Do you find yourself having to remind yourself not to support the plucky underdog?

[Frogman]

As a newbie here I guess I'll learn who is worth debating and who is not. I can see MTG agrees with my original assessment on David. There really isn't a debate and it doesn't sound like David is the sort to admit he's wrong.

[David Floyd]

AH,

I think Floyd is giving plucky underdogs everywhere a bad name.

I don't care.

Frogman,

David, I in no way would stoop to a personal attack. I defined my use of the word idiot and I just tend to use it to refer to people who appear to be talking out of area of knowledge.

Nice dodge. Suggestion: find another word. "Idiot" has generally insulting consultations.

Taxes are as old as government and if your going to argue an anarchist platform, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Prostitution is also as old as government, yet taking away prostitution doesn't take away government. Yes, it's different, but the point is that forced taxation is not necessarily required for government.

Defense and security of the people is the chief responsibility of the government.

And in that light, if the government was truly concerned with defense and security, then over the past century it seems as if the US government would have made drastically different decisions.

The government isn't they, its us.

That's a nice sentiment, but unfortunately incorrect. Neither one of us had any say in a war on Iraq - and, in fact, voting for Gore probably would not have changed the war, so you can't even make that argument.

Since defense is the primary obligation of the government, and Saddam and Iraq are considered a threat by our president, we are at war.

Saddam is not a threat to our security or independence, no matter what Bush says, and Iraq would not even be a TINY risk of funding terror against us if we had a foreign policy aimed at defense and security. Further, we aren't at war because Congress never declared war.

Thats not immoral and I don't think anyone will argue that Saddam is not a threat to peace.

I'd argue Saddam is no threat to peace within the borders of the US.

Going to war is a judgement call, you can be against it, but it still doesn't mean that citizens have the right to withhold taxes because they disagree.

The point is that taxes should never be force and coercive to begin with, in part because it puts us in the position of being forced to support war.

The immoral thing would be forcing me to pay for your security when you won't pay for your own.

So you agree, then, as a sidenote, that welfare is immoral?

MtG,

I wasn't aware that parroting "it's immoral, it's immoral" to everything you find inconvenient, coupled with pity-parties, was debating.

Anyone even remotely familiar with my arguments and debates would realize that I can and have backed up the morality assertions. If you find it convenient to ignore my arguments, that's fine, but go ahead and get off your superiority horse.

You've even admitted you're "too lazy" to actually do something about your principles (like move to some island or start your own libertarian-anarchist paradise

I don't have the means to realistically start either venture, nor should I have to in order to validate my views. I'm not trying to make YOU do that in order to validate your views.

So I don't take you in the slightest seriously, there's no debate, because there's nothing there.

Conveniently enough, you've never bothered to enter into any of the major debates that I've participated in, at least not that I can recall. If you can prove me wrong, then post a link, and I'll just go ahead and post an argument to refute your post if I disagree, or one agreeing with your post.

I don't think I've ever banned Speer. I pretty much lump you in the same category.

*sniffle* *sniffle* *cry* Please, anything but that *sniffle* *snif..... I don't really give a flying **** who you lump me with.

[David Floyd]

There really isn't a debate and it doesn't sound like David is the sort to admit he's wrong.

I've certainly admitted as much before, and will do again if necessary. It just usually isn't necessary.

[DinoDoc]

Further, we aren't at war because Congress never declared war.

Yes, they did.

[Frogman]

Well David, just tell me your point. Are you saying that governments don't have the right to tax? Are you saying you have an idea for a new form of government where citizens can withhold taxes? Democracy isn't perfect, but its the lesser evil of any other option. (someone famous said something like that)

You are right, idiot is too strong a word I suppose. I started using it after reading Scott Adams' Dilbert books. The basic premise is the axiom that the world is full of idiots. Thats followed by the second axiom, anyone can be an idiot at any time. While humerous, the books actually had some wit and wisdom.

[Alexander's Horse]

Okay, plucky underdog old Iraqi guy shoots down Apache helicopter.

Put plucked underdog Floyd in the same situation and he leans on his rifle complaining about all the helos going over ruining his crops.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Further, we aren't at war because Congress never declared war.

The point is that taxes should never be force and coercive to begin with, in part because it puts us in the position of being forced to support war.

Make up your mind, dear.

Anyone even remotely familiar with my arguments and debates would realize that I can and have backed up the morality assertions.

Yes, you have. Self-referentially, but you have, in your own special way.

If you find it convenient to ignore my arguments, that's fine, but go ahead and get off your superiority horse.

Hey, leave Horsie out of this. He'd be insulted.

I don't have the means to realistically start either venture, nor should I have to in order to validate my views.

Of course, you don't have to do anything. But if you're unwilling to take action consistent with your views, that just points out the sincerity of them more than anything you can spout here.

I'm not trying to make YOU do that in order to validate your views.

I operate in accordance with my views, and/or base my views on what I do. I don't have the consistency gap between ideology and action that you do.

Conveniently enough, you've never bothered to enter into any of the major debates that I've participated in, at least not that I can recall.

