Obama Gets a Blank Check for Endless War

Record numbers of U.S. troops are dying under Obama, but the anti-war movement is nowhere to be found.

The Obama administration is on pace to have more American soldiers killed in casualties related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than the George W. Bush administration did in its first term.

Already, hundreds more American troops have been killed in Afghanistan during the less than three years of the Obama administration than during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration. According to the iCasualties.org Web site, whose count more or less tracks that of other sites devoted to these statistics, 630 American soldiers died in the Afghanistan operation in the years 2001 through 2008, when Mr. Bush was president, while 1097 American soldiers have died in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Even if you allocate the 30 or so American soldiers killed in January 2009 entirely to Mr. Bush, who was president until the January 20 inauguration, it is quite a record.

Include Iraq, and the comparison tells a similar story: about 1,300 Americans killed in operations related to Iraq and Afghanistan combined during the first two and a half or so years we’ve had of the Obama administration, versus less than 600 American casualties in the first full three years of the George W. Bush administration.

It all raises at least two related questions. First, where are the antiwar protests? And second, where is the press?

In a phone interview, the national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, which organized some of the largest antiwar protests during the Bush administration, Michael McPhearson, said part of the explanation is political partisanship. A lot of the antiwar protesters, he said, were Democrats. “Once Obama got into office, they kind of demobilized themselves,” he said.

“Because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush,” said Mr. McPhearson, who is also a former executive director of Veterans for Peace, and who said he voted for President Obama in 2008. “The politics of it allows him more breathing room when it comes to the wars.”

Mr. McPhearson says antiwar protests of the sort that drew hundreds of thousands of people during the George W. Bush administration now draw 20,000 at best. He said his group’s strategy now is to emphasize the cost of the wars and the Pentagon amid Washington’s focus on trimming the deficit.

As for the press, a New York Times article on the helicopter downed over the weekend in Afghanistan included the sentence, “Although the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan has steadily risen in the past year, with a 15 percent increase in the first half of 2011 over the same period last year, NATO deaths had been declining — decreasing nearly 20 percent in the first six months of 2011 compared with 2010.” Why compare it to 2010? Why not to 2009, or to 2008? A Chicago Tribune news article, by contrast, declared that the helicopter downing “comes at a time of growing unease about the increasingly unpopular and costly war.”

By the standards of American history, the deaths in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are small, a mere fraction of those suffered in World War II or the Civil War or even Vietnam or Korea. And there are measures of success or failure in war other than American casualties. It doesn’t only matter how many Americans die; it also matters how many enemy soldiers die, and whether America is achieving its war aims.

The approaching tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, is a sober time to weigh these issues for those of us New Yorkers and other Americans who supported the wars in part out of hope that they would decrease the chances of major terrorist attacks here at home. Mr. Obama can make the case here, as he does with the economy, that he is merely cleaning up and winding down the bad situation he was left by his predecessor. With the war as with the economy though, eventually even Mr. Obama will have to take ownership, or have it assigned to him by the voters.

Mr. Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    May just have to run some old tie dyed vests on Ebay.

  • Suki||

    Fred Imus died today and this is all you people have to talk about?

  • Old Mexican||

    Boo-hoo-hoo!!! He croaked!

    There.

  • Suki||

    Keep an eye on that New Mexico State House. They might blow half of their highway budget erecting a rest stop on I-40 for him.

  • Also||

    Fred Imus spelled backward is Sumi Derf.

  • jester||

    Who was he? Was he beaten to death by police? Was he that iconic, here?

  • juris imprudent||

    I was going to make a crack about Don, but sure enough this was his brother.

  • ||

    And I had fish sticks for dinner. Take a guess as to what i consider more important to me.

  • ||

    Who's he, Don's dad? Why should anyone care?

  • Yet another Dave||

    Not meaning to sound like an Obama supporter, but I can't help but to wonder how much of the lack of interest is because he's a Democrat, and how much is really because the thought of us being at war with someone, anyone, is now 10 years old. There just comes a point where apathy sets in amongst all but the most ardent zealots.

  • SIV||

    The "apathy" set in one election day. It was total by the inauguration.

  • Robert||

    That is the obvious problem with another Dave's idea: It doesn't explain how well it times with the changing of the guard.

    This at least is one bit of add'l evidence of something I've observed for decades: that those who are demonstrative in their political opinions became so and picked their sides long ago, and, practically speaking, are lost to persuasion and are themselves disingenuous. That leaves only the Silent Majority as truly ingenuous, and they are silent because they decided long ago to be silent, which means all you can ever get from them is one vote each, and usually not even that much. Which in turn means the "swing" is very expensive to capture, there being no leverage there.

  • ||

    The sudden ending of anti-war sentiment if Obama won was foreseen by many.

    TEAMs are very, very predictable.

  • Sudden||

    The sudden ending of anti-war sentiment

    Don't blame me for ending the anti-war sentiment. I still continually talk about the absurdity of bombing countries the world over.

  • Raven Nation||

    Yep: two examples. About 6 months into Obama's admin, there was a report on Cindy Sheehan protesting against Obama (got to give her kudos for being consistent) & some reporter said "Time to give it a rest Cindy."

    #2: college campuses started using anniversary of Iraq invasion to plant one flag for every soldier killed & to read their names publicly. We were assured this had nothing to do with politics. On my campus, that commemoration stopped in 2008.

  • ||

    Bush was president throughout 2008.

  • SIV||

    Obama's speech on race in Philly was the night before the Iraq invasion anniversary so they probably focused on that.

  • Raven Nation||

    Sorry, vagaries of the English language: the last time the public commemoration was carried out on my campus was in 2008.

  • Time to give it a rest, Toolpy||

    you know what month in 2008.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    About 6 months into Obama's admin, there was a report on Cindy Sheehan protesting against Obama (got to give her kudos for being consistent) & some reporter said "Time to give it a rest Cindy."

    Translation: "We got what we wanted out of you, which was to exploit you as a cat's paw to swipe at that meanie Bush. Like hell you're going to try and do the same to the guy who's career we made."

  • Yes||

    TEAMS are definitely the problem. If we could just get rid of the TEAMS.

  • Greer||

    you're correct.

  • hazeeran||

    If you think of a peaceful solution, tell me.

  • Almanian||

    WAR ON TEAMS (WOT)!!!

    No?

  • hazeeran||

    If we have to form a team, will we have not been conquered in spirit?

    On the other hand I don't take excrement as manna.

    LEZ DU THIZ

  • Chupacabra||

    Can I join the SWAT team?

  • Suki||

    War on haters.

  • Yes||

    If you think of a peaceful solution, tell me.

    A "peaceful solution" to politics? That's nonsensical. Politics is a branch of philosophy, and we're stuck with it in one form or another. We can have a civilization or we can have chaos. One may argue whether a predominately two-party system serves the interests of a republic and its citizens, but the alternative is the random, unpredictable, party-driven chaos of a parliament, with its ever-changing power and policy shifts; or a dictatorship (authoritarian or socialist); or anarchy, which is nothing more than a whim-driven dictatorship of competing gangs (TEAMS).

  • hazeeran||

    Stretchin' that inch a mile tonight. Chill out. I don't know how the hell to get away from TEAMS.

  • Yes||

    You asked.

  • ||

    "Politics is a branch of philosophy..."

    No, it is not. Politics is group decision making, philosophy is a course of study (or, more literally, a love of supreme knowledge.)

  • BRM||

    Nope. Its cause he is a lib.

    Reflect back on the sudden absence of homelessness stories once Bill Clinton took over. Same now. Total liberal bias.

    No story that will make his majesty look bad will ever see the light of day in the left wing media.

    Thus, no war stories, specifically remember the urgent need to film the caskets coming into Dover during the waning days of Bush 2? How the media was going to go to court to get permission to film them? Where are the weekly shots of these during BHO's term?

    No story about the debt deal that doesn't try to lay blame on the Tea Party or the House.

    No story about today's market crash that won't be similarly slanted.

  • Suki||

    When the soldiers die now they are heroes instead of war criminals. It is amazing how patriotic the left gets when a Maoist is in office.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Reflect back on the sudden absence of homelessness stories once Bill Clinton took over.


    What proof do you have that there were no stories on homelessness during Clinton's terms?

  • ||

    I remember homeless stories making a comeback when Bush 43 was elected.

  • ||

    I can't "prove" it either, and I was probably 14 at the time, but I remember it being pointed out around Thanksgiving time that those stories were nowhere to be found. It definitely seemed true back then.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I can't "prove" it either, and I was probably 14 at the time, but I remember it being pointed out around Thanksgiving time that those stories were nowhere to be found. It definitely seemed true back then.


    I wonder why that would be.

  • ||

    It was documented in Bernie Goldberg's book bias, in a chapter called, "How Bill Clinton cured homelessness" with evidence citing the number of network news stories on the problem for a period of years!

    NEXT!

  • ||

    Sorry thats should read "Bernie Goldberg's book "Bias"

  • Robert||

    Dover, Del.? Dover, NJ? Dover, England? What's with caskets coming into Dover? I don't recall this at all, but now I'm curious.

  • Yet another Dave||

    Dover AFB, Del.

  • ||

    Dover, Seoul.

  • Name Nomad||

    I had this same thought. If a Rep gets to be king again in 2013, we'll see whether or not the protests start up again. No protests, it's just apathy. Protests, then it's pure partisanship.

  • jacob||

    I am willing to bet the Sheehan and Buck Fush express will dust off and demad all the troops home by 2009 ... in 2013

  • ||

    I'm willing to do my part to make that experiment possible!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Barack Hussein Obama circa 2008.

    Obama said troop levels must increase in Afghanistan.

    "For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three," he told CBS. "I think it's very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities. But military alone is not going to be enough."

    Source

    Anyone who thought they were getting an "anti-war" President needs to raise their hand and take their 40 lashes for being stupid.

  • ||

    he said we would pull out of iraq, we have just replaced troops there one for one with pmcs. Take that to the bank.

  • redefiler||

    Well also don't forget that Obama single handedly escalated the war in Afghanistan, with a surge for no good reason. Turned out to be nothing more than a way to get more troops killed.

    Remember they didn't find Bin Laden there, and it was a tip from a Pakistani, not a solder in another country that produced that intel.

    All those deaths are to cover for that fact that O's senate time was spent crying that Bush's Iraq surge wouldn't work. When he was proven wrong, suddenly his tuned changed and 'surges' were needed. Rumsfeld's special forces led campaign was mastermind genius compared to what its become.

    Stupid lazy hawaiians.

  • ||

    He said we'd pull out but instead we got the creampie.

  • Realist||

    I just shot beer out of my nose

  • Au H20||

    So, London is in flames and the DOW dropped 600 points. Looks like some people had a bad case of the Mondays.

  • ||

    I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin' something like that, man.

  • juris imprudent||

    I'm torn, this or this?

  • PantsFan||

    Bob Geldof is never the answer.
    NEVER.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'd tend to agree, but - The Carpenters? Really?

    Maybe this...

  • juris imprudent||

    Jaysus BP, have you no appreciation for irony? At all?

  • Bangles||

    This.

  • PantsFan||

    Oh the things I would do to Susanna Hoffs if given a chance

  • ||

    He won the Nobel Peace Prize. He's committed to bringing Peace to the world. He is the Messiah.

    No one disses the Messiah.

    Except the Jews.

  • Jews for Jesus||

    Broad brush much?

  • Suki||

    +1

  • ||

    +1000 :)

  • Barry's Mother||

    He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy

  • Barry's Librarian||

    Mr. Obama, do you know what the penalty for an overdue book is?

  • jacob||

    That JOOS. My Rabbi said so.

  • PantsFan||

    Obama is 17 years too old to be the Messiah

  • PantsFan||

    Obama is 17 years too old to be the Messiah

  • ||

    He won the Nobel Peace Prize. He's committed to bringing Peace to the world. He is the Messiah.

    No one disses the Messiah.

    Except the Jews.

    Good call, because he's going to politically die for our collective political sins of not anointing him with ultimate temporal power. And just like J.C. he forever dreams of his father.

    Yet he will bear his metaphorical cross on the coming Inauguration Day with all the dignity of the his lesser progenitor. All because of those damn Jews, manipulating those damned 'Res Publicans!'

    God that was bad play on words. I mean, Spaghetti Monster...

  • ||

    He's NOT the messiah. We'll know when the messiah comes along, and he won't be a goddamned warmongering politician.

    Love,

    The Chosen People.

  • Realist||

    I thought that was the Notionally Peaceful Prize?

  • Virginia||

    Any word on who sold the Taliban a SAM?

  • SIV||

    Pakistan manufactures the SA-7.

  • Virginia||

    That beats the other theory about a Russian heroin dealer giving it to them.

  • ||

    Supposedly, it was an RPG, and it was just a one in a million shot, according to DOD. Would you like your grain of salt, now?

  • Jessica Lynch||

    PAT TILLMAN!

  • JCR||

    It's not unheard of to shoot down a helicopter with an RPG. happened in Mogadishu. May have happened in Vietnam. Almost happened in Red Dawn.

  • Suki||

    So does China, a well known Clinton contributor.

  • ||

    What is this? I was under impression it was RPG hit.

  • Suki||

    Those are made in China too.

  • True Blue||

    "Suki" sounds Chineseish...

  • jacob||

    Van Jones, who the do ya think? The Iranians?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Talibam Sam, he's my main man.

    Catchy.

  • ||

    The lesson here is that anti-war sentiment is largely a matter of media coverage. The media decided to publicize the 10% of the "Youth" that were seriously against the Vietnam War, suddenly it was 'trendy' to protest, and away we go! The media decides NOT to give free publicity to the diehards, it is no longer 'trendy' to be a protester, and suddenly there is no 'movement' to speak of.

    Why is anybody surprised?

  • ||

    No, I think that your analysis underestimates the number of committed Democrats who were only protesting the war as a way of protesting Republicans.

  • Tank||

    Yeppers. I can't wait until a Republican wins the White House and we can see the same phenomenon re: government spending.

  • ||

    We're already seeing it because they control the House.

    TEAMs are very, very predictable.

  • ||

    With the stock market plummeting due to the government's latest bipartisan punt, the GOP has all the political cover it needs to go medieval on the Democrats on solving the debt crisis. Dramatic cuts in spending, balanced budget amendment, what have you. They could refuse to pass anything in the House until these things happen.

    Naturally, they'll do no such thing.

  • ||

    i'm going to say this as a frequent futures trader and one who learned years ago (via blood "one learns best with blood")how to successfully trade the market...

    i would argue the bipartisan punt was the TRIGGER for an immensely overbought market that had one of the most astounding rebounds in HISTORY ... to crash. but it was the cause.

    it was an extremely high probability, low risk play - which is why i reported going relatively heavy short bias about 3 weeks ago.

    remember, we went from sub 7k to over 12k , which is a mASSIVE run in a relatively short period of time and had a VERY painless rise from 10k to over 12.5 k

    plus ca fucking change...

    a substantial part of that rise was essentially... fluff. we SERIOUSLY needed a correction.

  • ||

    ugh... should be "was NOT the "cause""

  • ||

    I'll accept trigger rather than cause, but, in the end, it's all the same. The government is fucking up our economy.

  • ||

    absolutely.

    to me, the crash was a given. what was amazing to me was the runup PRIOR to it.

  • dmoynihan||

    Big part of #Qe2 was encouragement of borrowing by the Fed to purchase riskier assets. Crazy amounts of margin (now getting called in.) Probably be back 7k Dow soon...

  • ||

    speaking of margin, many people don't know this but prior to the 1929 crash, bucket shops routinely offered 10:1 or even 15:1 margin.

    that is INSANE

    one thing i have also learned is that margin can be a powerful weapon - for good or evil.

    i use it verrrrrrry carefully

  • Sudden||

    The use of TEAMs has made me decide its time for TEAM caption contest.

    My entry:

    The Establisment Asshole Machine

  • Sudden||

    for TEAM caption acronym contest.

  • ||

    Total Elimination of Adversary Memes

  • ||

    Turgid excretion anal movement.

  • ||

    TEAM is just MEAT spelled sideways.

  • ||

    Anagram time:

    TEAM RED => RED MEAT

    TEAM BLUE => TEAM LUBE

  • juris imprudent||

    META LUBE

    ftfy

  • Restoras||

    A+

  • ||

    Their Erections Are Manly?

  • Scott66||

    Sticking with the theme of this thread and in contrast to most libertarians:

    Transitional Ethics And Morals

  • juris imprudent||

    Truculent Exhortations Advancing Mediocrity

    or

    Treats Excrement As Manna

  • Tony||

    Treats Excrement As Manna

    PRESENT!

