Just In
for Who loves a good debate?

11/19/2005 c1 S.T. Lawrence
To "Some Guy":

Why dont you grow a pair and give me an email to fire back at, sweetie?

11/18/2005 c1 some guy
so you, in all your stupidity, think that you're smarter then John Kerry? You're a moron who probably lives with his parents, and he's a senator that went to Yale. Right, you're so much smarter. And just to let you know, Kerry killed Bush in that debate. Get a brain.
10/14/2004 c1 No Trust
That response was nothing, if not predictable.

You may deny that your desires for certain policies and your defenses of your favorite public figures are disconnected from any kind of philosophy. But they’re not. The reason Zell and I approach most of these discussions from a philosophical angle is because the fundamental differences between you and we is philosophical in nature. We could argue about data but to no avail, because the same piece of data would mean different things to you than it would to he or I. You might see a nonsensical gun control law signed by a republican president, notice that in the statistics (there are lies, damn lies…) that ‘crime falls’ and thus conclude that the gun control law ‘worked’. I would say that even if the statistics are trustworthy, correlation is not causation; data without theory is noise.

I for one very much live in “reality”. It’s easy enough to get by without stealing or murdering. If the rest of you fucking losers refrained from stealing or murdering, things would be more orderly, not less. The fact is that you hold to very socialist notions about how things work. And this is a problem of philosophy, of principles, not of data.

“Coulda sworn your name was Zach.”

I get that a lot, especially from people I’ve answered repeatedly that my name is in fact Joshua. You think it might have something to do with my email address?
10/14/2004 c1 Steve Lawrence
No Trust:

Coulda sworn your name was Zach. Oh well, I'm a big morally superior egotist, so names dont mean much to me. LOL. You and Zell need to go on a comedy tour.

10/14/2004 c2 No Trust
Lawrence, you obviously believe your philosphy and morals are superior to everyone else's. Very few people in the country, and certainly not all conservatives (or "republicans" or whatever you call yourself) agree with you on every nuance of every issue (and all conflicts on all issues are essentially moral in nature), and yet you hold the views that you do. So, you obviously consider yourself morally superior to almost 100% of the rest of the people in America (barring only those few individuals, most of whom you will likely never encounter, who agree with you about everything), to say nothing of the entire human race; otherwise you would not hold the exact views that you do.

Question: Does this make you an "egotist"?
10/13/2004 c1 No Trust aka Zach
Calvin Fitzgerald,
“Any death is terrible, especially a civilian death but the terrorists do as much if not more to kill innocents then we ever did”

By your rather relativist standards, Charles Manson is less evil than Bush because his life has thus far resulted in far fewer innocent deaths than Bush’s policies.

John Stein,
“You see a kid laying on the sidewalk, getting the life beaten out of him by a bigger kid. Now, the bully might have a knife, he might not.”

You see a kid laying on the sidewalk, getting the life beaten out of him by a bigger kid. You’re bigger than the big kid, so you kick his ass, and then continue beating the life out of the kid lying on the sidewalk. Because it’s fun. When his little brother shoots you in the ass, you call him a terrorist and call in an airstrike to take out the neighborhood. Then you congratulate yourself for liberating the people who lived in the adjoining neighborhood.

“No Trust, I have to say, that was a good one (sorry Steve for clouding up your board). But, my insults probably had some effect, because Zell gets offended when people (even if he knows them or not) call him names (hence his "Queer!" essay). Your insult, while it had me laughing my ass off, didnt do much more.”

Who said I was trying to offend you?

This is the fucking INTERNET. Anyone who takes what a bunch of anonymous strangers on some silly website write about them seriously enough to take offense at an insult cares way too fucking much what other people think of him.

I argue with, insult, praise, and defend who I argue with, insult, praise, and defend, entirely for my own entertainment.

“The world on which we live is governed by the use of force”

Yes and no. When you say things like this, you sound like some half-Heinlein/half-Mao genetic experiment gone horribly wrong. It’s kind of amusing.