I haven't seen you in a "major debate" for a long time that I can remember. You used to be better at articulating intelligent arguments, but for quite a while, all I've seen is a lot of circular arguments in which you repeat the same thing over and over until everyone else leaves, mixed with this trend towards self-pity. That's why your non-political threads are much more worth reading, once you get on that little political soap box, I just see MOS and tune out. Sorry, old chap.

*sniffle* *sniffle* *cry* Please, anything but that *sniffle* *snif..... I don't really give a flying **** who you lump me with.

Which is why you just had to respond to that point, to prove it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Okay, plucky underdog old Iraqi guy shoots down Apache helicopter.

Put plucked underdog Floyd in the same situation and he leans on his rifle complaining about all the helos going over ruining his crops.

Funny one, but let's not gangbang ol' Floyd. I'm through with him for the evening. If you two want to have a go, be reasonably gentle with him.

[Alexander's Horse]

Hey, I like Floyd.

(no offence Floyd, I'm just sparking off ya )

[MichaeltheGreat]

I even like him, or at least tolerate him , when he's not being whiny.

[David Floyd]

Frogman,

Well David, just tell me your point. Are you saying that governments don't have the right to tax?

Bingo.

MtG,

Make up your mind, dear.

Make up my mind about what, sweetums? Taxes are immoral, and so is war, because, of course, stealing and murder are both wrong. I think you'd agree with that, no? Having difficulty seeing the point, or just being deliberately obtuse?

Yes, you have. Self-referentially, but you have, in your own special way.

Oh I get it, this is the point where you pat me on the head, trot me out to show to your buddies, then lock me back up in my closet. Well **** off. Oohhhh I'm so sorry I haven't had all of your "valuable experience" in the military, and golly, I REALLY wish that I did in fact know the square root of 73 by heart, and I wish I enjoyed such a wonderfully productive job moderating a forum, but I just don't! Damn, damn, and double damn! Now let's get back to the regularly scheduled real world - I'm a 20 year old guy in Austin with above average intelligence (yes, that's right, and if you think I'm just being arrogant I don't actually care) who happens to have a lot of opinions, and, unlike most other morons, manages to make those opinions and beliefs consistent with themselves. If you want to play the ol' "I'm older and therefore right" game with me, honeybuns, then I'm gonna have to go ahead and ask you why you never seem to come out and play with the big kids, by which I of course am asking you to back up your thinly disguised yet completely transparent insults with real arguments. You know, argument, with the "a" and the "r" and the "g" and, well, you get it.

Of course, you don't have to do anything. But if you're unwilling to take action consistent with your views, that just points out the sincerity of them more than anything you can spout here.

And that's where you're wrong. I did take action consistent with my views, by voting 100% Libertarian in the last election. You know, voting, the same action you most likely took in support of your views.

I haven't seen you in a "major debate" for a long time that I can remember.

I don't have the time or the inclination, quite frankly. I'm sorta in Wraith's boat - I'm sick of repeating the same tired old arguments, because everyone knows what they are, so I'll just condense them into a few lines and know damn well that everyone knows what I'm talking about and why.

Which is why you just had to respond to that point, to prove it.

Wow, another deep psychological analysis from someone who calls himself "...the Great". Wow, there's nothing I can POSSIBLY say to THAT, now IS there?

If you two want to have a go, be reasonably gentle with him.

Well, I hereby relinquish all mod protections in terms of what can be said to me, as long as those posting relinquish the same protections.

I even like him, or at least tolerate him , when he's not being whiny.

No offense to you, either. We can probably find any number of subjects which we'll reasonably agree on (fighting I know is one, there are probably others).

[monkspider]

I have to give Floyd credit, that was a zinger!
Since we are comparing Floyd/MTG to the war, I guess that was the equivalent of the Iraqi 51st heroically holding out against all odds in Basra.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Ask the Iraqis.

you mean, they shut it down themselves?

[Kropotkin]

Berzerker:

A bit to late maybe but this is an example between the country with the lowest emissions per person, Sweden, compared to the US.

The US: 280,000,000 / 9,158,960 sq km = 30,6 people per sq km
Sweden: 8,900,000 / 410,934 sq km = 21,7 people per sq km

Even if such a crude messurement can't get up all aspects of spartial distrubution it clearly shows that the size alone can't explain that. If the US doesn't take their responsibility and helps out getting down there numbers how could the world be able to make China do the same in the future? A china or india with the same waste per person as the US would mean the end of the world as we know it.

[Sir Og]

First of all I would like to say that I do not support Saddam and his regime. And there is no doubt that the world would be a better place without him. The same applies to the Bush regime btw.
I also think that this war shouldn’t have started.
But I support the underdogs. In this case the underdogs for me are the individual Iraqi soldiers and tank crews. I think that they are not some evil, bloodthirsty bastards with any respect for human life. I think most of them sincerely believe that they are protecting their country from the aggressor.
The perfect (although absolutely impossible for various reasons) outcome for me would be the Iraqi army inflicting significant damage to US forces (destruction of US equipment – tanks, helicopters etc. preferably without the crews dying), the fall of Saddam’s regime by a coup, and an end to the war.
Hopefully such a setback for the US would bring some sense in Bush’s regime and he wouldn’t start another reckless war for no reason. Although unfortunately DaShi is probably right, especially in the long run. People don’t seem to learn from their mistakes. They repeat the same mistakes over and over again.