  • ||

    Two Exactly Alike Mendacities.

  • Restoras||

    and another A+

  • Pudgeboy||

    Totally Erect And Masterbating

  • hazeeran||

    Pudgeboy:
    Brings new meaning to team blue, eh?

  • Pudgeboy||

    Yea, it sure does

  • Gray Ghost||

    Take Everything And More?

  • jacob||

    +1 !!

  • Ted S.||

    Two Execrably Authoritarian Movements

    (apologies if this appears twice; the first time I tried to post it, the server squirrels claimed I was posting spam)

  • goneGalt||

    Take Everyone's Assets and Money

  • ||

    The Elitist And Michelle

  • ||

    *Winner*

  • ||

    Take Everyone's Assets and Money

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The media decided to publicize the 10% of the "Youth" that were seriously against the Vietnam War, suddenly it was 'trendy' to protest, and away we go!


    I wonder how much coverage the media gave towards the nature of the enemy in that war?

    [T]he US was defending the Republic of Vietnam from an invasion.
    Whatever the US administrations and military leaders did wrong,
    THAT was not one of them.

    Let's put things in their proper context, for starters. You're
    talking about an authoritarian communist regime which, during the
    1950s, was murdering many tens of thousands of North Vietnamese
    civilians, stealing the property of everyone else, and using terror
    tactics to subject the whole population of North Vietnam to a total
    destruction of rational social order. None of the usual excuses
    from historical revisionsists like you apply here: this wasn't self
    defense because the French were gone; the US was not in North
    Vietnam during that decade.

    This was not a spontaneous uprising or well-intentioned attempt to
    make a "better society". Ho Chi Minh founded the Indochinese
    Communist Party in 1930 (in exile in China). Before that, he was
    trained by the Soviets while in the USSR. These murderous thugs
    planned to conquer and enslave their own countrymen before moving
    on to their neighbors. They did both. Thirty years later, the
    people in Vietnam are STILL oppressed by their government and
    living in a failed economy, ruined by the denial of their freedom.
  • zoltan||

    So the U.S. government should steal my money to help them...great logic.

  • ||

    "The reason for this, Stoll reports, is that "because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush."

    Well, at least Obama closed Guantanamo.

  • Colin||

    And got rid of that Patriot Act.

  • ||

    Ended deficit spending.

  • ||

    Introduced transparency..

  • hazeeran||

    Lead like a post-partisan.

  • SIV||

    Legalized teh weed.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Didn't start anymore wars in the Middle East.

  • BakedPenguin||

  • Dave||

    Just North Africa.

  • jacob||

    We all love each other now ... in a gladiatorial movie kind of way

  • sevo||

    I'm Spartacus!

  • Barack Obama||

    At least I'm not Bush!

  • Chimpler McBush||

    Miss me yet?

  • ||

    lowered the seas and healed the Earth...

  • P B||

    Net spending cut.

  • ||

    ...and torture.

  • ||

    The fucked up thing about this list is how long it is, and how it is such a perfect example of how utterly intellectually bankrupt partisans are.

    The ferocity with which they deny this jaw-droppingly obvious fact just underscores it that much more.

  • Jim||

    But there were still republicans in the government! They can hold things up with like, procedures and junk! The ONLY way Obama can ever be held responsible for ANYTHING is if there is not a single republican member of either houses of congress.

    Don't believe me? See California. It's still the republicans fault.

  • ||

    The really fucked up thing is that there are two kinds of partisans: the kind who say this shit but are lying through their teeth and just don't care; and the fucking retards who actually believe this shit.

    The latter are way more creepy. I mean, how fucking stupid do you have to be to believe shit like that?

  • Joy Behar||

    PRESENT!

  • the Real OO||

    lol....looks who'se talkin.

  • Rob||

    No more executive orders.

  • ||

    And empaneled investigatory commission to examine former administration's illegal war of aggression in Iraq that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the displacement of millions and the eventual expenditure of 3+trillion dollars.

  • Dead Libyan Civilians||

    illegal war of aggression in Iraq

    ... *siiiiiiighhh*...

  • ||

    whatever one thinks of the causus belli (or not so belli) in iraq, he GOT A FUCKING authorization of use of force.

    obama did not in libya. and spare me the "it's not hostilities" thang when you are droppin' da missiles...

    and even after the whole 60 day window thang, he still said FUCK YOU to congress.

    and lib's are (generally speaking) not to keen to recognize that

  • mike c||

    I hate it when I agree with you.

    [spits]

  • ||

    smooches!

  • jacob||

    get over it, Bush - retard that he is - was still smart enough to make the whole debacle LEGAL.

  • ||

    ayup...

  • fyngyrz||

    Well... except for that waterboarding torture thing... and the wiretapping... and the ex post facto laws... and the lying about the aluminum tubes... and the (complete lack of) presence of WMD in Iraq.... and the 4th amendment violations... and the continued inversion of the commerce clause...

    I don't think "legal" means what you think it means.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Well... except for that waterboarding torture thing... and the wiretapping... and the ex post facto laws... and the lying about the aluminum tubes... and the (complete lack of) presence of WMD in Iraq.... and the 4th amendment violations... and the continued inversion of the commerce clause...


    What were these ex post facto laws?

  • fyngyrz||

    There are several examples; one is taking away the ability to own a weapon after sentencing; another is taking away the ability to live somewhere (eg near a school, a park, etc.) after sentencing; another is adding someone to the various lists post-sentencing. Each state has versions of some these; and there are federal versions here and there. The total ends up being quite a convincing number. When a law changes the sentence after the sentencing phase is complete, that law is ex post facto.

  • ||

    ahem.

  • zoltan||

    Fuck those dead Kurds if you're going to use that as an excuse to steal tax money from me.

  • fyngyrz||

    So, where were these Kurds? North Dakota? New Jersey? Hoboken? How, exactly, am I responsible for them?

  • ||

    How effed up is it that he's making Bush look like a fan of the Constitution?

  • ||

    Or that none of his supporters seem to mind?

  • Tony||

    Libyans don't pay taxes... so: fuck'm.

  • jacob||

    OK. Where is Toni, and what did you do to him?

  • sevo||

    Tony's mom put him in camp this month.

  • Shorter Tony||

    We got to figure out a way to tax teh libyans. Damn rag heads should pay their fair share!

  • ||

    I believe Hendrix said it best: "If six turned out to be nine, I don't mind, I don't mind."

  • ||

    "...he GOT A FUCKING authorization of use of force."

    Sorry, but authorization from American congress doesn't trump international law. Also, since that authorization was gained through a stack of lies and a campaign of fear mongering, it was worthless.

    "obama did not in libya. and spare me the "it's not hostilities" thang when you are droppin' da missiles..."

    Two wrongs don't make a right. Though I personally thought backing NATO in Libya was better than watching Gaddafi slaughter thousands and sending that country back into the tyrannical abyss for another generation (thanks, Hillary), I do think Obama should have gotten congressional consent. It wouldn't have been a difficult task.

  • jacob||

    Under international law he was operating under the UN cease fire his pappy set up. Hussein did not abide by the agreement. As much as it might pisses off the French, and te rest of the world that was getting cash under the table from Saddam, they did not have a legal leg to stand on. Otherwise he would have gotten impeached in 2007.

  • ||

    There was no UN authorization to invade Iraq. Different UN authorities warned against the invasion (including Kofi Annan) and weapons inspectors rightfully denied that Saddam had the weapons Cheney and others claimed he had.

    And none of this has anything to do with whatever money Saddam was spreading around. Millions of people around the world did not take to the streets because they liked Saddam. They stood up because they knew an illegal war of aggression is wrong and would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent people. Which it did.

    And who would have impeached Bush in 2007? The same congress that authorized the invasion? Hardly.

  • Xmas||

    You mean the same Kofi Annan whose son was one of the major beneficiaries of the Oil-For-Food kickbacks?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/73.....wont-quit/

    I mean, what are the odds that Saddam's oily tendrils were wrapped around many different UN authorities?

  • ||

    And there were also American companies on the receiving end of Saddam's cash...whatever, none of that is justification for an invasion and is really beside the point.

  • Xmas||

    You mean the same Kofi Annan whose son was one of the major beneficiaries of the Oil-For-Food kickbacks?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/73.....wont-quit/

    I mean, what are the odds that Saddam's oily tendrils were wrapped around many different UN authorities?

  • Xmas||

    You mean the same Kofi Annan whose son was one of the major beneficiaries of the Oil-For-Food kickbacks?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/73.....wont-quit/

    I mean, what are the odds that Saddam's oily tendrils were wrapped around many different UN authorities?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The same congress that authorized the invasion? Hardly.


    If Congress authorized the invasion, it is legal.

    Case closed.

  • zoltan||

    No legislative body can authorize murder.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    No legislative body can authorize murder.


    If a state repeals its murder statutes, it most certainly can.

  • LBJ||

    "Also, since that authorization was gained through a stack of lies and a campaign of fear mongering, it was worthless."

    Hey, hey, hey!

  • FDR||

    Hey, hey, hey nothing. I invented this, therefore I get the credit!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Sorry, but authorization from American congress doesn't trump international law.

    International law is a perverse joke, enforced at the whim of powerful nations and almost always upon weaker nations.

    Though I personally thought backing NATO in Libya was better than watching Gaddafi slaughter thousands and sending that country back into the tyrannical abyss for another generation

    Fuck the Constitution! So long as you have NATO (a Coalition of the...somewhat willing?) then it's all good?

    Gang warfare exists even on an international level it seems.

  • ||

    but obama had the support of FRANCE!!!!

    so his coalition is BETTER

  • ||

    International law is a perverse joke, enforced at the whim of powerful nations and almost always upon weaker nations.

    It's obviously not properly and equally enforced now, but does that mean the concept should just be thrown out? If we strive for nothing, then nothing changes.

    Fuck the Constitution! So long as you have NATO (a Coalition of the...somewhat willing?) then it's all good?

    What are you even ranting about? First, I stated that Obama should have sought authorization. Second, support for the action against Gaddafi's forces didn't just come from NATO. It came from Libya's neighbors, the Arab League, the UN and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Most importantly, it came from the Libyans brave enough to stand up to a dictator and risk and give their lives.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It's obviously not properly and equally enforced now, but does that mean the concept should just be thrown out?

    Yes. Yes, it does.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Sorry, but authorization from American congress doesn't trump international law

    Sorry, but it sure as hell does.

  • ||

    So, if congress decided to round up all the (libertarians, for instance) and put them to death, that's cool with you?

    Seriously, Americans take themselves too, well, seriously. We are all humans first, nationals by the luck of being born in a particular geographic location second.

  • hamilton||

    Sparky, if Congress decided to do that do you really think France would come galloping to our aid?

    Unquestionably with regard to the disposition of American troops the constitutional legislation of the US Government trumps the echo chamber of the UN.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    So, if congress decided to round up all the (libertarians, for instance) and put them to death, that's cool with you?

    What in the hell does that have to do with international law? Do you think the International League of Justice would come in and fix things? Are you delusional?

    Any country that depends on the international community and its "law" to protect internal freedom is fucked.

  • ||

    over here, OVER HERE!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Well, at least Obama closed Guantanamo.


    We would not need Guantanamo if our troops treated captured terrorists the way francs-tireurs were historically treated.

  • ||

    OT: James Taranto over at Best of the Web nicely summarizes the distinction between the "negative liberty" of conservatives and the "positive liberty" of liberals:

    To sum it up a bit more pithily, whereas conservatives want freedom from coercion, liberals want freedom through coercion.

  • SIV||

    Smartest Reason intern ever?

  • ||

    I think he's a neocon fanboy buffoon.

    I also think that his distinction between conservatives and liberals is bogus. That's the distinction between libertarians and progressives--not conservatives and liberals.

    When conservatives are ready to drop the drug war and stop having heart attacks every time gay people get married? Then I'll start to buy that they're not about coercion anymore.

  • Abner||

    Given that he's okay with gay marriage, gays in the military, opposes the WOD and favors a reasonable immigration policy (people can come here to work), Imma gonna say you're mistaken.

  • ||

    The only thing I said about him was that he was a neocon fanboy. ...oh, and I'll add that he bashes Islam with the best of them.

    "Given that he's okay with gay marriage, gays in the military, opposes the WOD and favors a reasonable immigration policy (people can come here to work), Imma gonna say you're mistaken."

    What I said was that his distinction between conservatives and liberals was bogus--and it is. Regardless of where he stands on those issues--conservatives are not okay with gay marriage or gays in the military, or eliminating the war on drugs--and many of them think people should be thrown in jail because of who they hire to mow their lawns and babysit their children...

    So, one last time--regardless of where he stands on the issue--"conservatism" isn't about being against coercion. ...but libertarianism is!

    He's wrong.

  • ||

    "The only thing I said about him was that he was a neocon fanboy. ...oh, and I'll add that he bashes Islam with the best of them."

    To cop some of his pathetic logic and throw it in his face? Marginalizing Muslims within in the context of American society--is objectively pro-al Qaeda.

  • SIV||

    I'll add that he bashes Islam with the best of them.

    See "libertarians" and fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.

  • ||

    Now that libertarian strains in the Tea Party are drivin' the Republican bus--now I'm supposed to forget all the evil shit he wrote back when he was fellating the Bush Administration?

    Why?

    I'm usually the last person to get involved in arguing who is and isn't a libertarian--but when I see vicious, hateful public figures who cheer-lead for coercion--and call themselves libertarian? That's where I draw the line.

    Michelle Malkin called herself a libertarian. So what?

    Libertarian isn't an inherent quality--libertarian is as libertarian does. She was a fear monger back when we had a Fear Monger in Chief as our emperor--and so was Taranto.

    Now the wind's blowing in a different direction, and we're all supposed to forget that?

    Screw him and the horse he rode in on.

  • ||

    To continue with my digging up the past, weren't you, Ken Shultz, saying that they shouldn't build a mosque near the WTC also?

    I mean, are you campaigning for hypocrite of the year here?

  • ||

    "To continue with my digging up the past, weren't you, Ken Shultz, saying that they shouldn't build a mosque near the WTC also?"

    Wrong again, Robin.

    I said that they should be allowed to build a monument to the hijackers on their own property--if that's what they want to do. ...and the government shouldn't be able to stop them.

    I also said that the guy that was raising the money to build the mosque was a jackhole--for doing something so provocative...and for using a U.S. government funded cultural ambassador program to travel around the Middle East on MY taxpayer dime to drum up a name for himself--even as he was looking to raise money for his mosque at Ground Zero.

    Like most things in the real world, the truth requires a nuanced view to be accurate. Man has right to be jackhole--doesn't mean he isn't a jackhole. I guess that's what passes for nuance these days. He shouldn't have had the right to do anything on my dime though.

    ...libertarianism isn't a conformity contest, you know? That's the great thing about it. People can go to the Objectivists for conformity of thought if that's what they want.

  • ||

    You accused him of "bashing Islam" which is not coercive either.

    Claiming that someone is a jackhole for wanting to build a mosque on their own property, just because bigots don't like it, constitutes bashing Islam. Unless you also would side with the bigots in cases where black families wanted to move into white neighborhoods, for example.

  • Contrarian P||

    I don't see why it's a problem for him to think the guy is an insensitive jerk for wanting to build a mosque near ground zero. It certainly isn't "bashing Islam". The guy didn't say a word about Islam. The remark was about the person who wants to build a mosque. If you do something inflammatory, knowing it'll make everybody mad and be seen as an insensitive gesture, it's completely fair for someone to call you a jerk. To parrot your example, if a white supremacist wants to burn a cross on his front lawn in front of his black neighbors, he's a jerk. It's on his property and he should be able to do with his property as he wills, but he's still a jerk.

  • zoltan||

    Ah yes, burning cross = place of religious worship.

  • ||

    I think he's broadly right that, whatever their other bad habits, conservatives don't subscribe to the positive liberty thing, but liberals do.

    As between their flavors of statism, yeah, its kind of an intramural thing, but still. . . .

    Regardless, feel free to substitute "libertarians" and "progressives" if you want.

  • ||

    Ken, weren't you cheerleading for the neocons in Libya but a few months (not weeks) ago?

  • ||

    No.

    Always been a pragmatic realist.

    There's nothing neocon about Libya.

    We haven't invaded. We don't have troops there. Haven't broken any Pottery Barn rule. Stuck by Powell Doctrine, actually, which is about as realist as realist can be.

  • ||

    Pragmatic realism? What a joke.

    What have we accomplished in Libya?