“And in such a world, the only way to ensure a tyrant doesn't attack us is not through pretty words and fancy pieces of paper, but by demonstrating to the tyrants that it wouldn't be conducive to their survival if they do they attack us.”

Holy shit, are you giving me permission to kill employees of the US government, no matter how much they wave around that silly ‘social contract’ of theirs? You’re way cooler than I thought.

“If that means we have to maintain the largest military power history has ever known, then so be it.”

When the day comes that the US lets loose its massive military, equipped with state-of-the art killing tools and populated mostly by degenerates and imbeciles, upon its own American subjects, I will look back on people who made these kinds of statements and laugh my ass off.

The biggest threat to the well-being of Americans has always been the US, and in modern times it’s tempting to say it is the only *real* threat to the well-being of Americans.

“You brought up the Japanese. What do you suggest the U.S. should have done with Japan after they attacked our naval base?”

Dismantle itself and relinquish all ‘public’ property for homesteading by whoever can. Privatize security and defense. Of course. Private defense companies might seek a peaceful solution with the Japanese, they might not. Who cares? Americans likely would have been better off had they stayed out of the Great Pinko Freeforall anyway.

“How else was the U.S. supposed to exercise self-defense after Pearl Harbor except to take the fight to the Japanese?”

The US like all governments is a criminal gang that had been waging a war of aggression against Americans (as well as foreigners) for almost 200 years before Pearl Harbor. Criminal gangs have no right to defend themselves. It’s all ethically meaningless; arguing what governments ‘should’ do is like arguing over what the mafia should do. What it ‘should’ do is eat shit and die; anything else is just compounding its current and previous crimes.

Bro, ditch Rand. She was a crazy bitch. Seriously, if you’re enamored by objective ‘natural law’ ethical theories, check out Rothbard. At least he didn’t skip into, ‘It’s okay to kill millions of people if their government sucks hard enough’ collective-guilt bullshit when examining foreign cultures. Plus the man was a genius economist, whereas Rand barely knew what she was talking about and only vaguely understood *why* collectivism and socialism are Bad Things.

“And if they thought they could get away with it, the government would force me to go to Iraq to die for Halliburton's sake.”

This is very true. And the draft is inevitable unless foreign policy undergoes a drastic change.

“wars are fought by others-regardless of whether its in their self-interest or whether they want to go”

This, on the other hand, is absolute bullshit. I’ve explained why elsewhere.

“And "America, love it or leave it!" doesn't work with me.”

It fails as a moral argument, sure, but I think you should seriously consider Getting The Fuck Out as a pragmatic way to avoid the horrors inherent in the coming collapse into totalitarianism. I’m definitely considering it, but will not go unless I can take my loved ones with me. All of them.

“Yes, well sweetie, thats why I stated, more than enough in the essay and elsewhere, that terrorism is not spelled a-l-q-a-e-d-a.”

In other words, this war is not about attacking those with an interest in harming Americans. It is about killing ‘terrorists’ (any Moslems that might object to people invading their countries). Gotcha.

“And when you idiots on the left (and I don't give a shit what kind of liberal you are Zell, you're still left of logic)”

In politics, ‘left’ (and ‘right’, for that matter) is one of those could-mean-anything weasel words. Define what you mean.

“No, at least Zach is entertaining.”

My name is not Zach.

“You're just nuts. We cling to reality,”

'Reality' as your ilk typically deal with it is subjective. Polls, ‘facts’, statistics, etc., can all easily be made to say what you want them to. Empiricism is the path to self-delusion.

“not philosophy, and our own moral beliefs...but because YOU don't like them, you tend to believe you're more superior than the rest of us.”

Don’t speak for anyone but you; there are some people on ‘the right’ who certainly are concerned with first principles.

“Sure I do, if you're going to challenge it with a reality that works.”

It is painfully empty statements like this that make you entertaining enough to bother with.

“You've yet to play hardball. And as I've said, I dont enjoy debating philisophies.”

You prefer to stick to meaningless empirical debates because statistics are much easier to bend to your needs than rational arguments. And every argument you’ve ever made is a philosophical argument in that it deals with ‘ought’; your refusal to acknowledge or even perhaps realize this puts you at a terrible disadvantage here.

