http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?te...20579094199926
--
Cliff

For the record...I scored: "Der Resistance", or the group that would oppose
Hitler.



What you fail to realize Cliff, is that you and the party you choose to side
with are the new "Nazi's". You, more than likely, have a set of utopian
ideals, which are in their most simplistic form admirable; however; with
control of the media, attempts at gun control, and "indoctrination camps"
innocently labeled as public schools, it is you and your associates who in
fact are most closely aligned with a Germany leading up to WWII.



Most "Conservatives" are not interested in imperialism, but are willing to
go bring radicals into check when they threaten the welfare of our country.
Most "liberals" are "Ideal Imperialist", and viewing their actions given
current world situations, are not only not willing to bring radicals into
check to save their own country, but are in fact, as Michael Savage so oddly
points out, "The Enemy Within", bent on the destruction of America.



Singing "Cum By Yah", interspersed with "I hate Bush", all the while
high-fiving each other each time new rights are established for homosexuals,
abortion, or illegal aliens is not really a platform that is going to carry
a lot of weight with the majority of Americans.

looks like i'm an expatriate

Cliff wrote:
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?te...20579094199926

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:49:43 +0000, Jim Newell wrote:

For the record...I scored: "Der Resistance", or the group that would oppose
Hitler.



What you fail to realize Cliff, is that you and the party you choose to side
with are the new "Nazi's". You, more than likely, have a set of utopian
ideals, which are in their most simplistic form admirable; however; with
control of the media, attempts at gun control, and "indoctrination camps"
innocently labeled as public schools, it is you and your associates who in
fact are most closely aligned with a Germany leading up to WWII.



Most "Conservatives" are not interested in imperialism, but are willing to
go bring radicals into check when they threaten the welfare of our country.
Most "liberals" are "Ideal Imperialist", and viewing their actions given
current world situations, are not only not willing to bring radicals into
check to save their own country, but are in fact, as Michael Savage so oddly
points out, "The Enemy Within", bent on the destruction of America.



Singing "Cum By Yah", interspersed with "I hate Bush", all the while
high-fiving each other each time new rights are established for homosexuals,
abortion, or illegal aliens is not really a platform that is going to carry
a lot of weight with the majority of Americans.

Each of you see the other as the Nazi. Real patriots see you both as
Nazi's willing to subjugate the individual to the power of the state.

Both programs are authoritarian, Bush/neocon and the socialists. Both use
the inherent coercive power of the state to force individuals into heavily
restricted lifestyles.

The radical left wants a nanny-state while the radical right wants a
christian-state. The majority of us reject both as we see that both lead
to an authoritarian/dicatatorial society at extreme odds to our charter.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In rec.crafts.metalworking Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
Each of you see the other as the Nazi. Real patriots see you both as
Nazi's willing to subjugate the individual to the power of the state.

Both programs are authoritarian, Bush/neocon and the socialists. Both use
the inherent coercive power of the state to force individuals into heavily
restricted lifestyles.

The radical left wants a nanny-state while the radical right wants a
christian-state. The majority of us reject both as we see that both lead
to an authoritarian/dicatatorial society at extreme odds to our charter.
-- Regards, Curly

I'd be an expat.

I'm with curly. Call me an atheist Libertarian patriot.


Jeff

Jeff Dantzler wrote:
In rec.crafts.metalworking Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
Each of you see the other as the Nazi. Real patriots see you both as
Nazi's willing to subjugate the individual to the power of the state.

Both programs are authoritarian, Bush/neocon and the socialists. Both use
the inherent coercive power of the state to force individuals into heavily
restricted lifestyles.

The radical left wants a nanny-state while the radical right wants a
christian-state. The majority of us reject both as we see that both lead
to an authoritarian/dicatatorial society at extreme odds to our charter.
-- Regards, Curly

I'd be an expat.

Me, too.



I'm with curly. Call me an atheist Libertarian patriot.

Same again.

"Cliff" wrote in message ...
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?te...20579094199926
--
Cliff

"The Everyday German"

John

On 26 Aug 2005 12:09:00 -0700, "Rudy Canoza"
wrote:

Jeff Dantzler wrote:
In rec.crafts.metalworking Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
Each of you see the other as the Nazi. Real patriots see you both as
Nazi's willing to subjugate the individual to the power of the state.

Both programs are authoritarian, Bush/neocon and the socialists. Both use
the inherent coercive power of the state to force individuals into heavily
restricted lifestyles.

