Answering the libertarians and their lies

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Kissing people

Postby johnny nemo » Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:40 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> just don't wanna let it be forgot that there's that other side to the coin, jnemo, that's all. i think it gets made invisible sometimes, that we ARE worth saving. let's face it despair comes pretty easy these days and human nature gets blamed for our problems (when looking at only one side of coin). i hear so much defeatism i guess i react sorta automatically by now.<br><br>thanks-you for helping making this thread so good!<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Thanks yourself for balancing it out, anna.<br>I don't wanna sound completely like a "negative nancy".<br><br>The point that I'm trying to drive home is about people not doing enough; be it spending their time arguing for/dreaming about the Libertarian Utopia or "serial positivists" who spend their time "visualizing world peace" as they rub crystals in their drum circle, before driving their SUV to Walmart to support child slavery, when they could get out there and chage things in the real world.<br>(I don't think that's you, Anna. But it's a trap that many flaky New Age yuppies fall into.)<br><br>Mayhap a Zen parable will show it more succinctly....<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>A seeker was walking up a mountain and encountered an elderly Buddhist monk carrying a heavy sack.<br>"Old Monk",the seeker said, "Please tell me...what is enlightenment?"<br>The old monk set his sack down, straightened his back and smiled.<br>"I see." said the seeker,"Please tell me....what is AFTER enlightenment?"<br>The old man picked up his heavy sack and went about his business.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <p></p><i></i>
johnny nemo
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Kissing people

Postby AnnaLivia » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:18 pm

Wish I had time to write about last weekend and what I did, jnemo! Out in realworld and actively TRYING to create change anyway – check.<br><br>Terrific Zen parable. Me and my friend sceneshifter have spent a lot of time in the james joyce mental-muscle-building arena of finnegans wake. it "Zends" me, and then some! I love reminders of the biggest picture, see…<br><br>And/so obviously I adore seeing the focus put on correcting our mistakes in thinking about economics. This thread has REAL VALUE, ya ask me…<br> <p></p><i></i>
AnnaLivia
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Kissing people

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:07 pm

That is a great parable johnny.<br><br>bvon - I think you are right to feel this issue so personally.<br><br>but I do think it ties in to the whole deep politics thing.<br><br>Its a meme war. A poster stated earlier about Thatchers Britain and the dismantling of the public transport netwotks.<br><br>This is one example of the way privatisation plays into the agenda of globalists and satanic scumbags. It alienates people from each other. As someone who used public transport in melbourne for years i can say that there are communities formed among commuters, those communities might only exist on the trains, but they still exist. People see the same people day in day out and develop relationships with them.<br><br>Public transport is one of those things that should never be run for profit. Like roads it is part of the infrastructure that a society uses to function. When this infrastructure is exposed to market forces as they exist today it collapses, because it is not designed to operate within them but to facilitate their functioning.<br><br>Another issue with the privatisation of roads is the privatisation of public space. Up until the last 15 years it was a tradition in Australia that people camped on roadsides. You are driving from Bris Vegas to Melbourne, west of the range.<br><br>Thats nearly 2000km. Plenty of great spots to stop and camp. As motels proliferate they attract people who would have otherwise slept in the car on the side of the road at one of the hundreds of little spots with fireplaces, and a messy public loo. Then they complain to the local council that people camping on roadsides effects the tourist value of the area, its not "couth" and brings the tone down, and these people could pay to use the facilities we provide.<br><br>I think thats what Roth is getting at with the flaws of socialism or government. In that this is how the collusion and corruption that costs ordinary citizens money works.<br><br>However to me this happens as private orgs with a desire for profit come into being.<br><br>So now people don't camp on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere and spend a little cash at the next town/shop/petrol station they come across. So now people don't stop for brekkie in those off the beaten track - places without a motel or businesses set up specifically to catch the tourist dollar.<br><br>They don't sit and yarn about where they are from to the locals, talk about issues and basically interact.<br><br>They sleep in hotels, eat at macdonalds (the only good thing about macdonalds on the road is that their dunnies are always clean) buy their petrol from some massive franchised roadhouse and basically never leave the suburbs in their mind.<br><br>The implications of that are staggering but no one seems to think about them.<br><br>In terms of privatisation it starts in the mind. If there is nothing unique and the world is a franchise why not fall into the trap of modern western lifestyles of pointless empty consumption. if there is nothing unique that exists on its own terms, and if all intereactions are primarily based on dealing with franchises in a financial transaction, then the actual contact between humans is lost.<br><br>I am a robot serving my franchised credit card co as it interacts with your franchised food, petrol and whatever else roadside service centre.<br><br>We are actually the expendable party in this transaction as the franchise doesn't care for us as individuals. We could be any of the customers and service providers in its woreld and there is nothing unique and individual about our interaction. Except in rare cases.<br><br>As opposed to stopping at some town for a local feed, even a burger, where the person behind the counter makes it, and talks to you while you wait. About where you are from and what you are up to.<br><br>Broke down next to thew Kings Own Hotel<br>"Do you think it'll rain?" "Well you never can tell."<br>You won't get parts for that around here. We got compact Fairlanes.<br>We got ammo and beer.<br><br>Redskins in a faded box.<br>He says "Where are you from?"<br>As he undoes the locks.<br>It was a Golden Fleece until the lease it ran out.<br>No one buys nothing in the middle of a drought.<br><br>He said "North? I got a feeling its south."<br>"They're different here, you best watch your mouth."<br>He's got a brand new watch and a second hand smile.<br>He's got the only fuel for eighty three miles.<br><br>Found the parts in a garbage dump.<br>Had to climb underneath to unbolt the sump.<br>Skinned my nuckles cursed under my breath.<br>It gets cold out here.<br>You might freeze to death.<br><br>Jamie Stewart (from Overnight Jones) "Henty Stomp" <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9380
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: most awesome thread