“Whats extremely interesting lately is that you've become quite defensive Zell. Why?”

I have a hunch he has been reading Billy Beck, (a delightfully indignant objectivist ancap who is, ironically, pro-war).

“Zach doesn't believe himself morally superior than everyone else”

Yes I do. I just acknowledge that this judgment is wholly arbitrary. Zell is a moral objectivist; I am not. He’ll get over it, ditch the egalitarian baggage, and either degenerate into a hateful nihilistic elitist like, say, Nietzsche, or become an enlightened, incredibly compassionate example of the true natural aristocracy. Like me. It’s kind of like Star Wars, only better.

“And honey, those troops in Iraq are perpetrating "evils" in the name of all Americans. There is only one way that those "evils" will not be done in your name, and that is if you leave the country, because they're fighting in the name of *everyone* here.”

They ain’t doing in MY name, babe. You probably won’t find a single US employee over there who even knows my name, or has any inkling that I even eexist.
10/13/2004 c2 8DPTRM
ok, Zell, I checked out that first website you gave us and I hate to break it to you, but the world has changed drastically since October 4, 2001 when that article was written. so sorry.

and for the second article, same thing except from July 1, 2003.

Get something from the past few months and I might consider listening to your crazy speak.
10/13/2004 c1 Liz
"cause I am not going to take your shit. And I am not going to sit here and accept the evil perpetrated in my name and at my expense."

That...that was just weird. No offense, but are you trying to make it sound like you have drama in your life? That sentence was so pointlessly dramatic that I'm sure Shakespeare himself wouldnt write it.

And honey, those troops in Iraq are perpetrating "evils" in the name of all Americans. There is only one way that those "evils" will not be done in your name, and that is if you leave the country, because they're fighting in the name of *everyone* here. The only way to stop it is to (again) leave.

You've been saying that this war is at your expense, because it's payed through your taxes. Life isnt always going to go our way. Your tax money goes to the war against your wishes, just as my tax money goes to welfare against my wishes. I've learned to live with it, and so can you.
10/12/2004 c1 John Stein
Zell, there's not much anyone can say to you. You're too thick-headed and pompous to see anyone else's side of the argument. With moderate liberals (and i think i can speak for everyone), we can see how they came up with their ideas, even if we don't agree with them.

You're so lost in a world of fantasy that all credibility's been thrown out the window. No one can see where the hell your arguments and principles come from, because they're not based in reality.

You act like you've taught us all lessons in morality and shown us the error of our ways, when you've really done nothing but distance us further from your way of thinking (and that of countless other less psychotic liberals).
10/12/2004 c1 Giygas666
Just to show you that I'm not a toal quack on the matter of terrorism, I suggest you check out this link, to see the truth in my words:
w w w.harrybrowne.org/articles/TerroristSolutionPart1.htm
And to show the root wisdom in the libertarian way: w w w.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrinciplesOfGovernment.htm
(Phew!) I don't think there's anything more I can say that will make my arguements and principles any clearer. I think my work here is done. Catch you later, dude.
10/12/2004 c1 Giygas666
Just got back from having my ass re-attached after I laughed it off.
I just have one thing to say about all this, Steve: pretty much everything you've said about me in your annoying little rant, actually applies to you. You, 'kiddo', are the annoying, unprincipled egotist, not me. Whether or not you realize this is another matter entirely. Like I said before, if you don't like being treated like a child then stop acting like one.
10/12/2004 c1 RCS
"By going after those who were responsable, and their leaders who planned the attacks and sent the soldiers to kill innocent Americans"
Easier said than done, guy, especially with 1940s-era technology. News flash, they didn't have smart bombs and precision munitions in 1941. While our military leaders are sitting around thinking of ways to hit only the Japanese leadership, the Japanese forces are running rampant through the Pacific. Stopping the Japanese war effort required our bombing their industrial capacity to dust. It's the ugly part of war, and tying our military's hands behind its back to limit their attacks to only the Japanese leadership is an incredibly stupid way to fight that war given the technology of the 1940s. You have to take out all aspects of their war machine-military, industrial, and economic.
10/11/2004 c1 Steven Lawrence

Same tired arguments, but since I just woke up from a 6 hour siesta, I might as well.

