[Abundy]

Roscoe: Karl Marx? Screw you. You're the Marxist here, not I.

CJ and JHoffa_:

Seems like when you read my post you filtered it with whatever ideology you bring to the table.

I was responding to Roscoe's assine assertion that unchecked Libertarianism, followed to its inevitable conclusion (in Roscoe's quark-sized mind) would lead to an Orwellian nightmare. That is a stupid statement on it's face, as Orwell predicted a State-sponsored, State-operated oppression. By Roscoe's own statement there would be basically no government, therefore the "nightmare" he envisioned of people taking property from the weak by force couldn't be Orwellian.

And by the way, what the hell do Fascists like Roscoe call the current state of emminent domain? Hell, if I've got enough money (strong) I can prevail in a lawsuit against the condemnation proceedings either by retaining my property or getting a higher-than-market value for the property. If I don't have money I'll lose my property by force at the "heel" of the government...a true Orwellian nightmare.

CJ - with respect to the gene pool comment, what part of that don't you understand. In Roscoe's mind there would be a bunch of criminals taking property by force from the weak. My comment merely illustrated that it isn't that simple. People stupid enough to try to take my property wouldn't survive the confrontation. How is that wrong? Especially if it is a confrontation devoid of State interference? Is it over the top as a comment? Don't think so. But Roscoe's assinine assertion that the strong would take from the weak had to be addressed. Also, his assertion belies his truly "liberal" viewpoint on the world. He seems to believe that without Government intervention, the strong would oppress the weak and the "weak" would have no recourse. However, he fails to define "strong" and "weak" and assumes that there is no equalization factor.

No, I'm not a radical Libertarian...I'm a true conservative, not of the Fascist brand like Roscoe. I believe in small government; individual rights and individual responsibility. That doesn't make me a Libertarian. But when "conservatives" support secret search warrants, further erosion of the 4th and 5th amendments (don't get me started on the 2nd) and other decidely non-conservative agendas I part company with them. I've seen the potential for abuse on the part of the State first-hand, know it exists and know that the drug war is killing our freedoms in principle. Do I do drugs? F#ck no. Would I do drugs if legal? Again, f#ck no. Do I support erosion of all our liberties in the name of the drug war? What do you think?

For those of you that can't see that limited erosion of the Bill of Rights is anything but limited I say, "F#ck you, you're no conservative."

[tacticalogic]

The Orwell inspired picture of the boot stomping a human head onto a spike is, IMHO the appropriate metaphor for the liberal/socialist view of the role of government. True conservatives want that boot removed. What you are seeing are people who call themselves conservatives because they oppose the liberals, not over wheather the boot should be there, but over whose foot gets to wear it, and whose party slogans are chanted while it stomps.

[Cultural Jihad]

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." -Patrick Henry

"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." -William Penn

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military

[Roscoe]

That is a stupid statement on it's face, as Orwell predicted a State-sponsored, State-operated oppression.

Which the Marxist promise to "wither away" the state has inevitably lead to.

[Jhoffa_]

Roscoe: Karl Marx? Screw you. You're the Marxist here, not I.

CJ and JHoffa_:

Seems like when you read my post you filtered it with whatever ideology you bring to the table.

I was responding to Roscoe's assine assertion that unchecked Libertarianism, followed to its inevitable conclusion (in Roscoe's quark-sized mind) would lead to an Orwellian nightmare. That is a stupid statement on it's face, as Orwell predicted a State-sponsored, State-operated oppression. By Roscoe's own statement there would be basically no government, therefore the "nightmare" he envisioned of people taking property from the weak by force couldn't be Orwellian.

I am unsure why you tied me in with 1002, but I agree..

If anything Libertarians would be the polar opposite of "Orewllian" If anything they seem to lean toward anarchy. Which, is DEFINATELY NOT Centralized control, in any way, shape form or fashon.