The radical left wants a nanny-state while the radical right wants a
christian-state. The majority of us reject both as we see that both lead
to an authoritarian/dicatatorial society at extreme odds to our charter.
-- Regards, Curly

I'd be an expat.

Me, too.

Ooh, ooh. Me, too.




I'm with curly. Call me an atheist Libertarian patriot.

Same again.

We part company here. Sorta.
Sue

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:39:06 +0000, Sue wrote:
-------------snip-----------
I'm with curly. Call me an atheist Libertarian patriot.

Same again.

We part company here. Sorta.

That's ok, I won't hold it against you. grin Truly. Having
independent thinkers critique and challange is a delight for it forces me
to rethink my positions and deductions. The main difference from 'us'
and 'them' is that anarcho-libertarians have no desire to force our
lifestyle or mores on another being while both the religious-right and
socialist-left demand that we genuflect to their rigid thinking.

Only the brain-dead sycophants deserve rebuke, not those who disagree
based upon reason rather than reflex.

Sue

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:08:00 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:39:06 +0000, Sue wrote:
-------------snip-----------
I'm with curly. Call me an atheist Libertarian patriot.

Same again.

We part company here. Sorta.

That's ok, I won't hold it against you. grin Truly. Having
independent thinkers critique and challange is a delight for it forces me
to rethink my positions and deductions. The main difference from 'us'
and 'them' is that anarcho-libertarians have no desire to force our
lifestyle or mores on another being while both the religious-right and
socialist-left demand that we genuflect to their rigid thinking.

I like neither side. I suppose I'm mostly libertarian but with a
heart. That's a tough spot to be in. ( There's some saying about
being young and thinking with ones heart and growing up and thinking
with one mind. I'm still waiting to grow up.
Religion - chicken hearted agnostic. When I was in my 30s I finally
got baptized (Episcopalian) although my heart wasn't really into it.
I was pretty broke - couldn't afford life, health or car insurance.
Religion insurance was free.
I don't want to argue with anyone about any of this and mean no
offense to anyone. Thanks anyway.
Sue


Only the brain-dead sycophants deserve rebuke, not those who disagree
based upon reason rather than reflex.

Sue

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:39:06 +0000, Sue wrote:
-------------snip-----------

snip

The main difference from 'us' and 'them' is that anarcho-libertarians
have no desire to force our lifestyle or mores on another being while
both the religious-right

Sue

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Used to be right, like left is left, but now is religious right.

John

wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 05:36:37 -0400, Cliff
wrote:
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?te...20579094199926
Me:
The Expatriate
Achtung! You are 23% brainwashworthy, 31% antitolerant, and 23%
blindly patriotic

Congratulations! You are not susceptible to brainwashing, your
values and cares extend beyond the borders of your own country,
and your Blind Patriotism does not reach unhealthy levels. If you
had been German in the 30s, you would've left the country.

One bad scenario -- as I hypothetically project you back in time
-- is that you just wouldn't have cared one way or the other
about Nazism. Maybe politics don't interest you enough. But the
fact that you took this test means they probably do. I'm gonna
give you the benefit of the doubt.

Did you know that many of the smartest Germans departed prior to
the beginning of World War II, because they knew some evil ****
was brewing? Brain Drain. Many of them were scientists. It is
very possible you could have been one of them.

Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you
would not have been a Nazi.

The Resistance
Achtung! You are 15% brainwashworthy, 40% antitolerant, and 47% blindly
patriotic
Welcome to the Resistance (Der Widerstand)! You believe in freedom,
justice, equality, and your country, and you can't be converted to the
the dark side.

Breakdown: your Blind Patriotism levels are borderline unhealthy, but
you show such a love of people from everywhere and a natural resistance
to brainwashing, you would probably focus your energy to fight the
Fuehrer with furor, so to speak.

Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would
have taken up ARMS against the oppressors. Or even your friends'
oppressors. Congratulations!

CC

"Jim Newell" wrote in message
...
For the record...I scored: "Der Resistance", or the group that would
oppose Hitler.


Same here.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:43:06 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:39:06 +0000, Sue wrote:
-------------snip-----------

snip

The main difference from 'us' and 'them' is that anarcho-libertarians
have no desire to force our lifestyle or mores on another being while
both the religious-right

Sue

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Used to be right, like left is left, but now is religious right.

John

See boogymen under your bed too John? The Religious Right is a tiny
minorty of the Right and has little or no power to do much of
anything. Its only used as a paper tiger to scare Liberals and the
mind numbed drones on the Left.

