What are libertarians?

[Rikurzhen]

How things REALLY worked before FDR ushered in THE MOST successful program in American history...

Yes, comrade, redistributing more wealth than any other program in history makes it the "MOST successful." To a Marxist like you? Yes, it does.

People like getting checks of other people's money! They like it! Who saw that coming! LOL, you're a tool...

WOW, another script right out of the FAR right wing parrot school.

It is NOT other people's money pea brain. Every working man and woman PAY INTO Social Security, Even FAR right wing parrots like you. Hey asshole, why not just fire off a letter to SS and tell them you don't want their Marxist money.

The money you paid in was spent the minute the politicians got their hands on it. The money you collect, if you collect any, will be paid in by someone else. If it was really your money it would have been saved in the form of some kind of fungible security, not worthless IOUs.

He's a creationist, so don't count on him to understand the finer points of reality, like this:

 

[bripat9643]

He's a creationist, so don't count on him to understand the finer points of reality, like this:

Bugfucker is a creationist? But he's a libturd.

 

[Bfgrn]

He's a creationist, so don't count on him to understand the finer points of reality, like this:

Bugfucker is a creationist? But he's a libturd.

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

 

[Mac1958]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

 

[bripat9643]

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

I've never seen him post anything even remotely racist. I suppose you have some evidence to support this accusation?

BTW, Lincoln was a white supremecist.

 

[bripat9643]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

Any thread with a liberal participating always devolves into name calling because liberal "debate" is nothing but a series of personal attacks.

 

[kaz]

How things REALLY worked before FDR ushered in THE MOST successful program in American history...

Yes, comrade, redistributing more wealth than any other program in history makes it the "MOST successful." To a Marxist like you? Yes, it does.

People like getting checks of other people's money! They like it! Who saw that coming! LOL, you're a tool...

WOW, another script right out of the FAR right wing parrot school.

It is NOT other people's money pea brain. Every working man and woman PAY INTO Social Security, Even FAR right wing parrots like you. Hey asshole, why not just fire off a letter to SS and tell them you don't want their Marxist money.

Let me tell you a little secret, little man. There is no social security trust fund. Government is lying to you. They tax it and spend it. They save nothing.

 

[Bfgrn]

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

I've never seen him post anything even remotely racist. I suppose you have some evidence to support this accusation?

BTW, Lincoln was a white supremecist.

Why don't you ask Rikurzhen.

THIS Abe Lincoln?

In 1863, the black activist Frederick Douglass visited the White House to discuss the treatment of black Union soldiers. ''I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,'' wrote Douglass, who praised the president's ''entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.'' Lincoln was the first prominent white American ''who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.'' ref

 

[Bfgrn]

How things REALLY worked before FDR ushered in THE MOST successful program in American history...

Yes, comrade, redistributing more wealth than any other program in history makes it the "MOST successful." To a Marxist like you? Yes, it does.

People like getting checks of other people's money! They like it! Who saw that coming! LOL, you're a tool...

WOW, another script right out of the FAR right wing parrot school.

It is NOT other people's money pea brain. Every working man and woman PAY INTO Social Security, Even FAR right wing parrots like you. Hey asshole, why not just fire off a letter to SS and tell them you don't want their Marxist money.

Let me tell you a little secret, little man. There is no social security trust fund. Government is lying to you. They tax it and spend it. They save nothing.

Really? Who raided the trust fund?

 

[kaz]

Let me tell you a little secret, little man. There is no social security trust fund. Government is lying to you. They tax it and spend it. They save nothing.

Really? Who raided the trust fund?

The politicians you worship did. And you continue to carry their water anyway. You're a fool of the highest order.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let me tell you a little secret, little man. There is no social security trust fund. Government is lying to you. They tax it and spend it. They save nothing.

Really? Who raided the trust fund?

The politicians you worship did. And you continue to carry their water anyway. You're a fool of the highest order.

NO, politicians I loathe did...laissez-faire welfare queen Ronald Reagan and laissez-faire Alan Greenspan raided the trust fund.

How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People

Essentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!


Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built. Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didn’t know much about economics. Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared.


Both Reagan and Greenspan saw big government as an evil, and they saw big business as a virtue. They both had despised the progressive policies of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and they wanted to turn back the pages of time. They came up with the perfect strategy for the redistribution of income and wealth from the working class to the rich. Since we don’t know the nature of the private conversations that took place between Reagan and Greenspan, as well as between their aides, we cannot be sure whether the events that would follow over the next three decades were specifically planned by Reagan and Greenspan, or whether they were just the natural result of the actions the two men played such a big role in. Either way, both Reagan and Greenspan are revered by most conservatives and hated by most liberals.


If Reagan had campaigned for the presidency by promising big tax cuts for the rich and pledging to make up for the lost revenue by imposing substantial tax increases on the working class, he would probably not have been elected. But that is exactly what Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events:


1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)


2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.


3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.