Postby Bilbo Hicks » Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:41 pm

"That is why I hate libertarians"<br><br>From someone who admits they dont really know much about Libertarianism. Sorry I dont find this 'brilliant' analysis. <br>I think that TPTB have done a great job on us as this thread has shown. <br>Rothbardian's talk of coercive government I thought would of rung true. Thats the crux of it. Having soveriegn rights to actually walk away from it. You *dont* have those rights. It is not <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>natural</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> god given law, we are merely slaves to the state legally. Thats a reality just like someone in a soup kitchen.<br>I see quotes of Marx, yet many fail to realise he was from a very wealthy family. Yes god bless the working classes, they need to smash the middle class..yet what about those really in charge?. Its not seeing the forest for the trees. <br>The biggest problem isnt any 'ism', its the sins of men through usury (taking more than they give) which have built what we have <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>unnaturally</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, enslaving man for the exploits of other men. f**k collectivism, that causes wars.<br>:-) btw, sorry for the rant, I respect this site very much and the posters here. <br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Bilbo Hicks
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: RE: Libertarianism

Postby eroeoplier » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:07 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Besides collectivism and related loss of personal freedom, most attacks by lucid libertarians are on the central banking (debt money at interest, income tax of the middle & working classes & inflationary taxes) support of the state, which (to them) reveals the facade of who really controls the state<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well if lucid libertarians are interested in attacking the debt money system, I'm interested in talking with lucid libertarians. I'm a relative newcomer re. discovering The Greatest Swindle in the History of the World - privatised central banking - so I haven't quite got my head around it all yet. If LLs can see behind the facade, don't they, like me, see nothing but private interest? Private interests who, never so clearly than as in the case of America, have set the tax system up in concert with the debt money system so that they are assured payment for the money they so graciously invent for the use of the public? Private interests who at every turn are intent on undermining the attempts of private citizens to unite to form mutually beneficial arrangements in order to cater for their needs?<br><br>Muslims are against usury. I don't know how that works. The way I see it (just now), money needs to have a cost, in order to discourage an overproduction of it, and encourage its wise use. The only thing wrong with the current system is that it was privatised at the outset.<br><br>[If you believe in the freedom of private individuals to join together in mutually beneficial arrangements, then ipso facto, you must "believe" in some form of "government." I think I've said elsewhere, the public/private juxtaposition is a false dichotomy. They are in no way mutually exclusive. When you join with a group, you agree to be "governed," it doesn't really matter whether it's considered to be "public" or "private." In one sense, all activity in the world can be considered to be "private" - individual people make both history and government policy, whether they do it as part of a group or not. And all activity (private activity too) can (should) be thought of as having a link to "government policy," because in reality, the most "private" of mutually beneficial arrangements are a form of government.] <br><br>Who would claim that if all the private individuals of a nation knew the truth of the matter, they would choose to pay interest + capital to a private institution, and have payments extracted in the form of income tax to pay off "government debt," rather than instead have the government create its own money, and have the interest payments people make on loans contribute to general revenue, which is then used to pay for other mutually agreed projects?<br><br>The Greatest Swindle in the History of the World.<br><br>See it here:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4991544789166784731&q=The+Money+Masters&pl=true/">video.google.com/videopla...s&pl=true/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Buy the dvds here:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.themoneymasters.com/">www.themoneymasters.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
eroeoplier
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Libertarianism