If they had any power at all..think abortion would be legal
anywhere?

Gunner

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:13:08 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 05:36:37 -0400, Cliff
wrote:

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?te...20579094199926


Me:

The Expatriate
Achtung! You are 23% brainwashworthy, 31% antitolerant, and 23%
blindly patriotic


Rick Bowen
Texas State Rifle Association
Life Member
lex talionis.


To confound the Libs reading this..I also scored as Expatriate.

Gunner

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 07:49:34 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

To confound the Libs reading this..I also scored as Expatriate.

Moved to Germany, eh?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:08:00 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

both the religious-right and
socialist-left demand that we genuflect to their rigid thinking.

So true. I see them both as brain-damaged control freaks, driven to
imprison others by force in the same mental straitjackets they wear by
choice.

The Left takes control...we get Vietnam.
The Right takes control...we get Iraq.

Despite the feeble, often fabricated public excuses for such wars, it
really boils down to an attitude of "We're gonna make YOU be just like US
whether you like it or not". Bully, bribe, and beat 'em into conformity
and obedience, and they'll be grateful junior Americanoids someday. Too
bad that notion keeps failing expensively.

The loony right and loony left--Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

--
Thomas

"Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice
liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security, unfortu-
nately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty." Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:07:45 GMT, Thomas Nulla
wrote:

The Left takes control...we get Vietnam.

??
--
Cliff

To confound the Libs reading this..I also scored as Expatriate.

Gunner


That's confounding all right, because from your positions taken here you are
obviously an extreme conservative, authoritarian, martinet. All of which
coincide with following Nazism or some other extreme form of governing.
Which just goes to show that either the test isn't all that accurate or
someone is dishonest.

Hawke

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:08:31 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

"atheist" is inconsistent with libertarian.

You can be an agnostic and a libertarian but atheists claim
an unprovable knowledge (the non-existence of a god).

http://www.lp.org/article_103.shtml
[
"The libertarian philosophy has been around from the time God gave
Moses the Ten Commandments ...
]
--
Cliff

"Hawke" wrote:


To confound the Libs reading this..I also scored as Expatriate.

Gunner


That's confounding all right, because from your positions taken here you are
obviously an extreme conservative, authoritarian, martinet. All of which
coincide with following Nazism or some other extreme form of governing.
Which just goes to show that either the test isn't all that accurate or
someone is dishonest.

Hawke


I scored higher than 0% on brainwashworthy
higher than 85% on antitolerant
higher than 28% on patriotic

Please tell me what this means.
Do I have to leave the US? Will Gunner be my roomate?
Tell the truth now, I'll know if you're lieing.

Gio

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:04:32 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


To confound the Libs reading this..I also scored as Expatriate.

Gunner


That's confounding all right, because from your positions taken here you are
obviously an extreme conservative, authoritarian, martinet. All of which
coincide with following Nazism or some other extreme form of governing.
Which just goes to show that either the test isn't all that accurate or
someone is dishonest.

Hawke


Actually Leftist Drone..Im none of that. I do support the war, and I
do hold Leftists like you in utter contempt. Not because of the party
line, as Im a Republitarian, but because of the necessity of the war,
and the long standing actions and agendas of the Left.

I dont have to be a cop to hate child molesters. I dont have to be a
Christian (and Im not) to support some concepts of morality.

You on the other hand..have a Talking Points fax line from the DNC
plugged into that half empty gourd you call a skull.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:33:11 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:07:45 GMT, Thomas Nulla
wrote:

The Left takes control...we get Vietnam.

??

Take a look at the social programs of the "Great Society"...far more
welfare-statist than any other period save perhaps the economic crisis of
the Depression. Enormous deficits to pay for them as well as the
escalating Vietnam War. The same unwillingness to admit the bankruptcy of
existing policies both domestic and foreign we have today.

--
Thomas

"Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice
liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security, unfortu-
nately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty." Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:40:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:04:32 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


To confound the Libs reading this..I also scored as Expatriate.

Gunner


That's confounding all right, because from your positions taken here you are
obviously an extreme conservative, authoritarian, martinet. All of which
coincide with following Nazism or some other extreme form of governing.
Which just goes to show that either the test isn't all that accurate or
someone is dishonest.

Hawke


Did you take the test?


Rick Bowen
Texas State Rifle Association
Life Member
lex talionis.