    The Arab street still hates us, Gaddafi is still in power, we're now in the absurd situation of "recognizing" a government in Libya that has no chance of ever getting control, and every dictator in the world has another reason to pursue WMDs so he doesn't have a target on his back for a US prez who wants to show how tough he is. If you're going to be a dictator you better follow the Kim Jong Il path rather than the Gadaffi one, that's the message we've sent.

    Now, those are all good pragmatic reasons why this was a stupid thing to do, but then you add in the fact that we've killed hundreds of innocent people in pursuing this pointless, ill-conceived, stupid policy and the truly morally turpitudinous nature of said policy comes to light.

  • ||

    Pragmatic realism? What a joke.

    What have we accomplished in Libya?

    You don't know what realism and pragmatism are--do you? If Jean Bart were here, he'd tell you to check Wikipedia before you embarrass yourself further.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....ealpolitik

    Your precise language regarding your estimate of how the Arab Street sees us is obviously well informed and precise--not only that, it's permanent. You really have your thumb on the Arab Street's pulse! ...and it's impossible to imagine that you could be wrong, or that whatever it is you know the Arab Street thinks could change in the future--and that's because you're perfect.

    Likewise, the people of Benghazi being spared almost certain death couldn't possibly be an accomplishment--because it's not important to you! Likewise, the rebels having liberated huge swaths of Libya for themselves from a vicious dictator? That's obviously not an accomplishment in your book of perfection either...

    ...despite your apparent idealism! Which would be really hard to understand--if I didn't know you had already achieved perfect understanding.

    ...despite not knowing the difference between realism and pragmatism and a hole in the ground.

  • ||

    No, I don't have my finger on the pulse of the Arab street. Neither do you. The difference is I'm not using the opinion of the Arab street to justify a military campaign that kills innocent people.

    You also don't know:

    1. whether Benghazi really would have been the location of a massacre,

    2. whether the areas dominated by the rebels will actually be any better off,

    3. whether the rebels will start their own massacres. There are reports they already have, so maybe you do know this and just choose to ignore.

    Oh, and pragmatic realism != Realpolitik. Realpolitik is a specific historical philosophy of international policy that may or may not be realistic or pragmatic. Stop redefining words.

  • ||

    Why yes, yes he was.

  • ||

    Libya is a pragmatic realist thing any way you slice it. Go look at the Powell Doctrine--the part about a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement...

    Since we don't have any troops there--our exit strategy is as plausible as plausible can be. Contrast that with our exit strategy in Iraq when we went in--the exit strategy was Iraqis greeting us with flowers and democracy blooming or bust!

    Libya is almost an isolationist policy.

    If only we'd done in Iraq what we're doing in Libya...

    We wouldn't have had any troops there.

    I just don't see Libya as a neocon war.

  • ||

    And next Mr Shultz will explain how sticking your hand into a vat of boiling nitric acid is a pragmatic thing to do, since you didn't stick it into a spinning lawnmower blade.

  • ||

    We'll never know what might have happened to Saddam during the Arab Spring--if we hadn't invaded and deposed him. I suspect Iraq would have looked like Syria does, right about now only probably worse.

    ...which is to say I think it would have looked a lot better now from an American perspective than where we ended up in Iraq. ...not to mention there wouldn't have been any American casualties, no trillions spent on the war, etc., etc.

  • ||

    So every war/kinetic action/diuretic explosion/etc is now justified as long as it's not as stupid as Iraq was?

  • ||

    Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

    Is every war in a Muslim country against a dictator a neocon war now?

  • BakedPenguin||

    If you're going to be a dictator you better follow the Kim Jong Il path rather than the Gadaffi one, that's the message we've sent.

    Yup. As crazy as Gaddafi is, he knew enough to disavow terrorism in the wake of 9/11. And there really isn't any evidence that he was cheating, either.

    Is every war in a Muslim country against a dictator a neocon war now?

    Nope. Just the ones we fight against people who haven't attacked the US.

  • ||

    "Nope. Just the ones we fight against people who haven't attacked the US."

    I don't see it that way.

    A short list of some of the big differences between Iraq and Libya.

    Iraq War: U.S. Picks a fight with Saddam Hussein--regardless of what the Iraqi people want. ...because anyone who doesn't think the Iraqi people want us to bomb, invade and occupy them? Is a horrible, anti-democratic human being.

    Libya War: U.S. participates with NATO under a UN mandate to bomb targets in Libya that threaten rebels and civilians--but not to send in ground troops. Furthermore, not only is not the U.S. picking a fight with a vicious dictator--it's the Libyan people who CHOOSE to rise up against their dictator. ...the U.S. simply chooses to side with the rebels.

    There are other huge differences too--among them the justification for the war. As I've detailed here so many times, the American people thought Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11 months after we'd invaded Iraq. ...but there was the justification of spreading democracy as well.

    None of that was by accident--that's taken from Leo Strauss 101, which is all about Noble Lies. Strauss taught his students well--that it doesn't matter if what our leaders say is "true" as an average person would understand it; what matters is that they believe it's true...

    So it doesn't matter if Saddam Hussein didn't really have any ties with Al Qaeda, and it doesn't matter if there was no Niger yellocake expedition. It doesn't matter if the photos of mobile WMD labs were bogus. None of that matters to a neocon...what matters is that people support the State as an important agent in spreading freedom and democracy.

    The Libya War isn't encumbered by any of that neocon garbage, Noble Lies, spread democracy at the point of a gun and it becomes Reverse Domino Theory B.S., etc.

    It just isn't an neocon war.

    We're back to the Powell Doctrine now.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So it doesn't matter if Saddam Hussein didn't really have any ties with Al Qaeda, and it doesn't matter if there was no Niger yellocake expedition. It doesn't matter if the photos of mobile WMD labs were bogus. None of that matters to a neocon...what matters is that people support the State as an important agent in spreading freedom and democracy.


    What did matter was that Hussein was financing terrorist attacks against Israel.

  • ||

    "What did matter was that Hussein was financing terrorist attacks against Israel."

    If you think the American people supported the Iraq War on that basis--you're out of your mind.

  • Xmas||

    Well...we couldn't say "US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia are causing unrest amongst the Saudi population. Wahhabi clerics are agitating the underclass and blackmailing the House of Saud. The US needs a good reason to move their troops out of Saudi Arabia before the world's largest oil producer collapses into civil war."

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If you think the American people supported the Iraq War on that basis--you're out of your mind.


    Who cares? It was enough casus belli for me.

  • LBJ||

    "We'll never know what might have happened to Saddam during the Arab Spring--if we hadn't invaded and deposed him. I suspect Iraq would have looked like Syria does, right about now only probably worse."

    *THIS* is justification for Libya?
    Hey, we have your straw-graspers! Operators standing by! But wait, there's more!
    Tell us about the "street-cred" again; it's quite amusing.

  • ||

    *THIS* is justification for Libya?

    No.

    It's an attack on what we did in Iraq.

    What if we'd waited?

    I guess it's hard for some people to digest that someone could be in favor of Libya and against Iraq. I suspect most of them are children.

    Turns out the world's a complicated place. And some things aren't like other things--in important ways!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FClGhto1vIg

  • Shorter Ken Shultz||

    "Hope! CHANGE!" [::leaps into air, waving pom-poms wildly::]

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...spread democracy at the point of a gun and it becomes Reverse Domino Theory B.S., etc. ...It just isn't an neocon war.

    Huh? Re-read that bold (added) part there, Ken. If you can state WTF we're doing that isn't that, I'd like to know.

  • ||

    "Huh? Re-read that bold (added) part there, Ken. If you can state WTF we're doing that isn't that, I'd like to know."

    I don't know what they're gonna end up with in Libya. That's for the Libyan's to decide. We're not there to recreate Libya in the United States' image (like we tried to do in Iraq).

    Libya's future is for the Libyan's to decide. If they want the UN to come in afterwards and help them sort that out--that'll be great. But Libya's not our baby. It's France's before its ours--and it's the UN's since the UN gave us the mandate...

    That's the other big difference between Libya and Iraq. For Libya, there was a UN mandate. Going in without the second mandate for Iraq like Bush did (burning the bridge behind him) meant the Pottery Barn rule was all ours--Iraq was our baby with no exit strategy save wildly successful democracy...

    That's not our mandate or problem in Libya. We're less responsible for fixing Libya after Gaddafi than we were for fixing Panama after Noriega--and do you know why?

    It's because there's a UN mandate and because we didn't invade with any ground troops...

    There's an old saw in the military about how we're always fighting the last war. I think that spills over into public opinion. After Vietnam, every new conflict looked like "another Vietnam"--even though it had nothing to do with Vietnam.

    I think we're seeing a lot of that in Libya too. The fact is that Libya and Iraq have very little in common--given all the differences I've pointed out in these few posts--but most people react to like it's Iraq all over again.

    The facts don's support that assessment.

    ...unless not sending in any troops is the same thing as sending in hundreds of thousands of troops.

    ...unless suffering 35,000 American casualties is the same thing as suffering no casualties.

    ...unless spending more than a trillion dollars is the same as spending a few billion.

    ...unless lying about the cause for the war is the same as not lying.

    ...unless going in under a UN mandate and with an exit plan is the same as going in without a UN mandate and purposely without an exit plan.

    ...unless going in alone against a dictator because we say so is the same thing as going in to support a rebel movement that has already organized itself and is actively fighting a revolution.

    I could go on, but there are myriad differences between the two. I see a lot of people who think getting on the side of the ummah against the dictators we used to support is a bad idea--because Libya is the same thing as Iraq?

    ...and it doesn't make any sense. It's not the same thing as Iraq. It just isn't.

    I opposed the Iraq War on humanitarian and strategic grounds. I support what we're doing in Libya on humanitarian and strategic grounds. ...they're so different.

  • ||

    That's the other big difference between Libya and Iraq. For Libya, there was a UN mandate.

    So UN mandates are more important than Congressional authorizations?

  • ||

    I support what we're doing in Libya on humanitarian and strategic grounds.

    How in the world can you support it on strategic grounds? You don't even have any idea what advantage we're supposed to gain by doing this. Are you still leaning on the thin reed of "maybe the terrorists will like us now"?

    And of course humanitarian grounds are always muddled when you're talking about killing innocent people in the process, particularly when the humanitarian disaster you're attempting to avert may not occur even without intervention, and may occur with intervention.

  • ||

    No.

    It's an attack on what we did in Iraq.

    But you're attempting to use that attack to justify what we're doing in Libya. Like I stated above, it's like you're justifying sticking your hand in nitric acid by saying it's better than sticking it into a running lawnmower.

  • Bombed Libyan Citizens||

    Turns out the world's a complicated place.

    Shyeah. Tell us about it.

  • Dead Libyan||

    "I'm only moderately blown to bits, thanks to U.S. war drones... and the Powell Doctrine!"

    [::holds up bloody stump, attempts to flash "V-for-Victory" sign::]

  • ||

    "I'm only moderately blown to bits, thanks to U.S. war drones... and the Powell Doctrine!"

    Humanitarian concerns are certainly legitimate.

    ...but the alternatives weren't between participating in NATO strikes, on the one hand, and no casualties whatsoever on the other.

    Gaddafi was gonna slaughter the people of Benghazi. No sense in pretending otherwise...

    I watched a shootout live on T.V. in LA once. These two bank robbers were wearing body armor, and the cops were reluctant to return too much fire because of all the innocent bystanders... Then the robbers started shooting bystanders indiscriminately...

    At which point the cops--quite correctly--lost their reluctance to return fire.

    The result of letting Gaddafi's thugs have their way with the people of Benghazi would not have been without civilian casualties. Gaddafi went on TV and told the world what he was gonna do with them when his thugs got their hands on them--and there was no reason whatsoever to think he wouldn't make good on those promises.

    If you think the consequences of standing by and doing nothing while a vicious dictator we had recently re-embraced slaughtered his own people? If you think that would have meant negligible casualties--and wouldn't have cost us elsewhere in the Arab world?

    Yer outta yer mind.

  • ||

    Nice to know I'm not the only person in America who can see the difference between Iraq and Libya. Thanks for toiling here in the fields of "Reason" and good luck.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I'm sure Ken is thrilled to know that you agree with him.

  • Contrarian P||

    Realizing the differences between Iraq and Libya doesn't mean that there aren't similarities. In both cases, it's difficult to justify the military intervention as in any way responding to a threat against America's people or territory. Both did not go according to plan and both became protracted affairs. The difference is that WMDs were something that could be discovered, or not, while "the slaughter of innocent civilians" is something that may or may not have happened. As it stands, we've certainly killed civilians in Libya.

    Yes, in Iraq we deployed ground troops and sustained casualties. But then again, we also defeated the enemy military and occupied his territory in a month. There's no victory, even a Pyrrhic one as in Iraq, in sight in Libya. And the Libyan campaign is not over. Iraq was looking pretty good a short while into it, too.

  • ||

    "In both cases, it's difficult to justify the military intervention as in any way responding to a threat against America's people or territory."

    I would argue that for American security it was imperative to go from being a close friend and active supporter of vicious dictators like the House of Saud and Mubarak? To being an active enemy of the vicious dictators who oppress the ummah--the Arab Spring completely changed the equation, and we had to get on the other side of it.

    We cant' go from one side to the other over night, but we needed to start that transformation somewhere, and given a UN mandate and Britain and France's urging--with Britain and France taking the lead role? That was too good of an opportunity to pass up.

    As I read the reports from inside Libya, I continue to read that the ex-Jihadis--believe it or not--are changing their perception of the United States.

    I think being seen as their ally against the vicious dictators has very real and tangible strategic benefits in our fight against terrorism--similar in nature to the benefits we enjoyed by being seen as an ally with the people of Eastern Europe in their fight for freedom before the end of the Cold War.

    That's why when I hear about ex-Jihadis among the rebels? I see that as a good thing. A very good thing.

  • ||

    If we can get all that bang for our buck--and we don't even have to send in ground troops?

    What a bargain!

    If we sent in ground troops, that would be a huge mistake, and I'd completely drop all my support for what we're doing there.

    ...but we're not sending in ground troops.

  • Contrarian P||

    So why couldn't we just stop sending aid to those dictators as opposed to spending several billion worth of missiles, bombs, and fuel? Is there any quantifiable measurement that we are somehow safer as a result of our continuous military interventions in the Middle East? Your proposition seems to be that it's worth it because some people who used to want to kill us no longer do. But what happens once we stop with the bombing raids or if we fail to send troops to support the rebellion if Gaddafi begins to advance again? And how do we judge the success of this venture? Sounds a lot like the Vietnam "hearts and minds" idea.

    And by the way, can you explain why in the world a "U.N. mandate" should mean anything at all when it comes to our foreign policy? I don't see any other countries responding to these mandates as if they are somehow binding. We are a sovereign nation. If Britain and France want to bomb Libya, that's their business, not ours.

  • ||

    "So why couldn't we just stop sending aid to those dictators as opposed to spending several billion worth of missiles, bombs, and fuel?"

    I don't think walking away from our relationship with Saudi Arabia is possible at this point--for economic reasons. ...and it's a vicious, nasty dictatorship.

    We can't just stop sending aid to Mubarak--because he's been deposed. What kind of statement is that that things have changed? He's being tried by the people who overthrew him. Our policy options have simply been overwhelmed by the facts.

    We should have done a lot of this stuff after the Cold War was over. Most of our relationships (or lack thereof) in the Middle East were a function of the Cold War. ...even our relationship with Israel was a function of the Cold War...

    Before the U.S. started giving so much aid to Egypt, the U.S.S.R. was Egypt's largest foreign donor. What we did to Iran in 1953 was a function of the Cold War.

    Once the Cold War wound down, we ended up with all these legacy relationships and antagonisms. The Middle East imagines itself as the end in American foreign policy itself, but it was really never more than one theater of American foreign in the Cold War.

    Despite it's relationship with Israel, we treated Egypt under Mubarak much the same way we treated Chile under Pinochet--it was all about the Cold War.

    The Cold War's over. We have to rebuke realist polices we pursued during the Cold War--and supporting the vicious dictators we supported. This was the excellent opportunity to get on the right side of history--maybe the only opportunity we were gonna get. ...especially after our efforts in Iraq, which are almost universally disparaged in the Muslim world.

    "And how do we judge the success of this venture? Sounds a lot like the Vietnam "hearts and minds" idea."

    We've already succeeded if the Rebels control much of the country. We succeed when the rebels depose Gaddafi.

    We fail? We fail when we commit ground troops. So long as we don't commit ground troops--we cannot fail.

