is stronger than ever. Everyday we recruit from the right and left.

There aren't any anarchists here. Can speak about the whole world but if you live here you are living in a capitalist system over managed by a bloated government and moving towards socialism.

Distrusting big government doesn't mean conservatives want no government.

I'm an anarchist, so you are wrong.

You probably aren't but think you are. Anarchy is no laws.

 

[bripat9643]

One of the legitimate functions of a constitutional republic is taxation.

Get over that simple fact, freeks.

There is no such thing as "the legitimate functions of a constitutional republic." There is no such thing as legitimate government.

Of course there is. That you disagree means nothing.

Name one "legitimate" government and explain why it's legitimate.

 

[bripat9643]

It would occur to me that any group of people that wish to live in common will have the shared cost of that arrangement.

Call it taxes, fees or shared labor. It is simply sharing that cost.

So be it.

What "shared cost" is that?

Anything provided in common. Roads, police, fire, defense......

Why would we want to "provide them in common?" Why not people pay for whatever roads, fire protection or police protection they want? We already have hundreds of companies that provide each of these services.

Call it a tax a fee or whatever.

How does what you call it change anything? If you are compelled by force to pay it, then it's nothing more than robbery.

 

[bripat9643]

So how long did those anarchists last? One failed effort spawned another?

Now there are more anarchists today than there were back them.

Notice the close synthesis between anarchists, extreme libertarians, conservatives that are distrustful of the government, and liberals which hate the police and military industrial complex.

The anarchist movement is stronger than ever. Everyday we recruit from the right and left.

There aren't any anarchists here. Can speak about the whole world but if you live here you are living in a capitalist system over managed by a bloated government and moving towards socialism.

Distrusting big government doesn't mean conservatives want no government.

I'm an anarchist, so you are wrong.

You probably aren't but think you are. Anarchy is no laws.

Not true at all.

 

[Iceweasel]

So how long did those anarchists last? One failed effort spawned another?

Now there are more anarchists today than there were back them.

Notice the close synthesis between anarchists, extreme libertarians, conservatives that are distrustful of the government, and liberals which hate the police and military industrial complex.

The anarchist movement is stronger than ever. Everyday we recruit from the right and left.

There aren't any anarchists here. Can speak about the whole world but if you live here you are living in a capitalist system over managed by a bloated government and moving towards socialism.

Distrusting big government doesn't mean conservatives want no government.

I'm an anarchist, so you are wrong.

You probably aren't but think you are. Anarchy is no laws.

Not true at all.

Definition of ANARCHY


Full Definition of anarchy
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

 

[kaz]

And that falls apart the first time marauders who don't want to be part of your town come through, kill your family and take off

What if the economics of force are in favor of the civilized and not this hypothetical band of marauders"?

Nestor Mahkno led an anarchist army 100,000 strong. Pretty sure bandits were not a huge concern for Ukrainian anarchists.

I'm not talking about an army. Say it was four guys. So, you get home, your family is dead. Your move. So?

How many people were killed in Orlando despite the existence of our army?

Your post agrees with mine, so I'm not sure what you're looking for

So you live in Orlando, that has a national government, you get home and your family is dead. Your move. So?

My point was that at least he has a national police that coordinates to try to get the people who committed the crime.

I'm not clear what is the implication of your question. How does Orlando say we don't need law enforcement?

 

[kaz]

My voice is worthless to them. Even if the illusion of this being a majority driven system is correct, the majority of Americans are stupid submissive bastards.

They are. Yet you think these submissive bastards are going to take care of themselves. They'll join the next Hitler or Obama's army and start conquering until the anarchists create their own army to fight them, then you have government again

 

[Fenton Lum]

Problem is americans want all the stuff they don't want to pay for.

They do not want to be held accountable for a free and self sufficient society, so these sell outs enable the ruling class and the machine state.

Look, I agree with all the the-public-needs-to-resist-and-withhold-consent business, but power always does whatever it can, and the american public has participated in it's own situation. And as long as the unsubstantial people think change is going to come without them having to change anything they're doing personally, here we shall squat forever.

I don't see Cliven Bundy as the model for anything.

Your post is a series of unconnected sentences, all absurd, of course, that signify no coherent idea.

Yeah, one typically has to go through a thread chronologically and think outside the box. No one expects that of you.

 

[Fenton Lum]

My voice is worthless to them. Even if the illusion of this being a majority driven system is correct, the majority of Americans are stupid submissive bastards.

They are. Yet you think these submissive bastards are going to take care of themselves. They'll join the next Hitler or Obama's army and start conquering until the anarchists create their own army to fight them, then you have government again

Partisanshit is the ultimate submission.

 

[kaz]

My voice is worthless to them. Even if the illusion of this being a majority driven system is correct, the majority of Americans are stupid submissive bastards.

They are. Yet you think these submissive bastards are going to take care of themselves. They'll join the next Hitler or Obama's army and start conquering until the anarchists create their own army to fight them, then you have government again

Partisanshit is the ultimate submission.

No it's not, using terms uselessly as if they have a point in themselves in the ultimate submission

 

[Onyx]

We will just kill you and your family and the mercenaries you might have hired, and then tax everyone else and build common roads.

The classic violent statist mentality.

 

[Onyx]

]
I was just digging the anarchy suggestion. And I'm not like Ghandi or MLK.

Who has time for that nonviolent shit?

Anarchism does not allow for the instigation of violence, but it does warrant self defense.

By the way, Gahndi was quite the anarchist.