Thought crimes?

[Samwell Seed Well]

You seem to have a comprehension problem with my position and a flair for attempting to get me to defend thoughts you state I have. hmm...How about stopping that and asking serious questions and trying real hard to keep it civil?

I don't see all soldiers as inherently good or bad, nor do I think of somebody automatically as a hero for having served in the military. I see the initiation of aggression as a bad thing. I see many soldiers as having been used and that their deaths were needless. I see the deaths of civilians, men, women and children as horrible too. Soldiers have been duped for centuries. Why would I or anyone kill another person that hasn't harmed me simply because a person with a fancier hat and higher rank told me to ?

As far as me having no backbone, well I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Everybody has the natural right to defend themself, it isn't an exclusive right. Everybody also has the natural right to be left alone if they leave others alone.

ok ill ask questions

could 911 be considered a attack?

If yes then was war a defensive move to avoid further attacks or search for those responsible or was it an aggression?

fact of the matter is i agree with 90% of what your saying until you start to right them off with the war they are apart of because civilians die . . .i wen ton to say what do you do besides talk , your bleeding heart for these people who are victims of the war, true victims. . .. . there is so much injustice in the world but casualties of war , something we cant control precisely, and you use it as a spring board to say na uh see that thats bad, when in reality it is what it is, the government is not responsible for its actions never has been, whats sense does it make now to point the finger and go thats wrong

how many american flags did you buy after 9/11 . . . . . .some call it patriotism, i call it blood money

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Wow dude you should probably stop posting, you come off as a psycho, like the kind that would open fire on a bunch of innocents in a theater kind of psycho. Rob has totally destroyed your position. Did you have one? I couldn't tell, it was mostly you telling Rob what a Giant turd you think he is.

FYI Soldiers don't really get a choice in whether or not they are going to have to go into combat.

It isn't like MARCHING UP AND DOWN THE SQUARE you know!

]

way to use the deaths of people in your dubious description of my character .. . i bet there familys are glad you can use the comparisons now that they were shot. . wtf, do you have have any respect for human life

 

[Rob Roy]

ok ill ask questions

could 911 be considered a attack?

If yes then was war a defensive move to avoid further attacks or search for those responsible or was it an aggression?

911 could be considered an act of aggression or as you put it an attack. People that initiate aggression should be held responsible.

If a few Mexicans and a Bolivian and a Chilean attack the U.S. should the U.S. kick Canada's ass? Panama's ass?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

so its an ok aggression then but not if you dont go after who "you" think is responsible, do you really think you have a more fundamental understanding of how the 911 attacks were carried out then the military or CIA,

i dont think we had WMD's in iraq ever in this war period, just like i dont think roswell was a weather balloon but it doesnt mean that the purpose of being in iraq wasnt working in our favor for getting to the planners of 9/11

do you understand that in war setting such as a inhabited city, not our choice by the way the insurgents choose to be there to make it seem liek we are making the choice to kill civilians when in reality we followed the fight to there homes where they the insurgents lead us and they are not a military they are just people, if i knew my neighbor was going to bomb Vancouver BC, id would no matter what make sure that that didn't happen, the country supported the insurgents which in turn makes them the enemies its war, sun tzu shit man

and its not normal and its not nice and it does serve a purpose, civilian casualties . . it sucks but it is a part of war in this setting, and most

so to me your position of higher morale stance is BS . . .as you jsut agreed that 9/11 was an aggression and in your world we are allowed to retaliate or protect ourselves . . . . there will always be a new way for you to try and right off the war but in the end, it was a war and they are not easily generalized other then, hell and chaos, go spend some time with some vets . .they were not so happy either, but they know they have a job to do and they intend to do it, not pussy foot around like a pretentious 12 year old questioning life and its causality

 