He hasnt been told to do so yet by his controllers in the DNC.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:08:31 +0000, Strabo wrote:

In OT - A test for Gunner & Stu & crew on Fri, 26 Aug 2005
18:57:42 -0000, by Jeff Dantzler, we read:

In rec.crafts.metalworking Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
Each of you see the other as the Nazi. Real patriots see you both as
Nazi's willing to subjugate the individual to the power of the state.

Both programs are authoritarian, Bush/neocon and the socialists. Both use
the inherent coercive power of the state to force individuals into heavily
restricted lifestyles.

The radical left wants a nanny-state while the radical right wants a
christian-state. The majority of us reject both as we see that both lead
to an authoritarian/dicatatorial society at extreme odds to our charter.
-- Regards, Curly

I'd be an expat.

I'm with curly. Call me an atheist Libertarian patriot.

"atheist" is inconsistent with libertarian.

You can be an agnostic and a libertarian but atheists claim
an unprovable knowledge (the non-existence of a god).

Evidently you don't comprehend atheism. Most atheists just don't give a
**** about god one way or the other. While agnostics stumble and
religionists fiddle with their rosaries we are busy with life.

Neither God nor religion are required for libertarianism. Silly concept
actually.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:30:58 +0000, Thomas Nulla wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:33:11 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:07:45 GMT, Thomas Nulla
wrote:

The Left takes control...we get Vietnam.

??

Take a look at the social programs of the "Great Society"...far more
welfare-statist than any other period save perhaps the economic crisis of
the Depression. Enormous deficits to pay for them as well as the
escalating Vietnam War. The same unwillingness to admit the bankruptcy of
existing policies both domestic and foreign we have today.

Agreed except that their is on period in American history that is more
repressive than the Vietnam era, right now. The christian-wacko-right has
done more to destroy and negate our liberties than any time in our history.

Both parties are but opposite sides of the same authoritarian coin. Both
want your money, they only differ on what they'll spend it for.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:18:34 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

Agreed except that their is on period in American history that is more
repressive than the Vietnam era, right now. The christian-wacko-right has
done more to destroy and negate our liberties than any time in our history.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

You are extremely history challenged. Recent graduate of Liberal
Outcome Based educational system..right?

Perhaps you should do a bit more research on FDR, Manzanar, etc etc
Then toss in Contelpro, and Draft Riots during your research.

Need help? Id be glad to provide some links for you..just so you dont
look like so much the Buffoon. Im embaressed for you.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Gunner Asch wrote in
:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:40:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:04:32 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


To confound the Libs reading this..I also scored as Expatriate.

Gunner


That's confounding all right, because from your positions taken here
you are obviously an extreme conservative, authoritarian, martinet.
All of which coincide with following Nazism or some other extreme
form of governing. Which just goes to show that either the test isn't
all that accurate or someone is dishonest.

Hawke


Did you take the test?


Rick Bowen
Texas State Rifle Association
Life Member
lex talionis.


He hasnt been told to do so yet by his controllers in the DNC.

Now, that was funny! LOL

Bing

for the record I scored as an expatriate

also, I think the test is crap anyway, it's got some bias towards what the
left seems to *think* of the right, but is sterotyped.

for example question 14 needs to have more "groups" listed, such as "white
americans", "christians" "baptists" "conservative talk show hosts" "Neocons"


and also.. like question 15 and 16 ,. well bush is currently president,
what if hilliary was president? that would radically alter a lot of views on
that question depending on your political leanings

I noticed I haven't seen anyone from the Left post their results,
maybe I didn't look hard enough, or maybe they scored too high on the
brainwashing susceptiablity and are embarrased

I think the Libs are genuinuly confused as to why all the right wingers
*Didn't* score as Nazi's. It just shows more of a lack of understanding on
their part


******
shu
*another atheist libertarian*
and
Evil Capitalist Business Owner (ALECBO)

"Strabo" wrote in message
...
In OT - A test for Gunner & Stu & crew on Sun, 28 Aug 2005
14:29:32 -0500, by shu, we read:

for the record I scored as an expatriate

also, I think the test is crap anyway, it's got some bias towards what
the
left seems to *think* of the right, but is sterotyped.

for example question 14 needs to have more "groups" listed, such as
"white
americans", "christians" "baptists" "conservative talk show hosts"
"Neocons"


and also.. like question 15 and 16 ,. well bush is currently president,
what if hilliary was president? that would radically alter a lot of views
on
that question depending on your political leanings

I noticed I haven't seen anyone from the Left post their results,
maybe I didn't look hard enough, or maybe they scored too high on the
brainwashing susceptiablity and are embarrased


I think the Libs are genuinuly confused as to why all the right wingers
*Didn't* score as Nazi's. It just shows more of a lack of understanding
on
their part

Or, "I think the test is crap anyway."