Where to start?

How about what you said to Militarynut:

"Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda"

Yes, well sweetie, thats why I stated, more than enough in the essay and elsewhere, that terrorism is not spelled a-l-q-a-e-d-a. And when you idiots on the left (and I don't give a shit what kind of liberal you are Zell, you're still left of logic) realize that, things will become much clearer for you.

"I think it's because you realize you can't compete with me."

LOL...hahahhaha! Oh hell that's just too funny.

You know what's funny Zell, is that you seem to pat yourself on the back way too much. Thats something we call "egotism"-you have a problem with it. Of course why should any of us be surprised? You walk around with your nose to the air believing you have moral superiority over any and all who stand before you, and yet you get so defensive. Insecure maybe?

"You probably still believe Saddam has nukes hidden up his rectum, yet you bash Kerry essentially for beliveing *what you also believed at the time*."

What is it about the word "sarcasm" you don't understand kiddo? I bashed Kerry for believing what I do BECAUSE I believed it! And Kerry is supposed to be the one who believes the opposite of both I and the President.

That was the point I was making genius.

"As for sarcasm, you've never shown much of a sense of humor about anything-why start now"

LOL...since when? I've thought I've been pretty funny in the past. Because you don't have a sense of humor isn't my fault.

"Then he suddenly agreed when it appeared that he wasn't going to get a free pass like he usually does-FLIP-FLOP!"

He agreed because he caved to political pressure. That's not a flip-flop putz, it's politics.

"And then he was against the Commission's reccomendation of an "intelligence czar," and now he's for it. FLIP-FLOP!"

Politics. You can't be against something majority of hte country supports during an election year. You're all but killing off your chances are reelection.

""Nation Building." He was against it in his campaign against Gore, then he was suddenly for it after 9/11-even though it was STILL unprincipled and unnecessary-FLIP-FLOP!"

Not at all. 9/11 changed alot of political mindsets...its why I will not take up the argument against Kerry that he was against the death penalty for terrorists and now he's for it. He's a liberal-he didn't understand terrorism until it hit on the front door. I can understand that.

But then again, nobody is as all powerful as you Zell, who can predict the future and never, ever, need to change their mind.

"I don't care. They should handle their own problems."

Well, that's your own damn problem. Your moral superiority seems to end at your shoes...you're compassionate when you choose to be, but if people are senselessly murdering the Israels, hey, fuck 'em, that's their problem. Gotcha.

"When did I say I did?"

You said it was why the US was win WWII and that their involvement was justifiable because of Pearl Harbor. Maybe you suffered from not being specific enough. Attemping to figure out your logic is hard enough.

"I'm just saying that since George Bush (or John Kerry for that matter) rules the country you and I live in, he has more immediate power over us, and thus is in a greater position to commit more evil against us than bin Laden."

I see, so it's not body count that can be indirectly attributed to a person that makes them more evil, its the position of power.

"Regarding keeping quiet about injustice and evil:"

I never said that.

"You don't have to say it; it's implied in your remarks and treatment towards me."

Aww, so you'll make shit up and "assume" what I'm thinking because you dont like how I treat you. In your own words: tough. If you want to whine and cry that people fit you in a box, well, then don't put others in one. We havent implied anything other than you have the free will to leave if you don't like it. You can stay and bitch to anyone who'll listen, but we're looking out for you. We'd rather you be satisfied in where you live, then complain about it. Hence, if you don't like it, leave. Find a place you do like and live there, that way you're happy.

"You tend to fit things I and No Trust say into your psychotic little mantra when indeed you need to wise up as to the nature of the institutions and personalities you cling to. You have that problem."

No, at least Zach is entertaining. You're just nuts. We cling to reality, not philosophy, and our own moral beliefs...but because YOU don't like them, you tend to believe you're more superior than the rest of us. As I said, you're simply an egotist.