    That's one big difference between Vietnam and Libya. Remember, the Powell Doctrine is all about how to avoid another Vietnam, and so long as we don't commit any ground troops, Libya cannot turn into another Vietnam.

  • ||

    "And by the way, can you explain why in the world a "U.N. mandate" should mean anything at all when it comes to our foreign policy?"

    It's an exit strategy. When the U.N. gives us a mandate like that, the Pottery Barn rule is off the table.

    The aftermath isn't necessarily our problem. If the Libyan people want the UN to come in and help them build state institutions? Then the UN should by all means do that...

    Contrast that with our situation in Iraq! The UN had no responsibility whatsoever to do anything in Iraq--since we never bothered to get the second UN resolution. Iraq was all ours--because we didn't have a UN mandate.

    That's the value of a UN mandate--our downside during the aftermath is limited to whatever we feel like contributing. ...which might be nothing. Without a mandate--we broke it, so we bought it! So it's ours and ours alone to fix.

    When we refused to seek a second mandate in the UN, we made ourselves responsible for fixing all the economic, political, institutional and ETHNIC problems in Iraq. That's the difference between getting a mandate and not getting a mandate.

  • Dead Libyan Child||

    Yer outta yer mind.

    Well... I'm certain you must know best, then. "White man's burden," and all that.

    [::eyes roll back into head::]

  • ||

    "Well... I'm certain you must know best, then. "White man's burden," and all that."

    Again, somebody here seems to be projecting Iraq onto Libya--and they're not the same thing.

    We are not responsible for building democratic institutions in Libya.

    We made ourselves responsible for building democratic institutions in Iraq. ...but Libya isn't Iraq.

    In Iraq, we took on Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Iraqi people.

    In Libya, the Libya people rose up to depose their own vicious dictator. We aren't fighting the Libya people's battles for them...

    If Gaddafi falls to the Libyan rebels, it won't be us that deposed Gaddafi, it will be the Libyan people.

    It's just like France helping us win the American Revolution. France didn't win the American Revolution--the American rebels won the American Revolution.

    That point shouldn't be lost. The Libyan Civil War is being fought by the Libyan rebels. We don't have any troops on the ground--we haven't suffered any casualties, and so long as we don't send in any troops? We never will.

  • zoltan||

    Gaddafi is not a threat to the American people. No just cause for stealing tax money and bombing the shit out of innocent people who didn't attack the U.S.

  • ||

    You gotta love being lectured about the complexities of the world by someone who thought we could make the terrorists like us if we fought Gaddaffi, and apparently still thinks that the rebels will necessarily form a wonderful non-oppressive govt in the territories they control.

  • scythe||

    I think that a lot of the anti-war tone in the Bush day was "get out of the East, they don't want us there". Now it's "get out of the East, even though they want us there". The branding of the war effort changed starting in 2005 from "we're fighting Those Evil Guys" aka Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, to "we're maintaining stability", whatever the fuck that means. That is, the war is now a "humanitarian" effort, and there's nothing liberals love more than pouring lots of money down a humanitarian-branded sinkhole...

  • Old Mexican||

    “Because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush,” said Mr. McPhearson, who is also a former executive director of Veterans for Peace, and who said he voted for President Obama in 2008. “The politics of it allows him more breathing room when it comes to the wars.”
    Short-short translation:

    "He's our boy, m'key? Youse wanna make something out of it, ah???"

  • Shmenge||

    Boy?

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's endearing, not racist, when the Right People™ say it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    BTW, this was meant as a "Top Men - variant" joke, not a crack against OM.

  • Anthony Weiner||

    How ya doin'?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Smenge,

    Boy?


    Yes, boy.

  • Idiot Savant||

    Where was the Tea Party 8 years ago?? And where are the Anti-War protestors now?

    doesn't take a philadelphia lawyer to figure it out.

  • creech||

    I dunno. Where was the movement against Jim Crow until the NAACP was founded in 1909? Where was the opposition to the War in Vietnam when JFK started ratcheting it up in 1961?
    There's always been core groups opposed to lots of things but until a movement hits a certain size (or gets favorable media treatment) is just doesn't take off. Libertarians, certainly, were taking Bush's spending to task from day one and so where many conservatives.

  • Brian C||

    Libertarians, certainly, were taking Bush's spending to task from day one and so where many conservatives.

    Libertarians, absolutely. "Many conservatives"? If by "many" you mean two or three, then yes, many conservatives.

    Come on, the conservatives whining about spending didn't start until it wasn't their guy doing the spending, just like the "war" protesters stopped whining once it was their guy doing the warring.

  • SIV||

    Many conservatives opposed Medicare Part D (Rush Limbaugh for one). Not so many elected GOP Congressman (Reason-fave Butch Otter supported it.)

  • ||

    And new conservative heartthrob Paul Ryan. Who also voted for TARP and the auto bailout.

  • Jessica Lynch||

    We can't remind people of this enough.

  • Sudden||

    Eh, true enough. But I'm willing to give a free pass to anyone who is willing to put his ass on the line in favor of significant reforms to the entitlement state. So far, Paul Ryan has been one of the few who has proposed anything beyond mere tinkering at the edges.

  • SIV||

    Paul Ryan voted to create a significant new entitlement. Kinda shows ya how sincere he is about "reform".

  • Sudden||

    Not to condone or excuse anyone who voted in favor of part D, but its worth some consideration of why the GOP actually passed it. In 2004, the Dems were scrambling for a presciption drug benefit to be added to Medicare. They tried scaring up a whole bunch of seniors and getting the AARP in their camp, the American electorate, by significant margins, said it wanted a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. TEAM BLUE (hereafter referred to as META LUBE) had a plan that was orders of magnitude worse than TEAM RED's clusterfuck which at least had some market mechanisms built into its subsidy (as opposed to the more blank check variety of subsidy that the LUBErs prefer). So TEAM RED decided to pass a less bad (though still awful) version of a shitty bill to address something that the great unwashed dumbfucks and "gimme teh shitz for freeeezzzzz!!!1!1!!!!" electorate of this country were clammoring for.

    Does that excuse anyone who voted for it? No. But the perspective makes me willing to forgive it if someone is willing to show that they've got the balls now to address some of the more hot button issues of our time.

  • Shorter Sudden||

    Yeah republicans are bad b-b-but the evul DEmOCRats are wooorse! It isn't a completely rigged game between two conspiring players, one party really is teh good!

  • Sudden||

    Well, where economics is concerned, I'm generally of the camp that the GOP as a whole is fucking incompetent as shit, but the Dems as a whole are fucking incompetent as shit squared. So one being a degree worse than the other doesn't mean to excuse either.

    But that said, I'm certainly not willing to forgive any run of the mill GOPer who voted for part D. But with Paul Ryan, the fact that he's been the target of commercial showing him pushing granny off a cliff, I'll take that as a sign that he's at least agitating in the right direction, even if he's not going anywhere near far enough.

    The only people in Congress I trust in right now are the two generations of Paul, but I'm not gonna throw a guy under the bus whose risking his own electoral future by taking the 800lb gorilla head on.

    (and again, not to excuse anything he did, but I'm willing to bet that part of his prior support for part D was him trying to gain some rank in the GOP so that maybe he could introduce the necessary stuff with some party backing later in his career; yes, such political realities are craven, but nonetheless realities).

  • ||

    Yeah, Ryan was really putting his ass on the line by supporting spending cuts in the GOP in 2010. What a maverick!

  • Sudden||

    A fundamental overhaul of the very way Medicare is structured is more than just "supporting spending cuts in 2010." Again, I don't think he goes far enough, but in terms of actually putting forward a proposal to reign in entitlement spending, he has been even more specific and targeted than Rand (although I have far more hope for Rand in the long run).

  • ||

    NRO was pretty strident in their protest of bush (never saw a spending bill he wanted to veto) fiscal stuff

  • ||

    Conservatives outside DC turned on Bush something fierce during the TARP debate. Of course, they were already SeriouslyPissed at Bush about MassiveImmigrationReform so that might have contributed to the situation.

  • Sudden||

    Come on, the conservatives whining about spending didn't start until it wasn't their guy doing the spending, just like the "war" protesters stopped whining once it was their guy doing the warring.

    I do believe the degree to which things have changed is partly the cause of that.

    For example, the federal budget deficit today is ~$1.6 trillion. In 2007 it was ~$350 billion. So when a problem is orders a magnitude worse, you will get orders of magnitudes of more people bitching about it. Meanwhile, the wars are just as wasteful on a dollar basis right now, anbd a lives lost by US forces basis, although possibly not as bad on a civilians offed basis, but the anti-war movement has all but vanished.

  • ||

    The roots of the tea party come from the protests against TARP, which occurred during the Bush administration with the collusion of the Democratic Congress including Herr Obama.

  • jtuf||

    There were many on the Right complaining about Bush overspending when Bush was in office.

  • RandomGermanDude||

    Shameless OT post:
    London is calling the guns of brixton.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14449675

  • ||

    If only there was some tool that a citizen could use to defend themselves...

  • Chicago||

    Don't even think about it.

  • ||

  • Ska||

    I've never heard that version before. Makes me want to get stoned and fuck a girl in a cafe bathroom.

  • Rock Action ||

    It actually led me to the Buzzcocks' "Ever Fallen In Love?" which was a nice treat.

  • Ska||

    But I'm guessing only after clicking through to the Clash, no? Or did they really link the Buzzcocks on the same page?

  • Rock Action ||

    SugarFree link (worked!), end of video, side of YouTube shows Nouvelle Vague (A Bande Apart?) doing version of "Ever Fallen In Love?" and then onward to the real version. That's how I remember it.

  • Old Mexican||

    It all raises at least two related questions. First, where are the antiwar protests? And second, where is the press?


    "The answer is blowing in the wind..."

    Or more accurately, those that COULD answer are busy blowing Obama's cock.

  • Chris Matthews||

    Stop. I'm getting... moist.

  • T||

    Not to be mean or anything, but anybody just twigging to this phenomenon halfway thrugh 2011 sounds a bit thick.

  • ||

    Especially since most of us predicted it before the election was even over.

  • ||

    Which is what I said at the top of this thread. Could you be more late to the party?

  • ||

    I automatically skip right over your mindless blather.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    ... but I'll bet the angry make-up sex between you two is terrific. Am I right...?

  • ||

    You didn't skip over that one!

    I MAKE THE PUPPETS DANCE

  • ||

    Barack "Milhous" Obama!

  • ||

    The anti-war protestors would picket Bush events. Now, they buy tickets to Obama events.

  • Rob||

    RC, I think you meant to say that they now receive taxpayer subsidized tickets to Obama events.

  • Delano||

    You expect a guy to get so much stuff right in his first term? He's a rookie for goodness sake. Give him a few more terms and he'll have all these problems fixed.

  • ||

    Am I the only one who finds it odd that a Navy unit is fighting in a landlocked country?

  • ||

    Even better, the US Coast Guard is in Afghanistan.

  • jester||

    The USCG patrols Lake Tahoe. Interstate waters? Not sure why but they've done it for some time. Just guessing, to attempt control of the Corleone family.

  • ||

    It does straddle the CA and NV borders, but my guess would be the navigable waterways ploy.

  • jester||

    I was fucking with you Cheeseburger. I was just saying that the USCG has been a fucked org for a long time. Maybe there are dry lakes that they need to patrol on mesosoic fossil seahorses. It is that fucking crazy. Your original post provoked my halcyon childhood at Lake Tahoe and some maybe-not-so-inane comment from one of my school teachers of way back when about the Coast Guard presence. Let's just agree on crazy. That was the point of my post.

  • Pudgeboy||

    I don't follow you... if you're talking about SEALs and Marines, that's what they do.

  • McHale's Navy SEAL||

    Are you saying we have a management problem?

  • Ted S.||

    Hungary's dictator during World War II was Admiral Miklós Horthy.

    (He got the title when he was in the Austro-Hungarian Navy.)

  • Fatty Bolger||

    SEa, Air and Land

  • Doug||

    "because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush."

    IOW, voters are two-faced. After careful consideration I've decided to nominate this for a No-Shit-Sherlock award.

  • ||

    OK what the fuck?!?

    Why the fuck did they cast Carice van Houten as Melisandre and not Christina Hendricks?!?!?

    Such fucking bullshit!!!

  • T||

    I'll take Christina Hendricks in any HBO production going, since showing your tits seems to be a casting requirement.

  • ||

    I'm sure Christina Hendricks was a consideration, but she probably asked for too much or had a conflict with Mad Men.

    Now, casting the guy who played Jefferson in John Adams as Stannis is...interesting, as the characters are polar opposites. Dillane seems like he can handle it, though.

  • zoltan||

    Hendricks is too hefty to play Melisandre.

  • Robert||

    You mean doubling UP, not down. If they were doubling down they'd be promising not to go any farther. You can double down only once; you can double up forever.

  • CE||

    Congress may have given Obama a blank check to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they gave him no check for waging war on Libya. So where is the money coming from? And why isn't he on trial?

  • Mainstream Media||

    And why isn't he on trial?

    PRESENT!

  • ||

    The anti-war movement of today need a lesson from their Vietnam Era elders. They sure as hell didn't give LBJ a pass for being a Democrat.

  • The Left||

    But LBJ wasn't Mocha-riffic -- !!!

  • ||

    They did learn a lesson: if you turn on your own guy, he gets replaced by Nixon.

  • hazeeran||

    Though he would have made a fine Democrat.

  • ||

    "I remember my body. Flabby, pasty-skinned, riddled with phlebitis. A good Republican body. God, how I loved it."

  • jtuf||

    They did learn a lesson: if you turn on your own guy, he gets replaced by Nixon.

    Nixon ended the Vietnam War and moved America's domestic policy to the Left. Nixon was a Republican, but he was still Left of libertarian.

  • SIV||

    Nixon ended the draft.

  • hazeeran||

    After Milton Friedman convinced him it was militarily feasible.
    (Not the fabled "perfect libertarian", I know, I know)

  • ||

    You guys aren't seriously going to defend Nixon, are you? I've lived too long. He was a fucking authoritarian. He escalated in Nam (and Cambodia) for 4+ years before finally ending the war. He implemented price and wage controls. He signed the Controlled Substances Act. He broke the statutory gold-dollar ratio. Need I go on?

  • ||

    I was very angry when the war in Libya started and the only event on the Dallas Peace Center's site was a protest against cuts to teacher benefits. Sent them a pointed letter, and never got a response. Shills.

  • Maxxx||

    WTF

    Do pacifists really care more about teacher's insurance contribution percentages than about war?

  • juris imprudent||

    Which one hits closer to home?

  • ||

    The Obama administration is on pace to have more American soldiers killed in casualties related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than the George W. Bush administration did in its first term.

    That's not really a fair comparison...critical thinkers should have been checking for their wallets after that little "in its first term" qualification was snuck in. The war in Iraq was going on for less than two years of Bush's first term, and the war in AFG was going on for only a little more than three.

  • ||

    So what? They started planning protests under Bush literally the day after 9-11. There could have been five casualties and these dimwits would have been protesting Bush. Yet, not a peep about Obama.

  • ||

    There is some antiwar activity still going on, but it is very sparse compared to what it was like in 2004-08. Do recall it was also very sparse in 2001-02 when the Afghanistan invasion was going on, and in particular the media was still fellating Bush during that time.

    My point here is just that the comparison is unfair. They should have compared the 2.5 years of war under Obama to 2.5 years of each war under Bush, rather than 4 years of "projected" Obama to 2-3 years of Bush.

  • ||

    But Obama was elected to end the war. And instead he did just the opposite. And the anti-war movement has given him a pass. Do you honestly think "well yah but the casualties under Obama were lower than some of the Bush years" is really a response to that point? Are you kidding me?

    The anti-war movement is done in this country. It is over. It has been exposed for the Leftist front that it always was. The only way we will ever have a credible anti-war movement in this country again is if it comes from the Right.

  • jester||

    I disagree. Obama was elected for different reasons for different individuals (and yes, some individuals cede their individual identity to antfarm conformity) and I think your own postings here tonight show that you agree with me. Here are some top reasons (no particular order) why certain persons voted for our POTUS:
    1 He is a Democrat and I am a Democrat (team theory).
    2 I am a 'white' bigot (aka Progressive) and I want to prove to myself that I am not as long as the Negro is articulate (and half-white.)
    3 He might be better on civil liberties.
    4 Bush is going to annul the elections and declare himself Emperor. I love hyperbole and somehow I think voting will stop this inevitable occurence.
    5 Obama will close Gitmo. We encapsulated our fears of the Bush State in closing this tiny facility. The Wars will continue as they were started by Bush and won't have to come to an end. CutNRun is reckless!
    6 John McCain will die in office and the un-tested and inexperienced Sarah Palin will become POTUS.
    7 I am black and so is Obama and he has proven his cred by attending church, being endorsed by Oprah and being married to Michelle Robinson, sister of America's worst college basketball coach.
    8 I am a delusional libertarian and I think that my vote for Obama matters in any way shape or form unless I am on the staff of Reason and have an audience who will listen to my reasons why.
    9 I am from Hawaii too and can't produce my birth certificate. Jeez, everyone here just asks what hospital you were born in.
    10 Why is ten such a magical number?