Reminds me of the 'Hitler versus Stalin' dilemma.
Anyone attracted to either the Republican or Democratic
political party ideology is a socialist. Whether one
tests as a democratic socialist as opposed to a national
socialist, is immaterial. Neither qualifies as a proponent
of the Declaration of Independence.


******
shu
*another atheist libertarian*

A logical impossibility.

no

A libertarian is inner directed and rational. He understands
that there not a way to disprove god and he is comfortable
with this reality.

you have a different defintion of athiest.
let me explain

you are litterally correct. there is no way to disprove god.
but this is because there is no way to disprove a negative,
the burden of Proof for the existance of god is on those who believe in god.
it is NOT upto me to disprove the existance of god
as an atheist, the case for the existance of god to me has not been made to
my satisfaction.
furthermore, as an atheist, religion, and god are inventions of man.
it is Rational, and comfortable for me to live with that reality.
an Angostic is uncomfortable, they aren't sure there is a god, or not,
they may or may not think god has been Proven to exist.

I contend that it is Irrational to not accept certain realities (and this is
a problem with a lot of philosophy classes)
for example...
someone may say . "prove this chair existspoints to a chair
The proof of the existance of the chair, is in the chair itself, the chair
exists.. Just because.
it is Irrational to get into lengthy debates about "what is existance" or
"define chair" or "is it just a Preception that it's there." etc
in order to progress we have to define certain things about how our universe
works. the Chair exists, and based on Previous experience, it's unlikely to
spontaniously stop existing, or turn into a glass of wine. the ability to
prove and disprove ideas is in the realm of science. While our Senses can be
fooled. generally under such conditions we are aware of it, and can devise
logical tests to miniumize errors in our preception, optical illusions for
example, where you precieve lines that are all wavy, but are really
straight, you can take a Straight edge, which we Reasonably assume to be
straight, and measure it against the "wavy" lines

it is a Philosophy to Invent and debate ideas that cannot be proved Or
disproved, while they may be interesting mental exercises, they are
ultimately futile..
The debate itself is futile, the only winning move is not to play.
IMO liberalism itself seems to be mired in this philosophical outlook on
things, it's part of the reason that arguing with a liberal tends to lead to
obfuscation on the liberals part. they Invent ideas that aren't rational,
and are very hard to disprove.. they create serious allegations that are
fabrications based on shakey evidence at best. in this way liberalism itself
seems to be more religious in nature then reality based.
IMO.


an angostic is still in philosophy class, doing a futile irrational
debate... the chair May or May not exist..Oooo Spooky..
the atheist has been there, done that.. and is moving on to more important
matters that dont' involve superstition.

so no, i dont' think it's a logical impossiblity, or irrational to be an
atheist libertarian.
perhaps you don't really understand what it means to be an atheist.


*********
shu



and
Evil Capitalist Business Owner (ALECBO)

That's confounding all right, because from your positions taken here
you are
obviously an extreme conservative, authoritarian, martinet. All of which
coincide with following Nazism or some other extreme form of governing.
Which just goes to show that either the test isn't all that accurate or
someone is dishonest.

Hawke


Actually Leftist Drone..Im none of that. I do support the war,

Let's stop here and look at the first thing you wrote. You begin with your
normal insult and then go on to verify what we already know. You admit it,
you are for war; Big Surprise! That's what I have said all along. You are
always for every war so long as a Republican president is behind it. The
only wars you ever are against are the ones a Democrat instigates. Since we
have had a predominance of Republican presidents in the last 50 years that
means you are virtually always on the side advocating war. That is what the
evidence shows. You can deny it all you want but your ilk always find the
case for war strong enough to start attacking someone, somewhere. Normal
people don't find war nearly as necessary as your kind do. Oh, and any
objective analysis of your postings clearly demonstrates that you do indeed
have extreme right wing conservative views, you are authoritarian, and are a
total martinet.

and I do hold Leftists like you in utter contempt.

From what I've seen you hold everyone that doesn't agree with your whacked
out Republican ideology in contempt. You're a my way or the highway kind of
person (read that as authoritarian). You also continue to call anyone who
opposes your right wing philosophy a "leftist" including me even thought I
am a registered independent and in no way support everything on the left
wing.