Postby rothbardian » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:57 pm

I am simply proposing we pull the plug on coercive power. If George Bush did not have coercive power, the world would not be on the brink of a totalitarian dictatorship. How can there be any disagreement about that? <br><br>The only thing I am trying to argue is that in the absence of coercive power, personal freedom <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>is not such a terrible thing.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> It's not this horrible thing. What are some of you people up in arms about?<br><br>If it is wrong for the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>individual</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to have prerogative...then it is wrong for George Bush to have prerogative.<br><br>You might say-- "A duly constituted leader DOES have prerogative. I believe in democracy." Really? Are you sure about that? What if a 'democratic' majority of people approve of murdering 750,000 Iraqi men, women and children? In fact...a majority of people HAVE approved of that in the past.<br><br>A democratic majority decision to engage in mass murder is not a valid decision. So now what?<br><br>(We're very close to that number now, by the way. 500,000 were murdered under the Clinton regime, and 100-150,000 under the current Bush regime. The elder Bush murdered around 75,000 Iraqis in Desert Storm.)<br><br>Your ideas are to support a system that has the unspeakably dangerous potential to perpetrate mass murder...and DOES perpetrate mass murder.<br><br>My idea is that nobody gets to have that kind of power. <br><br>If you unwisely create centralized control mechanisms...bad people are attracted to those central controls, and when they get into that position they immediately seek to use that power monopoly to CONSOLIDATE their position and achieve totalitarianism.<br><br>That's where we are today...on the verge of the entire planet being turned into a worldwide dungeon. Get rid of the coercive centralized powers so that evil people can no longer mass produce their evil. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libertarianism

Postby professorpan » Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:36 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I am simply proposing we pull the plug on coercive power. If George Bush did not have coercive power, the world would not be on the brink of a totalitarian dictatorship. How can there be any disagreement about that? <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I have no problem with coercive power in some situations. If I'm being assaulted by a gang, I have no problem with city cops cracking my assailants over the head.<br><br>If my neighbor decides to throw his trash into my yard, I would expect the coercive power of the city to come into play and make him stop.<br><br>Coercive power is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it supports individual rights and public safety. Whereas you think that any coercive system is somehow a threat to society, a certain amount of coercive power is necessary to keep the peace.<br><br>Your utopian ideal is unworkable and illogical, as others have pointed out repeatedly. There are ways of addressing the fascist power grab of Bush et al -- democratic means that are sometimes slow and arduous, but they can be effective. And they have a snowball's chance, unlike your pie-in-the-sky philosophizing. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libertarianism

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:50 pm

I don't think you guys get what sovreignty is about.<br><br>Bilbo, you have sovreign inalienable human rights.<br><br>Its up to you if you surrender that sovreignty to a coercive government.<br><br>Of course you may then find yourself in conflict with the forces that claim to represent other people and that claim some sovreignty over what happens on, above, under and around the land that your sovreign person exists on.<br><br>As for tax, well where I live , that tax has paid for my wife's hospital sojourn. The roads that were finally sealed around here, (bringing the scourge of yuppies from the city), the Pharmaceutical benefits scheme, that pays for old peoples medecine (Lets not start the arguement about pharma poison here) and poor peoples medecine. The two fire trucks worth about half a million bucks that sit in the shed for the volunteer fire brigade, that we use, not only in emergencies, but for burning off and fuel reduction, that benefits everyone in the area .<br><br>Of course that tax also pays for the police chopper thats been flying around here busting people for the last week. Sometimes for less than 10 plants. (In the middle of winter, thats not a commercial operation.) The soldiers in iraq and Afghanistan and for the idiots that run ASIO and try to lock people up for no good reason. <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9380
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libertarianism