  • Maxxx||

    10) He loves teh Gaaayzzzzz.
    Even though he won't say so and pretends to be against gay marriage.

  • SIV||

    One week or so into Afghanistan the media was all "quagmire" and Vietnam analogies.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    They started planning protests under Bush literally the day after 9-11.

    September 12th? Try January 21st.

    "Selected, not elected?" for those with short memories. The War on Terrah gave Team Blue apparatchiks some new signs and slogans to play with.

  • ||

    Uh, pre-9/11 Bush was a less interventionist president than his predecessor.

  • jester||

    I noted the same. Not only an unfair comparison, but an unnecessary one. The Left's anti-war movement will always claim the wars were inherited and that it will take years to correct the situation. They'll argue further that Libya was Bush's fault too. Who cares.

    It's all infantile I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I one-upmoron-ship, but sides must be taken. Fuck the sides, change the main dish.

  • LBJ||

    "The Left's anti-war movement will always claim the wars were inherited and that it will take years to correct the situation."

    Sign on Obama's desk:
    "The Buck Stops Somewhere Else"

  • Barack O'Bama||

    What buck? You mean there's one we didn't give to the unions? .......Timmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!!

  • Auntie Semitic||

    What buck? You mean there's one we didn't give to the unions Joos? .......Timmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!!

    Fixed it for you

  • jtuf||

    Mr. McPhearson says antiwar protests of the sort that drew hundreds of thousands of people during the George W. Bush administration now draw 20,000 at best. He said his group’s strategy now is to emphasize the cost of the wars and the Pentagon amid Washington’s focus on trimming the deficit.

    So about 90% of demonstrators care more about supporting their team than furthering their cause. Hmmm

  • ||

    There never was an anti-war movement. There was a movement of leftists who used the war as an excuse to push leftist policies. That is it. That is what you have to understand about leftists. Everything they do and every institution they infect is corrupted into the support of leftists political goals.

  • ||

    BS. There was and is an antiwar movement.

    The Democrats in power in 2001-02 wanted absolutely nothing to do with anything resembling antiwar sentiment, but it was still around back then as you said before.

  • ||

    Where is the anti-war movement? I don't see it. There were 100s of thousands of people marching on Washington in 2006. And here we are five years later and there is nothing. Just because a few people remain anti-war doesn't mean there is an anti-war war movement.

    There are a few libertarians who are legitimately anti-war. But they are very few. And they are totally insignificant. Face it, Tulpa, Obama and the rest of the leftist in the anti-war movement totally fucked the libertarian peaceniks. The whole thing is a joke now and everyone knows it.

  • Rock Action ||

    The anti-war movement that was marching in the streets and punching police horses in the nose from 2003-6? Yeah, they're around. Just grab your microscope.

  • ||

    And when it goes back up into the hundreds of thousands and millions again once the Republicans are back in power, Tulpa will have us believe all those people are sincere. Yeah right.

  • sarcasmic||

    They will be sincere.

    Sincere in their outrage that a Republican pawn of the Military Industrial Complex is back in the White House.

    Remember, Obama inherited this war. Even the one in Libya was Bush's fault. Or Reagan's fault. Yeah, it was Reagan who dropped bombs on that crazy dressed dick-tater-ship (penis + potato + ocean liner) which sparked the fighting that we are engaged in right now.

    Maybe it was Nixon's fault.

    I dunno. But there's a Republican to be blamed. That's a fact!

  • jester||

    From the Halls of Mentholyptus to the shores of Tripoli. It was Jefferson's fault! And Jefferson was clearly a Republican!!!!

  • Maxxx||

    Where is the anti-war movement?

    They're fighting a heroic action for fully funded public employee pensions and health insurance.

    Oh, and 10% per year raises. Fo evah.

  • ||

    "There was and is an antiwar movement."

    Sure there is. And it is going to come roaring back right around January 20th 2013 when the Republicans own the government again.

    Do you really believe this BS? Stop blowing smoke up people's ass Tulpa. You have to do better on this board than that.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think you're a bit overly optimistic.

    It will be January 2017 when the Republican president war protesters come back to town.

  • jester||

    I kinda felt at the time that the anti-war movement (which is always present, I agree) was crowded out by those who felt the US was biting off more than it could chew in invading Iraq. Not people with a core aversion-to-war ethic.

    So I agree anti-war sentiment wasn't whipped up to push Leftist policy, but it definitely was swallowed up later by many Leftish politicians who were hedging by voting for the WMD pretext (cuz they HAD to for America's safety) and then later usurped the anti-war movement with the I-was-tricked chestnut.

  • jester||

    While I composed this, John went wordo-a-wordo with Tulpa.

  • ||

    There are people who legitimately objected to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. But they are very few. The vast majority of the people who objected to those wars under Bush did so for strictly partisan political reasons and thus neatly switched sides and stopped complaining when their side won.

  • sarcasmic||

    Like George Carlin said, most people go to piece rallies to get laid.

  • juris imprudent||

    I see what you did there.

  • jester||

    That's what I thought you were saying and I agree. I think Tulpa thought today was Literal Monday, although to his credit, there is nothing wrong with vetting lazy posting- a creature habit of mine-the lazy posting, not the critique.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    There never was an anti-war movement.


    Yes, there is:

    Lewrockwell
    Antiwar.com
    Reason
    Future of Freedom Foundation
    Foundation for Economic Education
    The Independent Institute
    etc.

    The phony movements invented by the left were never sincere at all.

  • ||

    Let me quote myself

    Everything they (leftists) do and every institution they infect is corrupted into the support of leftists political goals.

    Yes there is an anti-war movement you mention. But that movement was infected with and corrupted by the leftists who joined it. Some of the original movement were sincere. And a few of them were unlike Lew Rockwell something besides anti-American nuts. But they made the mistake of associating themselves with leftists. And the Leftists took over the movement and have now thoroughly discredited it.

    You lie with dogs you get fleas.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes there is a TaxedEnoughAlready fiscal movement. But that movement was infected with and corrupted by the social conservatives who joined it. Some of the original movement were sincere. And a few of them were unlike Michelle Bachmann something besides anti-Muslim nuts. But they made the mistake of associating themselves with the social conservatives. And the social conservatives took over the movement and now they have thoroughly discredited it.

    You lie with the cats you get fleas.

  • ||

    Nice analogy except that Bachman is not a nut and Rockwell is and has been for about 40 years.

    Face it Libertarian peacenicks, you got punked. It was all fun and games back in 2006 when you thought liberals were your friends and really cared about civil liberties and ending the war. I am sure it felt so cool to be part of the in crowd. The party ended in January of 2009 and the liberals dumped pigs blood on you like Carrie at the prom.

  • ||

    John, while there are admittedly libertarians who were dumb enough to vote for Obama, many did not vote or voted for the LP. So you can get bitchy all day when someone insults your prom queen Bachmann, but your bitchiness only applies to a small subset of the people here.

    Try something else.

  • ||

    If it doesn't apply to you, good for you. But it sure as hell applies to Tulpa, who I am talking to. If you don't like it, too bad. Stay out of our conversation.

  • juris imprudent||

    If Bachmann isn't nuts then neither is Kucinich.

  • jester||

    Beware the usurper to usurp. It is so ingrained in us humans. The powerful always expropriate from the powerless individual(s).

  • sarcasmic||

    Is anything the left does sincere?

    Seriously.

    We're talking about people whose primary tactics are force and deception.

    If they are ever sincere it is on accident.

  • jester||

    Yes,

    it livens up the pitching staff of any MLB team.

    it fucks up a certain number of humans penmanship but who cares there are computers now.

    'Left Turn, Clyde'. Was that ever said?

  • ||

    Those listed only profess antiwar.

    Now professing to be antiwar is admirable.

    But anybody who supports the agricultural City-State (civilization,) no matter how much they deprecate the Statist portion of an indivisible system, is a supporter of war.

    The NeoCons are the only people fully integrated into the ways and means of the agricultural City-State (civilization.)

    Study game theory, especially "Prisoner's Dilemma."

    I quote, in earnest, as follows:

    The Prisoner’s Dilemna provides the logical foundation of why civilization must always continue to grow. Each society faces a choice: do we continue to intensify production, adopt greater complexity, and increase the size or scale of our society, or do we happily accept the level we’re already at? If you choose not to intensify, you will be out-competed by those who do–and your lower level of intensity and complexity will become a resource they can absorb to fuel their further acceleration, whether by outright conquest or more subtle forms of economic or cultural exploitation.

    This is the underlying logic of Joseph Tainter’s argument concerning collapse in peer polities in The Collapse of Complex Societies. If one peer polity does choose to collapse, that region becomes a resource that can be exploited by its neighbors. Whoever conquers it first will have an advantage over the others in the continuing race of escalation.

    Constant growth is toxic, like cancer. It requires "war."

    Thesis #12: Civilization must always grow.
    by Jason Godesky
    23 October 2005
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/

  • PantsFan||

    you say this like it's a bad thing

  • ||

    Constant growth is always a bad thing. Have you ever done the math on human population by year 4950 at 1.2@ growth rate? We'll need 4 universes if every star in every galaxy has a habitable planet.

    Do the math, I did last night. Growth is another word for cancer.

  • ||

    @ = %

  • jester||

    *=(^!#)

  • LBJ||

    "Do the math, I did last night."

    "Doing the math" with stupid presumptions means you're stupid.

  • Thomas Malthus||

    Yeah, by 1900 we'll all be starving or at war for the last crumb. I did the maths.

  • ||

    Well no shit White Indian. If your civilization can't defend itself, someone is going to come and rub it out. Such as it has always been. Your enemies get a vote. And you get peace when they give you peace. And if you can't defend yourself and your civilization, you are doomed no matter how fucking enlightened you are or think you are.

    To put it in terms you can understand, the Hindus had a nice civilization until the Moguls showed up. And the Moguls had a nice run until the British showed up. And when the British lost their will to shoot anyone who got in their way, they went the way of the Moguls.

  • ||

    No, annihilation has not always been that way.

    Your economic priesthood tells you that to deprecate NON_STATE societies.

    Yeah, anthropologists study Non-State societies.

    You libertarians disrespect and hate Non-State societies, because you are as much useful idiots as the Marxist supporters a few decades ago.

    NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
    faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf

  • ||

    No, annihilation has not always been that way.

    Just since God kicked Adam out of the Garden. Oh, you believe in that? Well, then yes, annihilation has always been the way you dimwit.

  • ||

    Anthropology and archeology and other sciences prove you wrong, Bible Thumper.

  • jester||

    do we? who the fuck is we.

  • ||

    And even if you could form a peaceful non-state society, it wouldn't matter. I am going to form my non-peaceful society, build better weapons and come and kill you, rape your women and enslave your children.

    Sorry, but that is just how I and my other state actors roll. And there won't be a damn thing you can do about it, except form a state of your own and defend yourself.

  • ||

    There's no "if."

    Study the 2 million years of human existence (humans were sailing the oceans 800,000 years ago.)

    99% of human existence on the earth has been in Non-State societies.

    State society, often called the agricultural City-State or civilization has been in existence for only 1% of human existence on mother earth.

  • ||

    And so fucking what? First, those non state societies were violent as hell. Second, even if they weren't violent, the state actors that replaced them were. States are here to stay. You might as well be talking about unicorns.

  • jester||

    '99% of human existence on the earth has been in Non-State societies.'

    agreed. and given that your trump card. goodbye.

  • Tony||

    Only John could turn awful, stark reality into a chest-pounding exercise.

  • ||

    Libertarians always go Neo-Con, in about 2 seconds. LOL

  • ||

    You libertarians disrespect and hate Non-State societies

    You have to be a troll, because no human could be as fucking stupid as you are. You do know what individualist anarchists are, right, mongoloid?

  • ||

    Feel the Libertarian love of science and reason.

    Most of you 'tards are as swift as Fundamentalist Creationist who can't explain the tides or why light from Andromeda Galaxy has been arriving on earth the last 2.5M years.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Whitey Injun,

    Feel the Libertarian love of science and reason.


    Ugh, don't tell us about your wet dreams, dude. Ain't nice.

  • juris imprudent||

    I was wondering if this particular troll might not be Ward Churchill - the handle fits.

  • ||

    Well, hello cocksucker! I'm sorry I was busy, and didn't catch your reappearance.

    No, White Indian, as I explained this morning is a Malthusian, back to nature, let's all be hunter-gatherers even if that means there can only be about 2% as many humans as there are now, fuckstick. His creed makes Papa Joe look like Tiny Tim.

    Or he's trolling as a Malthusian. Or he's a sockpuppet of someone trolling as a Malthusian. Or he's fucking crazier than Jared Loughner.

    Decide for yourselves.

  • ||

    I know what they are. They have zero comprehension of demonstrated, researched sociopolitical typology. It's all fantasy land bullshit.

  • Almanian||

    You libertarians disrespect and hate Non-State societies

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    Oh, man! That put a smile on my face! Thanks, WI!

  • ||

    Most Libertarians believe the Hobbsean "nasty, brutish, and short" bullshit. I keep hearing over and over again. Laugh, monkey in manpants.

  • ||

    Well, the problem is that all intelligent people who understand human nature understand that if even a small percentage of a population is prone to violence and willing to organize itself to project that violence, the only thing that will stop them is the rest of us forming a state.

  • LBJ||

    "Most Libertarians believe the Hobbsean "nasty, brutish, and short" bullshit."

    Please tell us of utopian times.

  • ||

    Nope, you tell us. The Original Affluent Society, well documented now, was not utopian.

    But you just keep saying that so you don't have to think much in your economic religion.

  • cynical||

    Uh oh, someone doesn't believe in evolution.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Indian,

    But anybody who supports the agricultural City-State (civilization,) no matter how much they deprecate the Statist portion of an indivisible system, is a supporter of war.


    Oh, you're THAT White Indian!

    By the way, you're still the fuck stuck in 500 BC.

  • ||

  • ||

    2012: Sorry Mr. President we need more time

    2014: Sorry Mr. President we need more time

    2020: Sorry Mr. President we need more time

    2025: Ah F&^$ it!

  • ||

    'bout right, although timing is the least predictable.

    Humans error two ways in future predication:

    1. We overestimate consequences in the near future.

    2. We underestimate long term consequences.

  • ||

    The agricultural City-State (civilization) is NOT endless.

    Nor is the the game theory of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

    It does end. In tragedy, unfortunately.

  • ||

    Unlike your posts, which only end in comedy.

  • ||

    I'm not sure how being against war and dePRIVation is comedy. Can you enlighten me? I'm only a young grasshopper, ready to learn.

  • ||

    Note: dePRIVation and PRIVation are the same meaning.

    Thus, the "de" at the beginning of deprivation has the original, not later, meaning.

    Do you etymological study of "de" carefully.

  • LBJ||

    "Note: dePRIVation and PRIVation are the same meaning."

    ^ ?

  • White Injun||

    I am requesting some primary source latin texts showing the usage of the words you are talking about.

    From perseus, here's a wildcard search for "depri": http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/h.....ri&lang=la

    Only one word, deprimo, comes up.

    Looking at "priv" gives more interesting results: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/h.....iv&lang=la

    You see the verb "privo", which means "to bereave, deprive", etc...
    Interesting that they're using "deprive" in the definition.

    It would seem that the specific term "deprive" has its origins outside of antiquity, as "private" become more and more associated with the latin noun "privatus" ("apart from the State, peculiar, personal, individual, private") instead of the verb "privo".
    cont'd below due to 2-link limit.

  • PantsFan||

  • ||

    Just like a Marxist. Anybody who thinks has a mental disease.

    That's Libertarianism for ya.

  • White Injun||

    Uuuh, in case you missed it, i'm refuting your little catch-line about the "priv" root. It's interesting that you refer to libertarians as "fundamentalist creationist types", yet you constantly make near-identical posts about "priv" and the prisoner's dilemma. If anyone here is coming off as a missionary spewing scripture, it's you.