4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/h...ever-perpetrated-against-the-american-people/
more

 

[kaz]

Let me tell you a little secret, little man. There is no social security trust fund. Government is lying to you. They tax it and spend it. They save nothing.

Really? Who raided the trust fund?

The politicians you worship did. And you continue to carry their water anyway. You're a fool of the highest order.

NO, politicians I loathe did...laissez-faire welfare queen Ronald Reagan and laissez-faire Alan Greenspan raided the trust fund.

How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People

Wow, you really are that stupid. Look man, no offense to your obvious prowess at playground insults, but I don't care that you think I'm a Republican. It just keeps reminding me how stupid you are. That's why I just have fun with you.

Tell me again how liberals are the intelligent ones who aren't all black and white like the Republicans are. What a tool of Democrats you are. BTW, Reagan certainly deserves no credit for creating an actual trust fund, but there hasn't been one since the sixties.

 

[JoeNormal]

You're a moron, Pogo. Where is your proof that air traffic control can't be accomplished by a private corporation? In fact, the FAA was once considering selling off the air traffic control function to private corporations.

You are a congenital moron. Everything you post is based on premises lacking any visible means of support.

What a fucking moron. Yeah, I'm sure it would be just as successful as our prison-industrial complex.

For all the hoopla of the left, when the airlines owned airport security, it was as effective as when the Feds took it over. Another government program by the government loving W. Why could airlines not also own air traffic control? Airlines care about safety. Customers dying and plans crashing into each other is bad for business. The comparison of that to prisons is ridiculous.

And again, Bripat, is an anarchist, not a small government libertarian. He's welcome to post his views in the thread. You are not welcome to ignore my op post and act like arguing with an anarchist is as the same as arguing with a small government libertarian.

Ok, point taken. I'm glad you see Bripat for what he is. And I apologize if I've used him as a model of what libertarians stand for.

 

[kaz]

You're a moron, Pogo. Where is your proof that air traffic control can't be accomplished by a private corporation? In fact, the FAA was once considering selling off the air traffic control function to private corporations.

You are a congenital moron. Everything you post is based on premises lacking any visible means of support.

What a fucking moron. Yeah, I'm sure it would be just as successful as our prison-industrial complex.

For all the hoopla of the left, when the airlines owned airport security, it was as effective as when the Feds took it over. Another government program by the government loving W. Why could airlines not also own air traffic control? Airlines care about safety. Customers dying and plans crashing into each other is bad for business. The comparison of that to prisons is ridiculous.

And again, Bripat, is an anarchist, not a small government libertarian. He's welcome to post his views in the thread. You are not welcome to ignore my op post and act like arguing with an anarchist is as the same as arguing with a small government libertarian.

Ok, point taken. I'm glad you see Bripat for what he is. And I apologize if I've used him as a model of what libertarians stand for.

We're good! And he's definitely honest about his views.

 

[Pogo]

You're a moron, Pogo. Where is your proof that air traffic control can't be accomplished by a private corporation? In fact, the FAA was once considering selling off the air traffic control function to private corporations.

You are a congenital moron. Everything you post is based on premises lacking any visible means of support.

What a fucking moron. Yeah, I'm sure it would be just as successful as our prison-industrial complex.

For all the hoopla of the left, when the airlines owned airport security, it was as effective as when the Feds took it over. Another government program by the government loving W. Why could airlines not also own air traffic control? Airlines care about safety. Customers dying and plans crashing into each other is bad for business. The comparison of that to prisons is ridiculous.

And again, Bripat, is an anarchist, not a small government libertarian. He's welcome to post his views in the thread. You are not welcome to ignore my op post and act like arguing with an anarchist is as the same as arguing with a small government libertarian.

Ok, point taken. I'm glad you see Bripat for what he is. And I apologize if I've used him as a model of what libertarians stand for.

We're good! And he's definitely honest about his views.

Oh fucking horseshit.

Fingerboy makes it up as he goes along, and when challenged to back it up, runs and hides like the coward he is. He doesn't bother to think his shit through, just fires aimlessly out of some deep psychological insecurities. The only "honest" atom in his entity is that avatar, which reflects all the above perfectly except it's a little too old a child. That's all he's been from day one and he's demonstrated that over and over including right here.

 

[dblack]

You're a moron, Pogo. Where is your proof that air traffic control can't be accomplished by a private corporation? In fact, the FAA was once considering selling off the air traffic control function to private corporations.

You are a congenital moron. Everything you post is based on premises lacking any visible means of support.

What a fucking moron. Yeah, I'm sure it would be just as successful as our prison-industrial complex.

For all the hoopla of the left, when the airlines owned airport security, it was as effective as when the Feds took it over. Another government program by the government loving W. Why could airlines not also own air traffic control? Airlines care about safety. Customers dying and plans crashing into each other is bad for business. The comparison of that to prisons is ridiculous.