"I see you don't like it when your ideology gets challenged."

Sure I do, if you're going to challenge it with a reality that works. You "challenge" centers around a non-realistic philisophoy. I dont have the need to argue philisophy.

"I see you don't like it when somebody actually stands up and holds you accountable for the things you say and the things you believe."

When that happens, then you can say that. Until then, you're simply making shit up-again.

"I also see you don't like it when somebody plays hardball with you during a debate."

You've yet to play hardball. And as I've said, I dont enjoy debating philisophies...they're not applicable most of the time.

"You fancy yourself a great debater, but really, you just pick fights you can't win."

Why would I pick a fight I cant win? And no, I pick fights worth fighting. Aruging with an idiot such as yourself is not my first choice. You just decided to assert your stupidity on my review board. I felt it only reasonable to respond.

"You insult people, repeat tired conspiracy theories, and tell them to leave the country if they are displeased by the injustice they see. Your ideology is wholly unprincipled, and knowing this, you feel the need to lash out at me when I put you to the test."

I feel the need to lash out at you because you bother me and are extremely annoying. Not because you "challenge" my ideology, but because a) you believe yourself superior to just about everyone else and b) your ideas are unrealistic.

And talk about conspiracy theories-you toss around everything from the War for Oil to Bush ignored the memo to who knows what. Look Zell, if you want to debate and argue with your flawed logic, go for it, but slinging insults such as telling me I use conspiracy theories when you yourself do the same is what I like to call "hypocritical" and I'm simply going to laugh at you some more.

"Well, get over it. You need to grow up and wise up, 'cause I am not going to take your shit. And I am not going to sit here and accept the evil perpetrated in my name and at my expense.
If anybody has a problem with that, TOUGH!"

Whats extremely interesting lately is that you've become quite defensive Zell. Why? Why are you getting so offended all of a sudden? For someone who treats the rest of the world like children who are in dire need of your moral superiority, I find it hard to believe that someone such as myself, of such low moral clarity, would present a threat to you in the sense that you MUST defend yourself at all costs. You make it sound like you're oppressed and that you MUST stand up for those who are oppressed with you. Nobody oppresses you Zell, so stop whining like you are. You are not some moral hero who is going to lead the masses to Revolution. You're just some annoying NYU egotist (if I remember correctly) who believes themselves morally superiorty than most of society.

Well if that's the case champ, then I got a mission for you: run for office. Start small, like a mayoral position-bring reform and change to the system Lord knows you're not restricted from that. But then don't be surprised when you lose because 99% of your voting constitutents don't agree with you. Then, and maybe then, you'll drop your superior attitude and join the rest of us in the real world.

See, thats the difference between you and Zach (No Trust). Zach doesn't believe himself morally superior than everyone else-he believes what he believes, finds flaws in others' beliefs because of his own personal philisophy, and explains them to whoever chooses to debate with him. Thats why you'll see a much more civil debate between us and him than with you. Nobody likes a egotist.

10/11/2004 c1 J.S
"You probably only managed to read the first few paragraphs."

While it was a barely readable rant on how much your feelings are hurt and why people need to stop what they're doing and comfort your feelings, I did read it.

"I'm offended by *stupidity* and stupid people."

So you're offended by the driving force behind the insult. Which means you're offended by other people's beliefs. They dont like gays, so they took it out as an insult. But of course, Christians and Jews are stupid for standing up for sacred things and morally condemning what they feel is wrong. What assholes.

"until you grow the fuck up and start acting like a mature individual instead of a red-faced petulant brat when someone disagrees with you."

You know you said Steve sounded like a pissed off little brat, but in that same sentence you were a pissed off little brat. Ironic, isnt it?

"Think it's because you realize you can't compete with me."

He's been competing with you, and he's been kicking your ass everytime, but you're just too hard headed to concede. You're just as hard headed and annoying as tofujunky, but at least she manages to make a point every once in a while.

"you've never shown much of a sense of humor about anything."

Are you in his personal life? In his political debates, maybe he doesnt use humor much (though I've laughed a few times). The only way you could know this is if you were stalking him.

"They should handle their own problems."

Where's the liberal compassion? Where's the tolerance and love? You're against the war in Iraq because you say people are dying needlessly, but you think we should leave Isreal to deal with its own problems...Let me tell you, if Isreal is left to deal with it's own problems there will be a hell of a lot of Isrealies dead.

But, of course, Isreal should defend itself, even if it can't, leaving all it's people at the mercy of terrorists. But that's ok, because they're a country that has US support, so they'd deserve it.

"Repeat tired conspiracy theories"

This is coming from the guy who, a few paragraphs earlier, told me that the countries helping the Iraqi people were in it to take advantage of them. The same guy who said that Dean's outburst wasnt his downfall; the corporate media was. The same guy who thinks Jessica lynch is little more than a political pawn. Do I really need to go on?

"Tell them to leave the country if they are displeased by the injustice they see."

Nope. There's a difference. I know plenty of people who dont support this war. But they still love this country, they dont find fault with every little thing about it, they dont talk about all the evils America has committed then harp on them.

You don't see injustices Zell, you see America's existence in itself to be an injustice. You always have something new to complain about - even Columbus day. So what if people want to have a parade for the man who is the reason for our being here? It's better than having a parade masked with cross dressers and rainbows.

"Well, get over it. You need to grow up and wise up, 'cause I am not going to take your shit. And I am not going to sit here and accept the evil perpetrated in my name and at my expense.If anybody has a problem with that, TOUGH!"

Do you realize what a pompous ass you sound like? The way you said this, it just screams, "my opinions matter! Yes, people care what I think! They do!"

Now, Zell, say it with me, in the words of your beloved Al Franken:

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me."
10/11/2004 c2 Giygas666
Oh, Steve, before I go, I took the liberty of looking up a list of Bush's flip flops for you to peruse.
Have fun!
-When Bush first took office, he said the economy was so good we should have huge tax cuts, but now he claims we were in a recession then and that is why we now have record deficits.
-Candidate Bush was very vocal in his criticism of nation building, but now President Bush is busy building nations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and it looks like Haiti is next. These nations are being built with our soldier’s lives and our tax dollars.
-Bush claimed his budget plan would reduce the National Debt. Instead, the federal debt has increased to almost $7 trillion.
-Candidate Bush promised to protect the Social Security trust fund, but President Bush has already squandered more than $350 billion from the fund. (Consortium News, 3/2/04)
-Bush said he would, “enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered...", but federal spending has increased 23.7 percent since he took office. (Bill Gallagher, Friends of Liberty, 12/11/03)
-Candidate Bush proposed regulating carbon dioxide, but two months after taking office, President Bush changed his mind.
-Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department when it was proposed by Democrats; but later embraced the idea and took credit for it.
-Bush said he would veto the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, but changed his mind and signed it.
-Bush opposed an investigation of the attacks of 9/11—then he supported it, but his administration has done everything it could to obstruct the investigation.
-Bush opposed an Iraq WMD investigation, but then he's for it because he has to pretend he’s interested in why he was so wrong about Iraq’s WMD.
-When asked about gay marriage, candidate Bush said, “the state can do what they want to do,”—but now President Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
-During an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978, Bush opposed the pro-life amendment and favored leaving the abortion question to a woman and her doctor. Then, like his father before him, he customized his beliefs to become more electable to conservatives. (The Nation, 6/15/00)
-Bush promised money for first responders, but failed to provide the funds.
-Bush promised billions of dollars to help fight AIDS in Africa, but failed to provide the funds.
-Bush presented his “No Child Left Behind Program” with great fanfare, but failed to provide the funds.
-Bush continues to praise American troops, but continues to try to cut benefits for them and their families.
-Bush said, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden”, but changed it to, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.”
Here the link: w.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=685
74 Page 1 2 3 4 .. Last Next »

Twitter . Help . Sign Up . Cookies . Privacy . Terms of Service