  • White Injun||

    Looking now at etymonline, we get even more interesting results: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=deprive

    The "de-" is meant to mean "entirely" and the "prive" comes from the verb "privo" (presented in its infinitive form "privare") which for some reason means in this context "release from". The resulting word, "deprivare", thus is from middle latin, not ancient latin, and literally means "to be entirely released from". I would bet large sums of money that its initial usage had more to do with the politics of church and lay rulers in the middle ages.

  • White Injun||

    Going further: http://www.myetymology.com/latin/deprivare.html

    You see here that the proto-indo-european root is *per. http://www.myetymology.com/pro.....n/per.html

  • ||

    I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. UnLIKE your posts, which only end in COMEdy.

  • Almanian||

    Your IDeas INtrigue me, and I would like to subSCRIBE to your NEWSletter.

  • ||

    Libertarians = middle school IQ

  • ||

    Almanian, I have to go to the PRIVy. I will read his NEWSletter while DUMPing.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Epi, don't dePRIVe the earth of your natural fertilizer! Take a dump on the lawn or Gaia will have no rePRIeVe from famine!

  • ||

    True, in a small part. You're catching on, Mr. Clivus Multrum.

  • Almanian||

    HUrr DUrr huRR duRR HUUUURRRRrrrrRRR!

  • juris imprudent||

    His posts haven't ended yet.

  • Sargon of Akkad||

    The agricultural City-State (civilization) is NOT endless.

    5 millenia and countin', bitch!

  • ||

    I'd say 10,000, but it's only 1% of human existence, and is marked by famine. Paleolithic people don't starve, civilized/cultured people starve to death.

    See Richard Lee's studies. Never heard of him? LOL

  • jester||

    JOKE: So there's this guy. His name is Richard Lee. Have you heard of him? He did some studies.

    No? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Your comedic genius is wasted here.

  • Auntie Semitic||

    I've heard of Richard Lee. He seems rather libertarian to me.

  • cynical||

    OT, but does anyone know if NCLB actually gives the executive the power to grant waivers? Or is this just a(nother) executive power-grab?

  • ||

    PRIVation and "de"PRIVation and PRIVate are equivalents.

    Note it.

  • ||

    And it makes so much more sense now since you put it in RAndom capitalization.

  • Almanian||

    John, just GO with IT, bRo...

  • ||

    Not random. It's etymological.

    PRIVate property is PRIVation.

    See the latin origins and history, (something close to the English Inclosure Laws.)

  • White Injun||

    Look at my posts above idiot.

  • ||

    I see, most exalted "post above idiot."

  • ||

    PRIVate PRIVation.

    Land TITLE. Goverment's first enTITLEment program.

    Ever study the English Inclosure Laws? You Propertarians, falsely called Libertarians, are as evil as Pol Pot, who was a piker compared to how many people you starve globally each year.

  • LBJ||

    LIKE. unLIKE.
    See they're the same!
    [ACTUALLY] they are [empire!] not really THE [same].

  • ||

    Libertarians = grade school IQ.

    I can appreciate that; by gradeschool I knew forced schooling was wrong.

    But that is still grade-school knowledge, and most libertarians haven't moved past 7th grade. At least those who comment here. Are the smart ones drinking whiskey?

  • sevo||

    "Libertarians = grade school IQ."

    Hey, at least WI got the caps right this time!
    Likely a mistake.......

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...RAndom capitalization

    FUCK! It's LoneWacko!

  • ||

    Only somebody who wished to evade the etymology of PRIVate and PRIVation would call it random. Did they teach you such evasion in Marxist-Leninist school? Or the Mises Institute?

  • Whitey||

    CLEAVE and CLEAVE, they are opposites. Check the entymoLOGy. INDIAN and INJUN they haven't won the WS since 1948!

  • ||

    They call me crazy.

  • Maxxx||

    FUCK! It's LoneWacko!

    More likely another Loughner.

  • Hag||

    Agree

  • BakedPenguin||

    The STATE and lying in STATE are equivalents. Note that. See: Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Kampuchea, etc. etc.

    If you are really a pacifist, maybe you should read Robert LeFerve. I don't agree with him, but he's better than who you're reading now.

  • ||

    Marx and Mises are the axis of evil.

    Both support the Agricultural City-State.

    While giving hope that the State part of a fully integrated system of agriculture-city-state can be withered away.

    You're a useful idiot, as useful and idiotic as any Communist.

  • ||

    P.S. My library is full of libertarian tome, including the shit you think is Scipture.

  • jester||

    E-bay

  • BakedPenguin||

    Thanks for reminding me I haven't read my Scipture tonight, trollboy. Then I'll go out to the city and enjoy not wrestling with antelopes.

  • ||

    The prison like City-State teaches you fear of wilderness from day one. Don't piss your pants, little boy.

  • LBJ||

    "The prison like City-State teaches you fear of wilderness from day one."

    Uh, right. I mean I was skeered when I hunted rabbits and squirrels. Well not really.
    Or WIH are you posting about, bozo?

  • ||

    Oh boy, Elmer Fudd here. Not "skeered."

    You couldn't make a day's living like our ancestors from the Original Affluent Society if you tried all month.

  • LBJ||

    "P.S. My library is full of libertarian tome, including the shit you think is Scipture."

    Oviously, you haven't read it. Assuming (and this is a stretch) you have read anything other than comix in the last X years.

  • ||

    I've read it. Obviously, you haven't read anything else except the approved canon of the economic priesthood of Libertarianism/Marxism (both childishly think the State can be divorced from the City.)

  • LBJ||

    "I've read it."
    Obviously not:
    "Libertarianism/Marxism"
    Hint: "Up"/="Down"
    There is a reference called a "dictionary". You can get it on paper or on the web. It offers definitions of these things called "words". You should give it a try.
    Or admit you're a stupid shit and go away.

  • ||

    Obviously, you can't make the connection of the Marx/Mises axis of stupidity.

    Both childishly hate the State, but love the agricultural City. Well, the agricultural City-State (civilization) is a single, indivisible organizational scheme.

    Free market, collective farming...fap, fap, fap.

    All fantasies about how humans live and live successfully on this planet, as observed by people who regard inductive thinking and empirical evidence a little more noble than make-believe.

  • LBJ||

    "Obviously, you can't make the connection of the Marx/Mises axis of stupidity"

    Uh, no. I can make the connection between WI/stupid axis connection. And you're doing a good job of proving it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Indian,

    Obviously, you can't make the connection of the Marx/Mises axis of stupidity.


    But I'm sure you can! Especially when you forget your Thorazine.

    Both childishly hate the State, but love the agricultural City.


    *slaps forehead*

    Of course they do!!!

    All fantasies about how humans live and live successfully on this planet, as observed by people who regard inductive thinking and empirical evidence a little more noble than make-believe. [...???]


    I'm waiting for the punch-line...or for you to complete the sentence, you illiterate fool.

  • ||

    Pity, John?

  • White Injun||

    This is patently false. Marx saw the state as the means to ultimately overcome the inherent superstructural conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat. He held the early hunter/gatherer societies in high esteem, but unlike you (and to his credit), did not engage in primitivist nostalgia. He wanted to reconcile what he saw as the conflicts and degradations of 19th century industrial society with the system of resource allocation present in hunter-gatherer societies.

    Of course he was wrong on a lot of accounts. But he was not an advocate of "stateless" society. Just because you disagree with him and Mises, simply doesn't make them exactly the same.

  • White Injun||

    No, they're not equivalent, for the simple fact that deprivare and its root privo/privare could mean different things depending on context. They could mean "to take", they could also mean "to release", and in some cases, in antiquity, could be meant to mean "to free".

    http://www.myetymology.com/latin/deprivare.html

    Furthermore, grammatically you're incorrect. Private is generally an adjective, whereas privation and deprivation are nouns. Not only that, but whereas deprivare originated in middle latin, the noun privatus - meaning apart from the state, individual, citizen, etc.. - can be found all throughout ancient roman writing. Furthermore, this didn't just refer to the "land stealing" plutocrat class, but any citizen of rome who did not hold official office.

  • Almanian||

    Hey, I posted this on FB and asked where the FUCK are all the protesters now....and got called a "reactionary loon". True story!

    Seeing, therefore, that my work was done, I logged off a satisfied man. I never knew so many of my friends were liberal fucktards....live 'n' learn...

    That is all.

  • Warty||

    Where the FUCK are all the proTESTers now...

    Fixed it for you.

  • Almanian||

    Thanks, dude!

  • jester||

    Reactionary Loon Gavia immer zurukt

    'Look, dear, the loons!'

    I heart mixed metaphors!

  • ||

    http://www.popsci.com/technolo.....-spaceship

    This is way cool. I am glad to see the US abandon a manned government funded space program. If the future of space flight is national vanity projects, space flight has no future because the public won't fund such projects forever. The only way space flight has a future is if the private sector can figure out a way to make money and produce value by going to space.

  • ||

    Sci-fi fap fap fap.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Shouldn't you be out hunting and gathering?

  • ||

    +100

  • ||

    Yeah, it's like you, the rapist, who said to the woman he's screwing, shouldn't you enjoy this?

    THe agricultural City-State (civilzation) is aggressively invasive and occupational and has dominated nearly every square meter of Mother Earth's surface.

    Don't think you won't get your cummupance. [sic]

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Bullshit.

    There are plenty of places in the world where you could live off the land in a anarcho-primitive, hunter-gatherer way if that's what you really wanted to do.

    Stop making excuses, and put your money where your mouth is, you hypocrite.

  • ||

    Where?

    There is extremely little land left unmolested.

    But why can't I do it here?

    Because agricultural civilization is aggressively invasive and occupational.

    And you crow about it like a rapist.

    Should all women have to dress modestly so you don't rape them too?

  • .||

    Should all women have to dress modestly so you don't rape them too?

    I dunno. Have you stopped beating your wife?

  • ||

    ., Note how many "Libertarians" threatened rape tonight.

    I didn't.

    They did.

    Scratch a Libertarian a bit, and you've got a Marxist underneath.

    Luckily, only the Russians have had to endure these psychos' machinations.

  • PantsFan||

    I didn't.

  • ||

    The major aerospace companies aren't going to sit back and let New Space play alone in manned spaceflight. Good. More competition.

  • jester||

    Unfortunately, the major aerospace companies are 'too big to fail'. I wish the 'competition' word applied.

  • ||

    Wishes. Libertarianism. Is anybody "grounded" in facts around here?

  • Yes||

    No. Well, almost nobody.

  • LBJ||

    "Is anybody "grounded" in facts around here?"

    Are you "grounded" in your meds?

  • ||

    East Coast Liberals/Progressives bring up "meds."

    Well, steers and queers like LBJ too.

  • Nick ||

    I am a veteran of Iraq and Afganistan who works for the federal governement and voted for Obama. The author needs to change part of his story. It needs to be just about Afganistan, but in the first paragraph he includes Iraq. That makes his whole point a inaccurate and a lie. In 3 years under Obama the total number of casualties are 253, the total under Bush in 2003 alone was 486. He is correct about the totals in regards to Afganistan. Which makes sense since operations overthere have been increased. Also his point about the protesters is correct, while I do not agree with the author politically obviously I do agree that the protesters are fair weather and need to speak out against Obama as much as they did against Bush

  • Barack O'Bama||

    Vote for me again or it's back to Afghan for you, sonny.

  • Pres. WIllard "Mitt" Romney||

    I'm a goober and soulless void! But I'm the smartest fucking goober running, and look at my hair! Here, Dick Cheney protege, take care of the Afghanistan thing.

  • ||

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14450918

    WTF is going on in Britain? Is this how the welfare state ends? Maybe it is how it ends in a society where the government disarmed the populace. But it is not how it will end in America. Too many people with weapons to defend their property.

  • ||

    Isn't it how British capitalism ends? I love how Marxist and Libertarians both can't call a spade a spade. Both are deceitful in their holy scriptures.

  • PantsFan||

    make a relevant point or sod off, you muppet.

  • ||

    I did. Don't you libertarians fap to British capitalist authors like Locke, etal?

    And then you try to bullshit is that England is 100% "leftist" because it is failing. No, it's not.

    Left and right are the axis of evil, both supporting the agricultural City-State.

    One loves bootlicking hierarchical kommisars.

    The other likes bootlicking hierarchical bosses.

    Problem is, brother, comrade, fellow individualist, hierarchy is a 35 Million year digression of homo sapien sapiens evolution.

    Marxist and Libertarians all love the man in a power tie, which mimics the sexual dimorphism and sexual dichromaticism of our evolutionary ancestors, the red ass baboon.

    Your IQ is about that of a Hierarchical red-ass baboon too. Even Koko the chimp tested (up to 95) about American average (97.)

  • ||

    The agricultural state, killing off hunger and ignorance for 5,000 years.

    You are without a doubt the most annoyingly ignorant and stupid troll ever to foul these boards. You are not even crazy charming like nature girl was. You are just a moron.

  • jester||

    ...and you and me both answered his posts. Shame. shame.

  • ||

    Lies from the fearful, citified Mother CULTure.

    Famine is a hallmark of agriculture. Anthropology and archeology prove it.

    Go ahead, tremble at being a real man. Stay within the city bounds. I don't want to see your face out here anyway; you'd be a mooch.

  • ||

    Lies from the fearful, citified Mother CULTure.

    Famine is a hallmark of agriculture. Anthropology and archeology prove it.

    Go ahead, tremble at being a real man. Stay within the city bounds. I don't want to see your face out here anyway; you'd be a mooch.

  • sevo||

    "Marxist and Libertarians all love the man in a power tie, which mimics the sexual dimorphism and sexual dichromaticism of our evolutionary ancestors, the red ass baboon."

    Whoa!
    Now we've got some real stupid!
    Uh, tin foil lids on blue-light special, aisle 6.

  • ||

    You both crave and defend hierarchy, and I'm rubbing your nose in it, little tin-foil puppy.

  • sevo||

    "You both crave and defend hierarchy, and I'm rubbing your nose in it, little tin-foil puppy"

    Attention, shoppers! Aisle 6! Five minutes only!
    You *are* and ignoramus.

  • ||

    Sure, sevo. Comfort yourself, you mamma's cityboy.

  • ryback's cook||

    a) IQ tests are joke. Plain and simple. Producing them in any argument reeks of desperate ignorance.

    b) I shall now call you Tonto.

  • ||

    I'll pat you on the head then. No use arguing.

  • Dirk Diggler||

    Pat my head a little more, and give it a kiss, Pussy Lips...

  • ||

    Too skanky there, Dirk.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Indian,

    I'll pat you on the head then. No use arguing.


    You can blow me. And, you don't have to argue.

  • ||

    Liberarians are generally conservatives who don't get enough sex and want to do a little bathroom action, plus some pot. Jeeesh....

    Non-consensual? LOL Scratch a Libertarian, and you have a Neo-Con rapist.

    The neo-cons are just honest about their intentions.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Indian,

    Liberarians are generally conservatives who don't get enough sex and want to do a little bathroom action, plus some pot. Jeeesh....


    Oh, so you were rejected in your advances? Maybe you should stop soliciting in Libertarian bathrooms, whore.

  • ||

    I'm not whoring; you brought it up, you duplicitous wetback. Isn't that what cultured/civilized people call other cultured/civilized people on the wrong side of a river?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Indian,

    I'm not whoring; you brought it up, you duplicitous wetback.


    I didn't bring anything up. I told you you can blow me, no need for you to argue - a simple proposal. Instead of blowing me, you come up with this distasteful definition of a libertarian, from which I surmised you probably were previously rejected by libertarians that had some taste left in them and now feel the need to believe the worst of all humanity.

    Isn't that what cultured/civilized people call other cultured/civilized people on the wrong side of a river?


    I wouldn't know, I came here on a car. My back is as dry as they come.

  • ||

    OK, then, you're full of useful hints.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Whitey Injun,

    OK, then, you're full of useful hints.


    You're no mystery, honey.

  • ||

    Wow, more Libertarian Rape, Mexican style. Who said these people were any better than Marxist?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Whitey Injun,

    Wow, more Libertarian Rape, Mexican style.


    Ah, I don't want to know about your wet dreams. Ugh!

  • Almanian||

    call a spade a spade

    I guess we should have expected this from someone whose first name is "White", but...

    RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIST!!!

  • ||

    Spades are playing cards, last I heard. Make what you want of it, whiney boy with too many vowels bought from Vanna.

  • ||

    I like how the prime minister, home secretary, and mayor of London were all on 'holiday' overseas at the same time.

  • PantsFan||

    It's August in Europe. I'm surprised there's anyone left in London

  • ||

    "The noonday sun is too hot for all but dogs and Englishmen."