And again, Bripat, is an anarchist, not a small government libertarian. He's welcome to post his views in the thread. You are not welcome to ignore my op post and act like arguing with an anarchist is as the same as arguing with a small government libertarian.

Ok, point taken. I'm glad you see Bripat for what he is. And I apologize if I've used him as a model of what libertarians stand for.

We're good! And he's definitely honest about his views.

Oh fucking horseshit.

Fingerboy makes it up as he goes along, and when challenged to back it up, runs and hides like the coward he is. He doesn't bother to think his shit through, just fires aimlessly out of some deep psychological insecurities. The only "honest" atom in his entity is that avatar, which reflects all the above perfectly except it's a little too old a child. That's all he's been from day one and he's demonstrated that over and over including right here.

I think the point was, he's honest about the fact that he's an anarchist, and not a small government libertarian. But please continue with your love letter....

 

[Pogo]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

Agreed. Sadly that's been the OP's MO -- pretend to suggest an open question and if he/she doesn't get the answer he/she wants, start beating about the head with ad hom and strawmen. I think you were the last poster to exchange actual topic with me without personal attack, and that was like two days ago.

I gotta wonder what it is in certain ideas that some wags find sooooo threatening that they set out to destroy the messengers.

 

[Pogo]

You're a moron, Pogo. Where is your proof that air traffic control can't be accomplished by a private corporation? In fact, the FAA was once considering selling off the air traffic control function to private corporations.

You are a congenital moron. Everything you post is based on premises lacking any visible means of support.

What a fucking moron. Yeah, I'm sure it would be just as successful as our prison-industrial complex.

For all the hoopla of the left, when the airlines owned airport security, it was as effective as when the Feds took it over. Another government program by the government loving W. Why could airlines not also own air traffic control? Airlines care about safety. Customers dying and plans crashing into each other is bad for business. The comparison of that to prisons is ridiculous.

And again, Bripat, is an anarchist, not a small government libertarian. He's welcome to post his views in the thread. You are not welcome to ignore my op post and act like arguing with an anarchist is as the same as arguing with a small government libertarian.

Ok, point taken. I'm glad you see Bripat for what he is. And I apologize if I've used him as a model of what libertarians stand for.

We're good! And he's definitely honest about his views.

Oh fucking horseshit.

Fingerboy makes it up as he goes along, and when challenged to back it up, runs and hides like the coward he is. He doesn't bother to think his shit through, just fires aimlessly out of some deep psychological insecurities. The only "honest" atom in his entity is that avatar, which reflects all the above perfectly except it's a little too old a child. That's all he's been from day one and he's demonstrated that over and over including right here.

I think the point was, he's honest about the fact that he's an anarchist, and not a small government libertarian. But please continue with your love letter....

Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

Any thread with a liberal participating always devolves into name calling because liberal "debate" is nothing but a series of personal attacks.

See what I mean? ^^ It never takes long to demonstrate.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

It still would be if more here, mostly those on the left though there are some exceptions, were capable of discussing the concept instead of making everything personal. But then I have long accused most on the left of being incapable of focusing on and discussing a concept. They will invariably accuse those they disagree with or who they do not wish to disbelieve or accuse or blame somebody in history or throw in whatever non sequitur, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem because that is the only way they know to discuss/debate. They don't care how badly the thread is derailed or disrupted. They know no other way.

Perhaps that is why they are leftists? Because they are incapable of understanding a theory or concept? I don't know. But it sucks.

Kaz offered us an excellent topic and it was almost immediately derailed by those who refused to understand or consider the concept but who wanted to make it a dual of definitions or semantics or return to the blame game which is all that they know. It is sad.

I wish there were more who were trained in or capable of critical thought who could discuss concepts. It would make the board so much more interesting and satisfying. Libertarianism is a fascinating subject to me. But I've pretty well given up on being able to discuss it here.

 

[Pogo]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

It still would be if more here, mostly those on the left though there are some exceptions, were capable of discussing the concept instead of making everything personal. But then I have long accused most on the left of being incapable of focusing on and discussing a concept. They will invariably accuse those they disagree with or who they do not wish to disbelieve or accuse or blame somebody in history or throw in whatever non sequitur, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem because that is the only way they know to discuss/debate. They don't care how badly the thread is derailed or disrupted. They know no other way.

Perhaps that is why they are leftists? Because they are incapable of understanding a theory or concept? I don't know. But it sucks.

Kaz offered us an excellent topic and it was almost immediately derailed by those who refused to understand or consider the concept but who wanted to make it a dual of definitions or semantics or return to the blame game which is all that they know. It is sad.

I wish there were more who were trained in or capable of critical thought who could discuss concepts. It would make the board so much more interesting and satisfying. Libertarianism is a fascinating subject to me. But I've pretty well given up on being able to discuss it here.

Take the freaking blinders off Foxy. I came in and got attacked by the OP and slathered with bullshit lies from both him/her and Fingerboy. I challenged both of them to back it up and both of them cowarded-out.

"The left" my ass. Open your partisan eyes.