Not because of the party line, as Im a Republitarian, but because of the
necessity of the war, and the long standing actions and agendas of the Left.

That's the point isn't it? People like you always come down on the side of
seeing war as the only course of action. To you war is a necessity but other
less emotional people see it as a last resort only, and would never resort
to war nearly as quickly as you would. Throughout history war mongers have
always seen going to war as necessary when more reasonable people don't.
Unfortunately, it's the rest of the people that have to pay for your
"necessities".

I dont have to be a cop to hate child molesters. I dont have to be a
Christian (and Im not) to support some concepts of morality.

Simply irrelevant.

You on the other hand..have a Talking Points fax line from the DNC
plugged into that half empty gourd you call a skull.

As is your habit, you end with your usual insult once again showing your
ignorance and lack of originality. The other thing is that your head has to
be as dense as granite, because no matter how many times you hear it you
still keep perpetuating the myth that everyone you disagree with is getting
their ideas from the DNC. I'm sure that the reason you think that is because
the reality is it's Republicans, which you admitted to being, who are known
for their adherence to top down hierarchy and like-minded thinking. It's
also people like you who blindly parrot every line uttered by the likes of
Sean Vanity and Rush Bimbo. I'm not a Democrat. I don't know how many times
you have to be told that before you get it into your tiny brain, but I'm not
going to waste time on someone as slow on the uptake as you are. You are a
Republican and in my book that's about the worst insult I can think of to
call someone.

What you and your cronies need to understand is that you are members of the
far right, not the middle. To you everyone to your left is a liberal. It
simply isn't so. It's just that from your far out perspective the middle
seems way to the left. To those of us in the middle the people to our left
are liberals but your kind are just so far to the right you can't even see
the forest for the trees, which is why you only get along with others that
are just like you are.

One other thing, all you far righties are always super patriotic war freaks
and you are a shining example of that fact. The majority of Americans are
not, so it's you all that's out of step not me and the rest of the people
who oppose the Bush Administration's foolhardy policies. Too bad you'll
never get that even though it's a fact.

Hawke

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:23:43 -0500, "shu" wrote:


"Strabo" wrote in message
.. .
In OT - A test for Gunner & Stu & crew on Sun, 28 Aug 2005
14:29:32 -0500, by shu, we read:

for the record I scored as an expatriate

also, I think the test is crap anyway, it's got some bias towards what
the
left seems to *think* of the right, but is sterotyped.

for example question 14 needs to have more "groups" listed, such as
"white
americans", "christians" "baptists" "conservative talk show hosts"
"Neocons"


and also.. like question 15 and 16 ,. well bush is currently president,
what if hilliary was president? that would radically alter a lot of views
on
that question depending on your political leanings

I noticed I haven't seen anyone from the Left post their results,
maybe I didn't look hard enough, or maybe they scored too high on the
brainwashing susceptiablity and are embarrased


I think the Libs are genuinuly confused as to why all the right wingers
*Didn't* score as Nazi's. It just shows more of a lack of understanding
on
their part

Or, "I think the test is crap anyway."

Reminds me of the 'Hitler versus Stalin' dilemma.
Anyone attracted to either the Republican or Democratic
political party ideology is a socialist. Whether one
tests as a democratic socialist as opposed to a national
socialist, is immaterial. Neither qualifies as a proponent
of the Declaration of Independence.


******
shu
*another atheist libertarian*

A logical impossibility.

no

A libertarian is inner directed and rational. He understands
that there not a way to disprove god and he is comfortable
with this reality.

you have a different defintion of athiest.
let me explain

you are litterally correct. there is no way to disprove god.
but this is because there is no way to disprove a negative,
the burden of Proof for the existance of god is on those who believe in god.
it is NOT upto me to disprove the existance of god
as an atheist, the case for the existance of god to me has not been made to
my satisfaction.
furthermore, as an atheist, religion, and god are inventions of man.
it is Rational, and comfortable for me to live with that reality.
an Angostic is uncomfortable, they aren't sure there is a god, or not,
they may or may not think god has been Proven to exist.

I contend that it is Irrational to not accept certain realities (and this is
a problem with a lot of philosophy classes)
for example...
someone may say . "prove this chair existspoints to a chair
The proof of the existance of the chair, is in the chair itself, the chair
exists.. Just because.
it is Irrational to get into lengthy debates about "what is existance" or
"define chair" or "is it just a Preception that it's there." etc
in order to progress we have to define certain things about how our universe
works. the Chair exists, and based on Previous experience, it's unlikely to
spontaniously stop existing, or turn into a glass of wine. the ability to
prove and disprove ideas is in the realm of science. While our Senses can be
fooled. generally under such conditions we are aware of it, and can devise
logical tests to miniumize errors in our preception, optical illusions for
example, where you precieve lines that are all wavy, but are really
straight, you can take a Straight edge, which we Reasonably assume to be
straight, and measure it against the "wavy" lines

it is a Philosophy to Invent and debate ideas that cannot be proved Or
disproved, while they may be interesting mental exercises, they are
ultimately futile..
The debate itself is futile, the only winning move is not to play.
IMO liberalism itself seems to be mired in this philosophical outlook on
things, it's part of the reason that arguing with a liberal tends to lead to
obfuscation on the liberals part. they Invent ideas that aren't rational,
and are very hard to disprove.. they create serious allegations that are
fabrications based on shakey evidence at best. in this way liberalism itself
seems to be more religious in nature then reality based.
IMO.


an angostic is still in philosophy class, doing a futile irrational
debate... the chair May or May not exist..Oooo Spooky..
the atheist has been there, done that.. and is moving on to more important
matters that dont' involve superstition.

so no, i dont' think it's a logical impossiblity, or irrational to be an
atheist libertarian.
perhaps you don't really understand what it means to be an atheist.


*********
shu



and
Evil Capitalist Business Owner (ALECBO)


Meet Shu.
This example of a post is very deceptive indeed. She sounds
almost rational G.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:14:41 -0400, JohnM wrote:

Cliff wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:45:50 -0400, JohnM wrote:


Actually, when I listen to commercial radio (rarely) I listen to a local
public radio station, mostly for the jazz.


That may induce brain rot ....... sounds like many machines
about to go crash .....

Damn, cliff, what an ignorant statement to make. I'd expect that from
dan, maybe, but I really didn't expect it from you.. Sure, you can find
some Jazz that sounds a bit crashy, or more than a bit- it's a pretty
wide field.. but that's just an unbelievable thing to say.

Idiot.

John

I always want to go see what's wrong .....
--
Cliff

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:29:32 -0500, "shu" wrote:


and also.. like question 15 and 16 ,. well bush is currently president,
what if hilliary was president? that would radically alter a lot of views on
that question depending on your political leanings

I noticed I haven't seen anyone from the Left post their results,
maybe I didn't look hard enough, or maybe they scored too high on the
brainwashing susceptiablity and are embarrased

I think the Libs are genuinuly confused as to why all the right wingers
*Didn't* score as Nazi's. It just shows more of a lack of understanding on
their part

Heh...for the most part..the Libs are utterly clueless. Which is
regularly demonstrated by their posts on politics, and why the publics
shift to electing Republican politicians is so completely
misunderstood by them. They babble on and on about Bush being Selected
not elected..yet totally ignore the fact that Congress now has a
significant Republican Majority after 40 yrs of Dem control and more
and more Governors and state politicians are being elected
Republicans.

They (Libs) are both clueless and in denial

Gunner

In article you wrote:

"atheist" is inconsistent with libertarian.

You can be an agnostic and a libertarian but atheists claim
an unprovable knowledge (the non-existence of a god).

I disagree and look forward to you expanding on why your statement
is valid.

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence
of gods. I don't have to claim that no god exists to be an atheist.

From lp.org:

"What is a Libertarian?

Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you
wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you dont violate
the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling
back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the
economy and control peoples personal choices."

Note no mention of "god" in the above statement. Libertarians could give
a **** whether you believe in god or not - that's your business!

I'll clarify my position a bit. By trade I am a biochemist, a scientist.
I believe in things because their existance has been demonstrated in
a rational fashion by myself or others.

I am a Libertarian before all else. My atheism grew out of my distaste for
folks who would push their beliefs upon some one else. Kind of like you
telling me I can't be an atheist and a Libertarian at the same time...

Jeff

Strabo wrote:

"atheist" is inconsistent with libertarian.

You can be an agnostic and a libertarian but atheists claim
an unprovable knowledge (the non-existence of a god).

I'm almost embarrassed to waste even a minute on this; but...

The idea that an atheist (or anybody else) needs to "prove" some
kind of non-existence is one of the most ridiculous and destructive
non-ideas that's ever polluted human minds.