  • ||

    Wow, having looked it up now I see I totally butchered that line.

  • LBJ||

    "THe agricultural City-State (civilzation) is aggressively invasive and occupational and has dominated nearly every square meter of Mother Earth's surface."

    Oh, now we've got it.
    'Darn humans! Enjoying themselves! And mama-mud isn't pleased!'
    Still waiting for the answer: When did the utopia exist?

  • ||

    No, shitbird.

    The agricultural City-State is what is genocidal.

    Ask the people who were slaughtered on the Trail of Tears and the genocide of Turtle Island.

    I bet you have good excuses for the genocide too, don't you, Pol Pot enthusiast.

  • sevo||

    No, dipshit. Answer the question or shut up.
    When was this utopia, dipshit?

  • ||

    2 million years of the Original Affluent Society (see Marshall Sahlins)

    it wasn't a utopia like you fap to, but it was what you want, if you weren't such a trembling pussy with such fear of wilderness Mother CULTure has put into you.

  • ||

    I love how he says that like there is something anyone could do about it even if they wished to do so. As I said above, me and my organized and well armed friends are going to kill you and turn your wife into a sex slave. What are you going to do about it hippie?

  • Dirk Diggler||

    Can I poke his woman?

  • ||

    Slavery is a hallmark of the agricultural City-State (civilization.)

    I love how Libertarians turn into Bush-League Rapist, and brag about how they are going to rape. You're not the first, and you'll expire, shitbird, trying your CULTured/CIVIlized domination around these local parts. Come on, cocksucker.

  • ||

    Libertarian Rape. Bragging.

    Note it.

  • ||

    You are such a moron it is almost not fun. The point is not that I would want to do that. But that lots of people would. And they organize themselves into large groups and come and do bad things to you and your family. And the only way to stop that is to form a large well armed goup of your own. There is no way around that reality you utopian nitwit.

  • ||

    At least you stopped your crowing about rape.

    I'd call that progress, and I'm not a progressive.

  • ||

    Just shut the fuck up and stop fouling all of the threads.

  • ||

    ""The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me."

    ~Ayn Rand

  • ||

    You're friends with STEVE SMITH?

  • ||

    I'm friends with anybody who isn't an Agricultural-City-STATIST. That makes about 0.0005% of the human population who hasn't been successfully domesticated.

  • Shorter White Indian||

    "One tin soldier... rides awaaaaaaaaaaaaay...!!!"

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Thief,

    I'm friends with anybody who isn't an Agricultural-City-STATIST.


    In other words: You're a thief.

    Thief.

  • Idiot Savant||

    Protesting is stupid.

  • ||

    Depends on how well-aimed, and density of material.

    The ghost dancer's weren't totally stupid.

    Neither is the Great-White ghost dance now (those who hearken to the Constitution.)

    You do know who helped, in small part, that halfwit but somewhat good document called the constitution, don't you?

    Feel the pain of the Ghost Dancers, whites.

    Ever Read "Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World" by American author Jack Weatherford? The book explains the many ways in which the various peoples native to North and South America contributed to the modern world's culture, manufacturing, medicine, markets, and other aspects of modern life.

    White Ghost dance coming again. Unless you can do better than those who suffered under your genocide a few short generations ago.

  • sevo||

    "The ghost dancer's weren't totally stupid.
    Neither is the Great-White ghost dance now (those who hearken to the Constitution.)"

    Hints:
    http://www.csicop.org/
    http://www.skeptic.com/

    Seems like John has it figured:
    Left-over hippy.

  • ||

    The libertard/teabaggers are whitey's ghost dance against the State Nothing scientific skeptics (of which I'm one) have said about that subject.

    The subject being false hope.

  • sevo||

    "The subject being false hope."

    Next, try a book or web-site on "Grammar". Sentence structure conveys meaning.

  • ||

    Would you be consistent in being a complete-sentence Nazi, or are you being capricious as any common Statist in your nit-picking?

  • Warty||

    Are you this guy, Injun? I like mulberries too.

  • ||

    You'd like to think there is only one aware human on this earth. That fantasy comforts you. You want to be so very different from Marx, and come to find out, you are butt-buddies, both supporting the agricultural City-State while hoping you can divorce the last word from the first two.

  • Buffy Saint-Marie||

    [::tosses litter onto ground::]

    There.

    Now: CRY, bitch.

  • ||

    *watching eagerly as Buffy commands herself to cry*

    Weird cosplay here tonight.

    Lots of so-called "Libertarian" sexual domination, non-consensual stuff.

    Now you know why I called it the Marx-Mises axis of evil.

    The poor Russians suffered through a Marxist revolution.

    God help America if the Libertarians get their way.

  • Apache Chief||

    I'm more Native-American than this ineffectual little douchnozzle... and, dudes: I'm a fucking CARTOON -- !!!

  • ||

    I'm living in your brain rent-free tonight, free-market style.

  • ||

    Dave promised to teach me the wisdom of the birds. To spend my days sleeping and relaxing, with not a care in the world. But he never came back. *sob*

  • Warty||

    I can't believe he didn't want to talk about my kitties.

  • ||

    Kittens. Heinlein. Why hasn't somebody made a quote yet? Lamers.

  • Warty||

    It's spelled 14m3rz, idiot.

  • fish||

    Warty.....good pull! I forgot about Dave Mathews!

    What do you win?

  • Almanian||

    This White Indian guy is the best thing since Herc.

    Maybe it's Herc/Whitey in 2012?

  • Warty||

    Yeah, dude. This is the best crazy we've had in months.

    Injun, do you have a manifesto online? I'd love to read it.

  • PantsFan||

    but does it have a twitter feed?

  • sevo||

    How about a news letter? I mean, this guy's got "crazy" covered!

  • ||

    Did you learn such sophmoric responses in second grade from a State school (or religious school, nearly the same thing?)

  • sevo||

    "Did you learn such sophmoric responses"

    Uh, remember that "dictionary" I suggested?
    "Sophomoric"
    Just thought I'd help......

  • ||

    Libertarians make the best...secretaries, editors, bureaucrats.

    Thanks, I'll keep coming up with the big ideas as a Randian superman, you do the little detail fixing up.

    You'll get a Christmas bonus too, sevo. Don't wet your panties.

  • sevo||

    "Libertarians make the best...secretaries, editors, bureaucrats."

    And brain-deads? Well, they make good brain-deads.

  • ryback's cook||

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Indian,

    Obviously, you can't make the connection of the Marx/Mises axis of stupidity.


    But I'm sure you can! Especially when you forget your Thorazine.

    Both childishly hate the State, but love the agricultural City.


    *slaps forehead*

    Of course they do!!!

    All fantasies about how humans live and live successfully on this planet, as observed by people who regard inductive thinking and empirical evidence a little more noble than make-believe. [...???]


    I'm waiting for the punch-line...or for you to complete the sentence, you illiterate fool.

  • ||

    Just because you beat the French on the 5th of May, you wanna get frisky?

    So, why, exactly, do you support the agricutural city-STATE (civilization)? Are you a closet Statist like every Marxist?

  • Jay Silverheels||

    Dude. Seriously. You're embarrassing me.

  • ||

    Jay, it is embarrassing that most Libertarians are nearly (not quite) like Marxists.

    But even the bonehead conservatives recognize ya'll as Marxist of the Right, even if they only get a quarter of it right.

    Marxism of the Right
    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/

    A quarter right is pretty good, considering the company in this dive.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Indian,

    Just because you beat the French on the 5th of May, you wanna get frisky?


    It's Cinco de Mayo, asshole. And we also defeated the Legion at the Hacienda Camarón.

    So, why, exactly, do you support the agricutural city-STATE (civilization)? Are you a closet Statist like every Marxist?


    So why do you keep raping sheep? Are you a closet sheep-rapist by any chance?

    See? Two can play this "loaded question" shit!

    Worst of all, you think you're so clever coming up with this "agricultural city-state" shit as if you just discovered the perfect talking point. You ain't that clever, dude.

    By the way, finish the sentence - don't be illiterate.

  • ||

    Show me a broken sentence, beaner.

    Isn't those sorts of names what CULTured/CITI-lized people call other CULTured/CITI-lized?

    I'm just learning, ya know, out of the short, nasty, brutish mud hut.

  • ||

    I bet you don't know what the word "accurate translation" means. Asshole.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Indian,

    I bet you don't know what the word "accurate translation" means. Asshole.


    Psha! Who cares? At least I don't write broken sentences:

    "All fantasies about how humans live and live successfully on this planet, as observed by people who regard inductive thinking and empirical evidence a little more noble than make-believe."[....?????]

    I'm still waiting, whitey injun.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "All fantasies about how humans live and live successfully on this planet, as observed by people who regard inductive thinking and empirical evidence a little more noble than make-believe."

    Considering the redskins thought the earth was born on the back of a turtle, that's not saying much.

  • Tonto||

    "Asshole." Apache word meaning "Waaaahh."

  • sevo||

    "Are you a closet Statist like every Marxist?"

    "Words" have "meanings". You should try to learn what they are.

  • ||

    Marxist want to see the State brought to an end.

    So do most Libertarians, except the sell-outs who want dominated just a little, just until they have welts on their ass, no broken skin.

    What's the difference between Marxist and Libertarians? Plenty of minutia, but nothing of essential consequence.

  • Shorter White Indian||

    "Seriously, though. I'm about as 'Indian' as one of the extras on F Troop."

  • sevo||

    "Marxist want to see the State brought to an end."

    Yes, yes. Now relax and take your meds.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Indian,

    Marxist want to see the State brought to an end.


    That guy to whom you gave a blowjob and said he was a Marxist looking to end the State... well, he was lying.

  • jester||

    Please, please, please. Ignore all comment. You, of course, are your own agent, and I because I generally admire your comments, I cannot suggest with a good prospect of positive outcome.. Nevertheless, end this nightmare of comments and take the high road. Do what many posters deplore of the Right and Left and ignore.

  • sevo||

    "2 million years of the Original Affluent Society (see Marshall Sahlins)"

    OK, folks we have a winner!
    Two million years ago there was the utopia that dipshit loves! Here it is:
    "The "original affluent society" is a theory postulating that hunter-gatherers were the original affluent society. This theory was first articulated by Marshall Sahlins at a symposium entitled "Man the Hunter" held in Chicago in 1966."
    And it has since died a death worthy of Von Daniken's 'theories'.
    Love those bear skins? Find those diseases comforting? Really like to die at age 20? Well, here's your guy!

  • Tony||

    If you like civilization so much it might behoove you to give a single fuck about making it sustainable.

  • sevo||

    "If you like civilization so much it might behoove you to give a single fuck about making it sustainable"
    I think this *is* shithead, and per normal, I think shithead thinks this means something other that shithead is an idiot.
    It doesn't.

  • Old Mexican||

    Oh, fuck off! Who invited you to the Whitey Injun slug-fest???

  • ||

    Do you like Murray Rothbard's "racialist science?" Or was Rothbard evil?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: whitey injun,

    Do you like Murray Rothbard's "racialist science?"


    Did you like Rothbard's cum? I bet you did.

  • White Indian||

    My Indian name actually translates as "Sand-In-Vagina." True story.

  • ||

    Gotta love how Libertarians do NOT love quoting the founder...father...FURHER? of modern American Libertarianism.

  • Tony||

    OM is still working on literally figuring out the difference between forests and trees, don't pressure him.

  • Old Mexican||

    Who asked you, sockpuppet? Fuck off!

  • sevo||

    "OM is still working on literally figuring out the difference between forests and trees, don't pressure him."

    Shithead is hoping, just hoping, one of these days to learn the difference between "stupid" and "ignorant".
    Hasn't happened yet, and only shithead's mom is optimistic.

  • Tony||

    OM is ignorant, you're stupid.

  • Tony||

    I know what trees are for! They're for making those fabulous polished wooden dildoes that I enjoy so much! Forests....well that's where the trees that they carve the dildoes from live. Simple!

  • sevo||

    "FURHER?"

    ALL CAPS and misspelled! Who could ask for more?
    Shithead? I'll bet you can do better.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If you like civilization so much it might behoove you to give a single fuck about making it sustainable.


    Civilization has existed continuously in the city now known as Istanbul for at least three thousand years. Apparently their civilization is sustainable.

  • Robert||

    If the theory died, why was Peter Lamborn Wilson promoting it at least as late as the 1990s?

  • PantsFan||

    Anyone else catch the Ron Paul sticker on Breaking Bad this week when Walt was going through Gale's notebook?

  • Shmenge||

    I liked the vegan s'mores recipe.

  • Shmenge||

    Also, Gale was a previously confessed libertarian. I remember his vehicle also had a Ron Paul sticker on it.

  • ||

    Okay, which one of the regulars is White Indian? Come on, fess up and take credit for your performance art. You managed to troll the entire board. You should get credit.

  • Old Mexican||

    I can tell you who he isn't. It ain't me.

  • ||

    Me.

  • Transparent Native American||

    It's me the bird lover David Mathews....or the Zodiac Killer! Ask Warty he knows!

  • BakedPenguin||

    It was a thing of beauty, wasn't it? It's been a while since we had such a good troll. Injun, here you go.

  • PantsFan||

    I miss nature girl

  • ||

    So do I. White Indian is like nature girl's abusive dickhead boyfriend.

  • ||

    Libertarians, several, threatened to rape me or my wife.

    I've made no such threats, nor ever will.

    Who exactly is abusive here?

  • Shorter White Indian||

    "Gawd, I wish I'd been one of the characters in Billy Jack."

  • STEVE SMITH||

    STEVE SMITH HAPPY TO RAPE WHITE INDIAN AND MRS WHITE INDIAN! STEVE SMITH HAPPY TO DEMONSTRATE SENSITIVITY TO ALL NATIVE POSUERS

  • White Indian||

    Tell me more. Slowly.

  • sevo||

    "I'm friends with anybody who isn't an Agricultural-City-STATIST.'

    So you and your WBIL are best buds? Oh, good!

  • Maya Angelou||

    The libertard/teabaggers are whitey's ghost dance against the State Nothing scientific skeptics (of which I'm one) have said about that subject.

    Damn. Wish I'd penned that.

  • Oscar Wilde||

    Oh, you will, Maya. You will.

  • ||

    If the Past Few Days Have You at Least a Little Worried...
    http://mittromneycentral.com/2.....downgrade/ is one of the most enlightening pieces I've ever seen. The future is uncertain, but we can have real hope because the more people that read this, the more people will see the light and know what we have to do to get back on track.

  • ||

    Mitt Romney.

    Derp.

  • cynical||

    Ha ha, you're not suckering me into reading some Mormon tracts.

  • ||

    Hey White Indian, isn't the first step to going back to the trees exiting this web page and turning off your computer?

  • ||

    I think that's something we can all agree would be a good thing.

  • ||

    +1

    But the agricultural City-State has never been consensual. It's aggressively invasive and occupational, and dominates nearly every square meter of Mother Earth's land, certainly everything other than marginal spots.

    If ya'll can stop supporting the rape of mother earth, then I could live like you suggest.

    But you won't, being simpering mooches, to0 afraid of making real love to Mother Earth, and working with her and cherishing her, thinking she will reject your gentle advances. Thus, you must rape her.

  • ||

    So you're complaining about non-consensual actions to a group of libertarians? You're a smart guy, Tarzan.

  • ||

    Oh yeah, and I have some important news for you here: the Earth ain't a person.

  • sevo||

    "But the agricultural City-State has never been consensual."

    I'll bet your buddy told you this was 'deeeep, man'. After he took a hit.

  • PantsFan||

    quiet, he me accuse you of threatening rape.

  • ||

    Rape is about control and domination; so is the agricultural city-State, which has invaded and occupied nearly every square meter of Mother Earth's surface.

    Good assist, PantsFan.

  • ||

    I'm having forced sex with the Earth.

    Right now.

  • ||

    The Greek mythology of Demeter and her daughter Persiphone recognizes the plow as raping the soil.

    But then you're a Disney child, never having heard of Demeter and Persiphone.

    So much the better you weren't taught that, for the Randian-Marxist overlords dominating the earth. You're just a tool, ya know.

  • ||

    Actually I have. I was a big fan of Greek mythology in my youth. But your undeserved condescension is noted and appreciated.

    Now come into the real world where we talk about things as they are, not as they were written about metaphorically.

  • sevo||

    "The Greek mythology of Demeter and her daughter Persiphone recognizes the plow as raping the soil."

    And stupid shits think this "means" something. Other than stupid shits are stupid shits.
    Go love your mud-mama.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    the Randian-Marxist overlords dominating the earth.