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:00 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>A top defence lawyer says he is concerned the Government might push for tougher anti-terrorism laws as a result of the quashing of convictions against Melbourne man Joseph Terrence Thomas.<br><br>Yesterday the Victorian Court of Appeal ordered that Mr Thomas be freed, because it ruled the evidence used to find him guilty was inadmissible.<br><br>The head of the Criminal Defence Lawyers Association, Phillip Bolton, SC, represented the Sydney man convicted of preparing for a terrorist act, Faheem Khalid Lodhi.<br><br>He has welcomed yesterday's ruling, but says he is worried about the possible reaction of the Federal Government.<br><br>"I think the Attorney-General is likely to be bitterly disappointed," he said.<br><br>"He's likely to seek advice about how he can amend the laws and he will seek further ways to restrict the rights of people ... held in custody."<br><br>Interview<br><br>In February Mr Thomas was jailed for five years for receiving money from Al Qaeda and falsifying a passport.<br><br>The case against him relied on admissions he made to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in Pakistan in 2003.<br><br>Yesterday, three court of appeal judges unanimously found that interview should not have been used as evidence.<br><br>Mr Thomas was denied access to a lawyer and the appeal judges found he did not have the free choice to remain silent.<br><br>Prior to the AFP interview, the Australian was interrogated repeatedly by Pakistani authorities and, he says, threatened with torture.<br><br>Mr Thomas says he was told his future depended on how well he cooperated.<br><br>The judges found the two AFP officers implicitly endorsed that position.<br><br>AFP conduct<br><br>An Australian Federal Police spokeswoman said the AFP stood by its officers' conduct, but accepted the judges decision.<br><br>She said AFP must respect the sovereign laws of any nation with whom they are cooperating, and act in accordance with that country's laws.<br><br>Mr Thomas walked out the gates of the Victorian Supreme Court with a huge smile yesterday.<br><br>"Hallelujah, that's all I've got to say, hallelujah," he said.<br><br>Solicitor Rob Stary said his client had been subjected to a great trauma. <br><br>"As you know he's spent the last few months in psych care" he said.<br><br>"He's in a debilitated condition as a result of what's transpired."<br><br>Mr Bolton says he is not surprised that the appeal succeeded.<br><br>"The confession, the alleged confession, should never have seen the light of a courtroom," he said.<br><br>"I think it is a great shot in the arm for the justice system in Australia."<br><br>Neither the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock nor the federal Opposition were available to comment, as the case may now have a new chapter.<br><br>The prosecution wants a retrial on the basis of an interview Mr Thomas gave to the ABC's Four Corners program earlier this year.<br><br>Arguments for and against a retrial are yet to be heard.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1718915.htm" target="top">Here</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>See the democratic protections provided by the seperation of powers are obviously crap. Time to start again.<br><br>Or not. <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9380
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Libertarianism

Postby rothbardian » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:00 pm

Pan--<br><br>Protection from "gangs"? Bush and his people...they <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>ARE</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> a gang.<br><br>No offense, but I don't see, therefore, where you're touching on anything in my previous post.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libertarianism

Postby Bilbo Hicks » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:39 pm

"Its up to you if you surrender that sovreignty to a coercive government."<br><br>No its not. Its not up to me. Thats decision is made long before I can know whats going on. Yes I do comprehend the BS which stands for our legal system. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Bilbo Hicks
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libertarianism

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:03 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>No its not. Its not up to me. Thats decision is made long before I can know whats going on.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well thats obviously true if you say it is. <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9380
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libertarianism