[Rob Roy]

so its an ok aggression then but not if you dont go after who "you" think is responsible, do you really think you have a more fundamental understanding of how the 911 attacks were carried out then the military or CIA,

i dont think we had WMD's in iraq ever in this war period, just like i dont think roswell was a weather balloon but it doesnt mean that the purpose of being in iraq wasnt working in our favor for getting to the planners of 9/11

do you understand that in war setting such as a inhabited city, not our choice by the way the insurgents choose to be there to make it seem liek we are made the choice to kill civilians when in reality we followed the fight to there homes and they are not a military they are just people, if i knew my neighbor was going to bomb Vancover BC, id would no matter what make sure that that didnt happen, the country supported the insurgents which in turn makes them the enemie its war sun tzu shit man

You seem to imply that a country thinks with a collective mindset. I'll see your Sun Tzu and raise you a Sun Yat Sen and a Sonny Bono. Next card please.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

lol it was a reference not a dick push up competition . .. the individual is not in charge . . . .so ya its is collective effort , so self absorbed, but way to try spin it that way, if i accept and understand that public polls are taken to show national support and then express how this nation felt after the time of 9/11 im promoting a collective mind thoery . . . ok, good laugh

nice how you change the subject, from was the war an aggressive attack and is the defensive actions of the US military warranted, next you will be pickign apart my spellign and grammatical errors like the other mouth breathers,cheap shot at No Mama i mean drama, i dont think you woudl go so far as to start sniping vs having the discussion you claimed to want to have . . . . .

but that makes sense , unless im reading this wrong you already said that 9/11 was an attack and that we as a country can defend ourselves if attacked . . ..and since in a war setting like a city(where they decided to defend our advance) you will have unwarranted civilian cuasaulties and children will be among these numbers , so you also agree that kids dying is ok as long as the war is justified . .

but this is where the denial starts to work again and you start to make excuses about why we shouldn't be here or there all while acknowledging that we are justified to defend agiasnt and persecute those who attacked us

nice smoke and mirror show

 

[ChesusRice]

You seem to imply that a country thinks with a collective mindset. I'll see your Sun Tzu and raise you a Sun Yat Sen and a Sonny Bono. Next card please.

I could give a fuck
If I was the president
I would of blown off 9/11 publically until I got intel on exactly where bin laden was

Then I would of nuked the motherfucker and the surrounding 50 square miles to hell

Thats when diplomacy comes in
You tell the leaders of the other middle east countries
They are next along with mecca if this shit ever happens again
Get your shit in order
now

 

[Dr Kynes]

Not quite. You still haven't read any Lysander Spooner essays I see.

actually i tried to read the raving incoherent ramblings of your most favorite and Bestest-Ever-In-The-Whole-World-Times-Infinity 19th century failed businessman, fraudulent lawyer, and self printed "author" of poorly mimeographed socialist pamphlets. his ruminations are beef headed at best. i find more wisdom in the nihilistic poetry of a jilted emo teen than he provides in his dreary longwinded diatribes against all order, law or stability. if i desire the "wisdom" of marx engles trotsky et al, i shall read their works, not the crazed gibberings of their less well known comrade with a penchant for impersonating a lawyer.

further, even though i deigned to read his scribblings this does not equate to accepting his beliefs. i do not automatically accept and integrate into my world view every crazy story i read in a leaflet outside a titty bar.

david icke also wrote a shitload of wacky garbage, as did zacharias sitchin. i have in fact read both of these "giants" of the field of stupidity, and have accepted none of their rambling incoheret statements as truth. niether icke, nor sitchin inform my opinion on anything other than the ignorance stupidity and gullibility of their adherents, just like the communist manifesto. people who read stupid shit may be curious, or preparing for a debate on the subject, but if they accept this stupidity as fact and allow it to shape their view of reality they are RETARDED!

 

[ChesusRice]

actually i tried to read the raving incoherent ramblings of your most favorite and Bestest-Ever-In-The-Whole-World-Times-Infinity 19th century failed businessman, fraudulent lawyer, and self printed "author" of poorly mimeographed socialist pamphlets. his ruminations are beef headed at best. i find more wisdom in the nihilistic poetry of a jilted emo teen than he provides in his dreary longwinded diatribes against all order, law or stability. if i desire the "wisdom" of marx engles trotsky et al, i shall read their works, not the crazed gibberings of their less well known comrade with a penchant for impersonating a lawyer.

further, even though i deigned to read his scribblings this does not equate to accepting his beliefs. i do not automatically accept and integrate into my world view every crazy story i read in a leaflet outside a titty bar.

david icke also wrote a shitload of wacky garbage, as did zacharias sitchin. i have in fact read both of these "giants" of the field of stupidity, and have accepted none of their rambling incoheret statements as truth. niether icke, nor sitchin inform my opinion on anything other than the ignorance stupidity and gullibility of their adherents, just like the communist manifesto. people who read stupid shit may be curious, or preparing for a debate on the subject, but if they accept this stupidity as fact and allow it to shape their view of reality they are RETARDED!

YOu sir are Hilarious

 

[Rob Roy]

actually i tried to read the raving incoherent ramblings of your most favorite and Bestest-Ever-In-The-Whole-World-Times-Infinity 19th century failed businessman, fraudulent lawyer, and self printed "author" of poorly mimeographed socialist pamphlets. his ruminations are beef headed at best. i find more wisdom in the nihilistic poetry of a jilted emo teen than he provides in his dreary longwinded diatribes against all order, law or stability. if i desire the "wisdom" of marx engles trotsky et al, i shall read their works, not the crazed gibberings of their less well known comrade with a penchant for impersonating a lawyer.

further, even though i deigned to read his scribblings this does not equate to accepting his beliefs. i do not automatically accept and integrate into my world view every crazy story i read in a leaflet outside a titty bar.

david icke also wrote a shitload of wacky garbage, as did zacharias sitchin. i have in fact read both of these "giants" of the field of stupidity, and have accepted none of their rambling incoheret statements as truth. niether icke, nor sitchin inform my opinion on anything other than the ignorance stupidity and gullibility of their adherents, just like the communist manifesto. people who read stupid shit may be curious, or preparing for a debate on the subject, but if they accept this stupidity as fact and allow it to shape their view of reality they are RETARDED!

So other people can give your consent for you ? You know like the U.S. Constitution does ?

 

[Rob Roy]

I could give a fuck
If I was the president
I would of blown off 9/11 publically until I got intel on exactly where bin laden was

Then I would of nuked the motherfucker and the surrounding 50 square miles to hell

Thats when diplomacy comes in
You tell the leaders of the other middle east countries
They are next along with mecca if this shit ever happens again
Get your shit in order
now

Yes you would have, but since you didn't target the babies, no harm no foul, right?

 

[Dr Kynes]

So other people can give your consent for you ? You know like the U.S. Constitution does ?

yep.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[SUP] [/SUP]promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ~Thomas Jefferson and several powdered wig wearing "teabaggers" a few years ago.

so yes they secured the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. Looney Lysander may feel all butthurt in his unfulfilled desire to live in a land of anarcho-starvationalist absolute freedom, but heres the final nail in your idiotic coffin:

In Lysander Spooner's time, he could easily have traveled out to the western territories and lived out his life of absolute freedom without ever seeing another human being, yet he stayed in New England and bitched and moaned!

You might also be interested to note that you can go to the deep bush in Alaska or the Yukon, and enjoy the same solitude and freedom today. The only "non-consensual" interaction you would experience is the nudging and jostling of the scavengers consuming your half-frozen corpse.

 

[canndo]

I thought it was funny that the original "tea baggers" dressed as savages, stole and destroyed property and littered and polluted - sort of like the Occupy Wallstreet gang but are idolized by the Tea Party as heros.


Get a load of that "promote the general welfare" thing there - damn socialists.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I thought it was funny that the original "tea baggers" dressed as savages, stole and destroyed property and littered and polluted - sort of like the Occupy Wallstreet gang but are idolized by the Tea Party as heros.


Get a load of that "promote the general welfare" thing there - damn socialists.

tea was not found in bags at that time, it was in crates barrels boxes bales and tins. but never bags. at sea the tea would get wet, and be ruined.

also, society is not socialism, it's society.

 

[canndo]

tea was not found in bags at that time, it was in crates barrels boxes bales and tins. but never bags. at sea the tea would get wet, and be ruined.

also, society is not socialism, it's society.

What? no Lipton? no flow through?

 

[Dr Kynes]

nah that shit was invented in the 1900's to sell shit tea at premium prices

 

[Canna Sylvan]

nah that shit was invented in the 1900's to sell shit tea at premium prices

Damn right. I don't teabag, I tea ball!

 

[Mr Neutron]

I thought it was funny that the original "tea baggers" dressed as savages, stole and destroyed property and littered and polluted - sort of like the Occupy Wallstreet gang but are idolized by the Tea Party as heros.


Get a load of that "promote the general welfare" thing there - damn socialists.

If you interpreted the second amendment the same way you do the "general welfare" clause, it would be illegal to not be armed to the teeth.

 

[Rob Roy]

yep.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ~Thomas Jefferson and several powdered wig wearing "teabaggers" a few years ago.

so yes they secured the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. Looney Lysander may feel all butthurt in his unfulfilled desire to live in a land of anarcho-starvationalist absolute freedom, but heres the final nail in your idiotic coffin:

In Lysander Spooner's time, he could easily have traveled out to the western territories and lived out his life of absolute freedom without ever seeing another human being, yet he stayed in New England and bitched and moaned!

You might also be interested to note that you can go to the deep bush in Alaska or the Yukon, and enjoy the same solitude and freedom today. The only "non-consensual" interaction you would experience is the nudging and jostling of the scavengers consuming your half-frozen corpse.

So a few rich land owners that lived several hundred years ago can give CONSENT that is binding upon people that live hundreds of years in the future? How is that done?

How can anybody but you give your consent ?

Your move to Alaska diatribe isn't relevant either, both due to inaccuracy and your attempt to move the discussion. I thought you were supposed to be a good debater and could stay on topic?

 

[Dr Kynes]

So a few rich land owners that lived several hundred years ago can give CONSENT that is binding upon people that live hundreds of years in the future? How is that done?

How can anybody but you give your consent ?

Your move to Alaska diatribe isn't relevant either, both due to inaccuracy and your attempt to move the discussion. I thought you were supposed to be a good debater and could stay on topic?

a few wealthy landowners a few hundred years ago created the constitution and through it the original form of the government we see horribly mutated and deformed today. that original government was a society which would give the people a voice, yet protect the minority voices from oppression by the majority. (blah blah blah slaves blah blah yeah we all can see that problem ourselves)/. this government was established to create a nation strong enough to defend itself against the imperialist powers, but gentle enough to allow the liberty of the people (the white people, the ones with balls, if you insist on dragging up every problem in history then you are the poor debater). this government and nation, like all nations is intended to exist in perpetuity. this means that descendants will presumably have the same if not greater rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as their forefathers. demanding that every successive person to be born into the nation agree in toto with the codes laws and regulations, as well as every move made by the nation over the last 250 years is ridiculous.

consent is presumed based upon the knowledge that should the US have been determined to be tuely unfair and unworkable the oppressed are free to depart and raise their kids elsewhere. (case in point liberia, canada mexico etc) the US does not have an iron curtain (or a bamboo one either) keeping residents prisoner. if i decide to pack up and move to canada mexico cuba spain england france or any other nation i may, taking my wealth with me when i go. therefore remaining in this nation gives implied consent to be governed, and having the right to vote gives one a voice (however small) in the workings of the nation and your local government too.

That is consent.

the prospect of lysander spooner or yourself moving deep into the wilderness to live out your dreamy noble savage lifestyle as a back woods hermit is not irrelevant. it is HIGHLY relevant. if you believe every interaction between persons and the government which forms the framework for the society as a whole must be mutual, consensual and transactional, then moving off to the wilderness, to "Grow Beards, get Weird and disappear up in the Mountains" (~Mathers, Dre, Trice et al, 2007) is entirely relevant. in such a utopian lifestyle, you would only be disturbed in your anarcho-hermitic reverie when you chose to interact with others, and eventually when your corpse becomes food for passing wolverines and coyotes.

that lysander spooner and yourself have chosen to NOT indulge in this option (though many have) implies consent to interaction with OUR society and it's relevant government agencies and regulatory bodies.