    Ummmm.....WHAT?

  • ||

    Tarzan can you point out the Earth's sexual organ's for me? Thanks bud.

  • ||

    Greek mythology of Demeter and her daughter Persiphone.

    The plow is recognized as a tool of rape. The parallel are striking, if you had two brain cells firing after your State-guided education.

    Let me say, agricultural City-State guided education, so you know how ineffectual your whining has been these last 15 summers.

  • ||

    I guess metaphor and literary symbolism are too subtle for Tarzan.

  • ||

    Love to.

    Where?

    The Agricultural City-State (civilization) that you support is aggressively invasive and occupational.

    If I do, I'll get arrested and treated like the first families on the Trail of Tears.

    Are you asking just because you're mighty proud of how well the earth and her natural peoples' have been dominated?

  • PantsFan||

    So which State in India are you from? Andhra Pradesh? Goa?

  • ||

    You've never read any of James Axtell's book from Oxford University Press, called The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America.

    There's a whole chapter called "White Indians." Google it, one of the universities has the chapter on a .pdf file.

    Benjamin Franklin gets quoted there.

    Never in any "libertarian" tomes though.

  • PantsFan||

    Referring to North American aboriginals as "Indians" is offensive.

  • ||

    Nope. Keep swinging though.

  • PantsFan||

    yes.

  • ||

    So you'll be arrested for turning off your computer? Or for living in a cave?

  • ||

    Yep. Go out and try to kill animals in the woods and garden in any decent arable soil in North America as an Indian. How long do you think it would be until a man called a sheriff or LEO, who enforces the Libertard's PRIVate property rights, gained from the first families' PRIVation, puts such a person in jail?

    Now, one person doing it is silly. How long until a band or tribe, the human Non-State sociopolitical typologies, until the group gets arrested?

    Your CULTure's domination is complete as any maximum security prison.

  • sevo||

    "Your CULTure's domination is complete as any maximum security prison."

    Oh, goody. Got MOre stuPID ShiT from STuPiD [ShIt]!
    What a surprise!
    BTW, still haven't heard how you like dying at 20, stupid shit.

  • ||

    So in order to return to the trees you need to go on other's people's property? I don't see how that follows. Why not just buy your own property?

    You seem to be suffering from the widespread misconception that Native Americans did not have property or property rights. Here, educate yourself: http://www.thefreemanonline.or.....americans/

  • ||

    Listen Tarzan, I'm going to try to respond to the little content present in your babbling. There is no reason for you to associate "civilization" or city-life with libertarianism. Libertarians don't care if you live in a cave like ancient man. We just ask that you respect our equivalent freedoms to live differently from you.

  • ||

    Yeah, there is. Google on Wiki, or scholar.google.com. Civilization. Civilization = CIVI-City-State.

    Civilization is the single STATE sociopolitical typology recognized by anthropology.

    Egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typologies include band and tribe.

    Between egalitarian Non-State societies and State societies are chiefdoms societies.

    Are you out of the eleventh grade? Really, I knew that back then. It's like I'm sparing with sophomores here. But maybe a little is sinking in.

    Really, it's free, click on it; that shitbird Mises won't tell you about REAL, 2 million year's worth of Non-State "Original Affluent Society."

    faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf

  • ||

    How about responding to what I actually said rather than spouting a bunch of phrases?

    What part of libertarianism forces you to live under any structure? Surely you don't need coercion to live as you want?

  • cynical||

    Why are you arguing with someone who sounds only marginally more coherent than Jared Loughner?

    Sane people do not write shit like this: "Civilization. Civilization = CIVI-City-State." This is just gibberish.

  • ||

    LOL

    You never read a journal article with agricultural city State, have you?

    check out scholar.google.com

    It's the internet site for gibberish, as defined by Libertarian Fundamentalists.

  • PantsFan||

    The Greek mythology of Demeter and her daughter Persiphone recognizes the plow as raping the soil.

    Not even close. But please, provide me your essay showing this is the case.

  • ||

    Fucking kindergarden Libertards. Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

    "Demeter (/diˈmiːtər/; Attic Δημήτηρ Dēmētēr. Doric Δαμάτηρ Dāmātēr) is the goddess of the harvest, who presided over grains, the fertility of the earth....The myth of the rape of Persephone seems to be pre-Greek."
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demeter

    Is WIKI like the fucking Kremlin around here, forbidden ground? There's even better online sources if you have an attention span greater than 4 minutes. Whoah, what's that on the TV?

  • ||

    Sorry for the language, I apologize.

    I'm totally frustrated at stating simple facts from a classical education. It's like a bunch of hyenas here.

  • juris imprudent||

    What have you got against hyenas? Are they not part of your beloved natural world? Or does your Original Affluent Society exclude the African continent?

  • PantsFan||

    1) I aksed for your essay. Is your reading comprehension lacking?
    2) Wikipedia is not a source.

  • ||

    It's as good of a source as an encyclopedia, it's online, and you piss on it. You really don't want to know, do you?

    Libertarians have 1000 excuses for not learning anything by inductive thinking; they parrot them constantly from their bullshit deductive syllogistic house of cards scriptures.

    But really, walk into a university and boldly state that Demeter and the rape of Persiphone have nothing to do with plowing the soil. Because I didn't have an essay of my own to provide you.

    You're a Sea-Lawyer in the intellectual realm.

  • PantsFan||

    Bloody hell. You are a complete Prat.

  • ||

    And you still lack a basic understanding of Demeter and the rape of her daughter Persiphone.

    So whatever I am to you, I'm ok with that.

  • Old Mexican||

    So whatever I am to you, I'm ok with that.


    Good to know, thief.

  • Art Vandelay||

    Every time some bucktoothed online Cliff Clavin attempts to slap down the fucking Wikipedia card, as their crushing rhetorical "trump"...

    ... well. You just have to giggle, really.

    Any "source" capable of being edited, at will, by any twelve-year-old C- grade school student out there is no source at all.

  • Warty||

  • sevo||

    "Show me a broken sentence, beaner."
    OK:
    "Isn't those sorts of names what CULTured/CITI-lized people call other CULTured/CITI-lized?"
    'Nuff said.

  • ||

    Go to bed then, satisfied you didn't have to learn anything.

  • Warty||

    Your paper about non-state societies was interesting enough, honest. And the temple of ramblecrazy you've built on that foundation is commendable.

  • ||

    I don't expect any more learning that that after a few days. You'll come along.

    I am only reciprocating your bullshit, competitive name-calling, and other tactics, because monkeys trapped in a cage don't respect anything different.

    I did have a smarter monkey to teach a few days ago that wasn't so aggressive. He's probably lurking.

  • sevo||

    "I don't expect any more learning that that after a few days
    ....
    I did have a smarter monkey to teach a few days ago..."

    So you didn't learn anything from the monkey? Sorry to hear the monkey wasted the time.

  • sevo||

    "Go to bed then, satisfied you didn't have to learn anything."
    So your 'broken sentence' comment was just so much bullshit like everything else you've posted?
    Glad to hear it.

  • goneGalt||

    heller|8.8.11 @ 11:37PM|#
    Hey White Indian, isn't the first step to going back to the trees exiting this web page and turning off your computer?

    White Indian|8.8.11 @ 11:40PM|#
    Love to.

    Where?

    It depends on your Internet device. Everyone I've seen has a "shutdown" command.

    The Agricultural City-State (civilization) that you support is aggressively invasive and occupational.

    If I do, I'll get arrested and treated like the first families on the Trail of Tears.

    Just for exiting this web page and turning off your computer? I haven't been keeping up on Radley.

  • sevo||

    "It depends on your Internet device. Everyone I've seen has a "shutdown" command."

    And if you unplug that thing, it'll go away in not too long.

  • ||

    Rapist crow how they've dominated a woman.

    So are you. The earth is so dominated nobody can live on it naturally anymore, and you think that's just grand.

    Well, we know what kind of person you are now.

  • sevo||

    "Rapist crow how they've dominated a woman."

    Stupid trolls. How they waste bandwidth.

  • ||

    Now you've registered you displeasure at being recognized as a dominating rapist who brags about the extent of the domination.

    Poor dear.

  • sevo||

    "Libertarians don't care if you live in a cave like ancient man."

    Well, I do.
    I lake to laugh at mud-mama religionists as much as I do X-ian, Jewish or Muslim bleevers.
    Not sure which superstition is most amusing, but I get a giggle out of all of 'em.

  • Robert||

    Why hasn't Steve Smith weighed in on this?

  • ||

    The earth is real. Really. You didn't know that, did you?

  • ||

    Every bite of food you've taken comes from the earth. Yet you think the earth is as silly as Bronze-age skygodism.

    That is stupid x10. I have more respect for the intellectual abilities of trees.

  • sevo||

    "Every bite of food you've taken comes from the earth. Yet you think the earth is as silly as Bronze-age skygodism."

    No, I think you're a stupid shit who thinks stupid comments like that mean something.

  • PantsFan||

    what kind of electrical computy machine do you use that doesn't rape mother earth?

  • ||

    If he doesn't use the computer he'll be arrested, don't you know?

  • ||

    Not what I said. You know it.

    Read up on what Ayn Rand said about evading. It's actually pretty good for her. You're doing it.

  • sevo||

    "The earth is real. Really. You didn't know that, did you?"

    Real? Really real? Really really really real?
    No kidding.
    Your mud-mama ain't.

  • ||

    Did you eat Libertarian Neil/Neil buttbuddies sci-fi-novel protein, fats, and carbohydrates today, just by thinking it in your mind?

    No?

    Where did they come from?

    Now you say the word where your food originated.

  • ||

    Making sense is raping Mother Earth too, apparently.

  • ||

    See, you can't say where your food came from today.

    The pavement on the interstate is smarter.

  • PantsFan||

    i ate a tomato from my own garden.

  • ||

    Real close now; so did I tosay. What is the basis of your garden? Say the word.

  • cynical||

    Plants?

  • sevo||

    "Now you say the word where your food originated."

    Farm corporations.

  • ||

    Really, you got your food from a legal fiction?

    Nice bit of avoiding the truth; you Libertarians and Marxists are well versed in it.

  • sevo||

    "Really, you got your food from a legal fiction?"

    Actually, I get it from Safeway, dipshit.

  • ||

    Not originally.

    Keep evading, you dishonest creep.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Thief,

    You're a mere thief, White Thief. Nothing more. Certainly no more interesting than that.

    Thief.

  • Shorter White Indian||

    Rape Raping Rapists

  • ||

    Yep, I get tired of the act of it, and not just the identification of it.

  • PantsFan||

  • ||

    Probably. When I'm right, I'm right.

  • Old Mexican||

    No, you're simply a thief.

  • ||

    *cough*

    So in order to return to the trees you need to go on other's people's property? I don't see how that follows. Why not just buy your own property?

    You seem to be suffering from the widespread misconception that Native Americans did not have property or property rights. Here, educate yourself: http://www.thefreemanonline.or.....americans/

  • ||

    The native first families had property.

    (See, no widespread misconceptions that I'm "suffering" under.)

    But they never had the abstract ownership of land and resources that get equivocated to long-recognized property rights. Property rights in agricultural civilization that extend to even people (until a few short decades ago, luckily.)

    As if humans could own the air or water. (Both proposed by Libertarians, seemingly as control-freakish as Marxist.)

    I've read the Libertarian equivocations. I once was convinced, but further study shows them as mere apologetics for the aggresive, present agricultural City-State system.

  • PantsFan||

    Aboriginal. We can also accept "First Nation man/woman"

  • sevo||

    No, no, dipshit:
    "As [IF] humans proposed by Libertarians, [EMPIRE] the air or water. (Both seemingly [!!!!!!!] as control-freakish as Marxist.)

    There, now your rant makes more sense.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Whitey Injun,

    The native first families had property[..]
    But they never had the abstract ownership of land and resources that get equivocated to long-recognized property rights.


    Ah, I see: You're a thief.

  • ||

    So they had property but they didn't have property rights? Why exactly should I continue reading your attempts to reach pure nonsense?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re:Heller,

    He's a thief. Only thieves obviate property rights. Ergo: he's a thief.

    The thief doesn't even realize that primitive communities were as zealous of their property as any other non-thief, except for White Thief here.

  • ||

    Keep up the good work parroting all your scriptures. Any monkey in manpants can be trained to do it, and you're one of the best.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Thief,

    Keep up the good work parroting all your scriptures.


    Blah, blah, blah. Nothing will change the fact that you're a thief, Thief. Nothing more than that.

  • STEVE SMITH||

    SHORTER WHITE INDIAN PISSING OFF STEVE SMITH. YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

  • Shorter White Indian||

    It ain't rape if I ask for it!

  • ||

    Oh, that's cute. And true. But.

    Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

    http://www.endgamethebook.org/excerpts.html

  • Old Mexican||

    Re:Whitey Injun,

    Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed.


    The thief is also a liar.

  • ||

    I ask Libertarians where their food comes from.

    They evade. They refuse to say it.

    All they can do is talk like a rapist about bitches and mud-mammas.

    Libertarians are sick in the head as any Marxist.

  • ||

    I think they know the words soil or earth.

    But their twisted economic religion won't let them say it.

    Because their economic religious creed demands that the Mother Earth be spoken of in a degrading manner.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Thief,

    But their twisted economic religion won't let them say it.


    That's what a thief would say, thief.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Whitey Injun,

    I ask Libertarians where their food comes from.


    Liar.

    Mine comes from roadkill and park gathered herbs. Fuck you.

  • ||

    Ah, the belligerent rapist is back.

  • Old Mexican||

    And you're a thief, WI. Just a thief.

  • ||

    Ah, the self-proclaimed sense of Libertarian just-us. Pol Pot was no worse a jurist.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Whitey Thief

    Thief. You simply obviate property rights to justify thievery. Ergo: Thief.

  • ||

    White Indian rapes Mother Freedom you mean.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    heller: A+

  • ||

    Not a single Libertarian can identify from where his food originated. The group cohesion for degrading the earth is strong and amazing. The implications are stark. The Sixth Great Extinction demonstrates their death wish is nearly finished.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Whitey Injun,

    Thief.

  • Old Mexican||

    The group cohesion for degrading the earth is strong and amazing.


    Spoken like a true thief, White Thief. Thieves find justification for their thievery anywhere: You're raping the Earth, you have too much anyway, you can afford my thievery, et cetera.

  • ||

    "you can afford my thievery"

    Mises?

    Rothbard?

    Block?

    Lew Rockwell?

    Cato Institute?

    come on, don't hold out on who you're parroting now

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Thief,

    come on, don't hold out on who you're parroting now


    Parroting? Am I getting to you, THIEF?

  • ||

    oh yeah, big time, you so getting to me

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Thief,

    I must, as you keep replying, thief.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Whitey Injun,

    The native first families had property[..]
    But they never had the abstract ownership of land and resources that get equivocated to long-recognized property rights.


    Ah, I see: You're a thief.

  • ||

    Are you fapping to Mises sardonic smile?

  • Old Mexican||

    And you're nothing but a thief, White Thief. Nothing more.

  • ||

    Nope; you are psychologically projecting.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Thief,

    Nope; you are psychologically projecting.


    Oh, nice comeback, thief.

  • ||

    Thank you, it's your first accurate observation of the evening, so congratulations to you too.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Thief,

    Thank you, it's your first accurate observation of the evening, so congratulations to you too.


    Nah, at least my second: You're a thief.

  • ||

    whatever, you said you were going to rape, so consider the source

  • Old Mexican||

    re: White Thief,

    whatever, you said you were going to rape


    Oh, blah, blah, blah. You're still a thief, nothing more. You keep justifying your thievery, it only exposes you further as the thief you are.

  • ||

    White Indian rapes freedom.

  • ||

    Ya'll are the Marxist of the Right.

  • PantsFan||

    so what's step 1 in the road to recovery?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re:White Thief,

    And you're a thief.

  • ||

    Libertarianism distilled into two words.

    You thief.

    Well, another two more important words:

    THAT'S MINE!

    thanks om

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White thief,

    Yes, keep obviating property rights, thief.

    You will never be any better than that: A mere thief.

  • ||

    You just keep thinking the agricultural City-State is free, just like it tells you. I'm sure the State will reward you well.

  • Old Mexican||

    And you're still a thief, THIEF.

  • ||

    Not a single Libertarian can identify from where his food originated. The group cohesion for degrading the earth is strong and amazing. The implications are stark. The Sixth Great Extinction demonstrates their death wish is nearly finished.

  • ||

    Stop raping, rapist.

  • Athletic Shoes||

    is good.