Postby Bilbo Hicks » Sat Aug 19, 2006 2:09 pm

As I understand it, when you obtain a SS# or any type of 'benefit' from the state, you are locked into a contract with the federal state (via corporate trusts). Its this contract which allows its federal jurisdiction over you. IIRC its the same when you file a 1040 for the first time with the IRS (a wing of the privately owned Fed.)<br>Its these legal powers for the state (via its corporate entity) which for example allows them to take children away from their (abusive say) parents, allows them to take your property and requires you to wear a seatbelt and pay income tax. <br>Its through these contracts (which are basically like commerical contracts) which give the federal state legal authority to treat people as its subjects, as opposed to them being free legal soveriegn entities under common law. <br><br>This is definitely a very hazy area of legalese, and exactly what law and jurisdiction is as opposed to 'color of' law, and I am no legal expert. Just in my limited research I have come to these types of conclusions. I feel that this site has some very interesting information and conclusions..<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.teamlaw.org/HistoryOutline.htm">www.teamlaw.org/HistoryOutline.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.teamlaw.org/Mythology.htm">www.teamlaw.org/Mythology.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>In reality I am not against taking healthcare from the needy, or state support for them, since thats the world we live in. Not at all, I also understand that these contracts can help people in society in certain ways. I also look at a country like Norway, a socialist bent country and the standard of living there looks very good. But at the end of the day its comes back to the coercive vs freedom question. Philosophically and morally I would say freedom trumps.<br><br>There is also the question of the nature of money and how that supports the state and its centrally managed economy. These states including Norway require a debt based money supply. This requires constant inflation. Its doomed to fail eventually, since as the economy grows the national debt and total private debt and its interest has to..actually in reality the economy has to keep growing in order to service ever growing debt obligations or the whole system collapses. The US economy right now cannot service its debt obligations, thats why china and japan are giving us 2 billion dollars+ a day so we dont hyperinflate (printing more money just to pay off debts). We also have a 1 trillion a dollar a year trade deficit. This is thanks to centralized control which was <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>supposed</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to help society.<br><br>This graph is revealing (you may need to click on it to expand it): <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.moneyfiles.org/superbubble.gif">www.moneyfiles.org/superbubble.gif</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Thats the total private debt, growing exponentially, supporting our fat western arses..until it goes *POP*. Thats when the the world's economy simply cant keep up with the ever incresing debt and it interest, the rate of debt creation>the rate of economic growth.<br><br>John Maynard Keynes who was a major proponent in designing the modern monetary system we have said: <br><br>"<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->"<br><br>He was a socialist and an elitist, believing that society and its economy should be engineered and managed from an intellectual 'elite'. <br><br>“<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>For at least another hundred years we must pre­tend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->”<br><br><br>Theoritically socialism can sound great, but in practice it seems to me to be a scam. <br> <p></p><i></i>
Bilbo Hicks
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libertarianism

Postby AnnaLivia » Sat Aug 19, 2006 2:11 pm

Meantime…while libertarianism continues to use adam smith’s invisible hand for masturbatory purposes, we see the evil government of Sardinia wrecking the world:<br><br>Source is: my weekly email from a site called Too Much – commentary on excess and inequality<br>On the web here: www.cipa-apex.org/toomuch<br><br><br>Bill Gates, America's wealthiest man, and Silvio Berlusconi, the richest Italian, are fighting mad these days — at the president of Sardinia, the picturesque island off Italy's west coast that's currently home to 400,000 vacation villas. Sardinia's president, Renato Soru, has upped taxes on both second homes and the yachts and private planes that bring many of their owners onto the Mediterranean island. Gates, the Times of London reports, has “cancelled his annual trip” to Sardinia rather than pay the new $28,500 mooring tax on yachts over 200 feet long. Berlusconi, now facing a $70,000 tax hike on his Sardinian villa, last week lent his support to a “gala VIP protest party” held at the island ’s top nightclub, The Billionaire. President Soru is so far resisting demands for a tax rollback. Asks Soru: “Who else are we going to tax to fund our development — the unemployed?”<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
AnnaLivia
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Libertarianism

Postby AnnaLivia » Sat Aug 19, 2006 2:33 pm

"In reality I am not against taking healthcare from the needy, or state support for them, since thats the world we live in."<br><br>ummm...come again? <p></p><i></i>
AnnaLivia
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Other

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest