John must be jealous of Dayton by now. Time to start this thread. ---------------- No, it isn't. It's mediocre, at best. Most people would say it's shit. Stop being wrong, gul. You're wrong about fucking everything, gul. You have no clue how to be right about most things, gul, even though the answer is right in front of you -- has been right in front of you -- for fuckin' years. You even know what the right answer is, but your secular religion won't allow you to acknowledge the right answer, much less pursue it. You're a fuckin' witless dolt, gul, but your own engineering. You're just going to keep watching the world produce "unexplainable" failures of your ideology, but you're never going to figure out that it's your ideology's tendency to produce failure that's to blame. So here's what you do, gul. Put the barrel of a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. Preferably after you do the same to Liet, Chardman, and garamet. Your religion is all about "making the world better" -- so we're led to believe -- so prove it. Eliminate as many leftist retards from the gene pool as you are able to, including yourself. Of course, you won't do any such thing, because that is not, in fact, what leftist theology is all about, It's all about micromanaging the lives of law abiding, adult citizens, while placing non-citizens above the law and further enriching the Oligopolists in government. You can't refute even one of the above points, so go on and trot out the ancient, dried-up, bone-worn and threadbare bullshit excuses you always trot out to defend a corrupt regime. Whatever you bust out as an excuse for government usury and lawlessness, the one thing you don't have on your side is ethics or law. And no substitute you can come up with is going to fill the bill, nor is any substitute you can come up with going to hide the fact that you worship government as if it is a god. You excuse its transgressions as if it is a god. You deny that it has any obligations as if it is a god. You, gul, are a religious fundie, just as bad as any Christian, if not worse, because while the Christians' stupid, made-up God can only be interpreted in so many ways -- being that it's a dead entity, and all -- your "god" makes new destructive demands every fucking day, and you support all of 'em. You, gul, are a dipshit and a drone. ---------------- I couldn't bear to edit out any of that rant. How does Castle manage to turn Dayton's greatest hits thread into a thread about how absurd John Castle is?
This will be a very long thread indeed. Worst thing is, Castle obviously spends significant time on his angry, butthurt screeds. And nobody ever reads them.
Far better to respond to him here than in other threads. If he overdoses and dies, that's all to the good anyway.
Liet is the gayest little turd to emerge since Richard Simmons saw a commercial for the Sybian and got overexcited.
Well, yeah, it's what he's craved his entire Internet life, but he won't realize the larger implications. Federal Farmer, Kuranes, et al., this is your Messiah. This is the person you've chosen to be the representative of Conservolibertarian thought. He's the Jim Gooch of WF. Until you disavow him and get behind more rational voices, this is who is speaking for you. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously. Anyway, he's long overdue for a name change and at least six new avatars a week. Watch what he does next.
It is a shame that you present yourself as somebody who speaks on libertarianism. You either have no clue, or you are actively trying to harm the libertarian cause with your misrepresentations.
Don't bullshit the readership by pretending that you'd deal with any other Libertarian differently. I don't start these fights, I just don't back down from them. You'd bring the same anti-rational bullshit claims to any other Libertarian, and you'd play the same game of Bullshit Twister with any other Libertarian who didn't back down from your crap, too. You do it with me, you do it with Federal Farmer, you'll do it with anybody, and then pretend it's your opponents who are at fault. You pretend to argue rationally, until you get yourself into a corner, and when that happens, you kick the stone, every fucking time, then dance away and preen like a fucking peacock. But never, not once, when you've drawn yourself into a corner, have you ever just said, "Y'know what? You've got a point. Let me think this through some more and get back to you." Never. And the pathetic thing is that it's obvious every time you get into that mental space. Give your religious worship of the State a fucking rest. It's boring. Grow, for fuck's sake.
There are a number of actual libertarians here. I'd put evenflow at the top of that list on the basis of purity of intention. To my knowledge, he's never had even the slightest meltdown of the type Castle exhibits almost hourly. So, who's the true libertarian, and who's just ? Tough call...
Sure, note my arguments with Evenflow and Elwood. Oh, wait, they're real libertarians, consistent in the philosophy, so, nothing like you. Just idiots like you, not everybody who actually understands and supports libertarian philosophy. You have yet to ever demonstrate that you have a point besides flailing about in full blown idiot mode, claiming the sky is green and the grass is blue. Tough shit, feel free to stop posting at Wordforge.
Mm, yeah. Should add Elwood to the list. And Lanz. Calm, reasoned, rational proponents of their political philosophy. Unfortunately, it's the shrieking fool who gets the attention...
Yeah, I know. It's just fun pointing out when these "I'm not a...." types in fact show that they're not much of anything.
Demonstrate where and how I've been inconsistent. (Watch, now he'll do his dance instead of answering substantively.) That's not even a denial, much less a rebuttal. Describe your understanding of Libertarian philosophy. I doubt you'd even recognize it, yourself. [/quote] Then answer my question from the Murrieta thread. If American citizens are bound, by the "social contract" to obey the law, why aren't illegal aliens? Now, you have two options here: You can either answer the question substantively, or you can do exactly what I said you do, and DD&B around it. You're in a corner, here. You're about to either prove that I'm right about the topic, or prove that I'm right about you.
I wonder whether Attorney Firemark is familiar with the "asked and answered" objection. It would apply to his client's post above yours.
Yeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, RRRight ya varmint. It's not in ya nature ta win, you gonna git me suckkkaaaa? Ye cannae talk ya way oot of a paper bag laddie. Fugedaboudit. Whadayagunnado?