Proof is affirmative. It only works on things that actually do
exist. To attempt to twist it around and prove a negative - ANY
negative, is to admit that you don't have a clue about what proof is,
about how logic works, or about which end of you is your head and which
is your ass.

Here's a simple test: Can you prove that there's not a 16 foot
tall, purple, fire breathing dragon standing right behind you, right
this minute, about to bite your ass off? No, you can't. Looking behind
you doen't work. The dragon might have moved as you turned your head.
Or it might be an invisible dragon. Reaching out to feel around for it
won't work, either. Dragons are very quick and clever. (Prove that
they're not!) Did you look all over the room, under the desk, and
behind the file cabinet? That's not proof of anything. It only means
that you didn't find the dragon. It doesn't prove anything about
whether the dragon actually exists.

You say you're still alive, so there must not be any real danger?
Not yet. But what about thirty seconds from now? Nobody else you know
has ever seen a dragon? That only means you're hanging around with
reallly unobservant people.

Try all you like, twist yourself into knots. You can't PROVE that
the dragon isn't there. Not in the true sense of a proof. All you can
do is hope that there's no dragon, for the moment.

Here's a better example. I accuse you of committing a horible
crime. Can you prove that you didn't? No, don't ask what crime I'm
talking about. I think you know. Can you prove that you don't? No,
I'm not going to tell you when the crime was committed, or who the
victim was. I'm sure you already know all that, and you can't prove the
non-existence of such knowledge. And, if you want non-existence to be
proveable, then the burden of proof is on you, since you CLAIM you don't
know what I'm talking about, and that you didn't do anything wrong.

Want to know how important it is to understand the true meaning of
proof, and the reason WHY non-existence should NEVER be required to
prove itself? It's because if we thought any other way, you'd be guilty
until proven innocent - every single time anybody accused you of anything.

Like most brain-lazy people, you accept the vitally important,
life-saving protections earned for you by people who actually USE their
minds; but you don't bother to care how or why they protect you, or what
would happen to you if they didn't.

If you ask an atheist to prove the non-existence of gods, then be
prepared for someone, someday, to ask you to prove your innnocence in a
crime you've never heard of. You'll deserve that, and all that follows.
You asked for it.

Rational people understand that emotions, beliefs, and even
superstitions, are a part of human life. We live with them. But when
you start pretending that you know the rules about what we can or can't
believe, or start imagining that your own beliefs are somehow special or
priviledged, and that you have scientific or logical justification for
your self-deception, then you deserve to have your ass bitten off by
dragons.

You can believe whatever myths and stories you like; but don't
pretend that you're doing anything else, unless you're prepared to learn
what "proof" really is, and how it works, and then to use it to prove
the existence of superghosts in the sky.

KG

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:33:47 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

You can believe whatever myths and stories you like; but don't
pretend that you're doing anything else, unless you're prepared to learn
what "proof" really is, and how it works, and then to use it to prove
the existence of superghosts in the sky.

KG

Heh....

http://www.rense.com/general32/del.htm

Chuckle....

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/3151


Gunner

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:45:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Heh...for the most part..the Libs are utterly clueless.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Which is
regularly demonstrated by their posts on politics,

Found those "WMDs" yet?

and why the publics shift to electing Republican politicians

Found those "WMDs" yet?

is so completely misunderstood by them.

CLUE: Herr shrubbie is LESS popular now than Clinton
was at his *least popular*.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

They babble on and on about Bush being Selected
not elected..

Not that it bothers you that he lost the popular vote.

yet totally ignore the fact that Congress now has a
significant Republican Majority

Found those "WMDs" yet?

after 40 yrs of Dem control and more
and more Governors and state politicians are being elected
Republicans.

What were they in the first place?

They (Libs) are both clueless and in denial

Found those "WMDs" yet?

He's embarassed.
AND in denial.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:32:07 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:01:32 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


That's confounding all right, because from your positions taken here
you are
obviously an extreme conservative, authoritarian, martinet. All of which
coincide with following Nazism or some other extreme form of governing.
Which just goes to show that either the test isn't all that accurate or
someone is dishonest.

Hawke


Actually Leftist Drone..Im none of that. I do support the war,

Let's stop here and look at the first thing you wrote. You begin with your
normal insult

Which is absolutly correct. You ARE a Leftist Drone.

IOW NOT a gun-toting crazy living in a bunker atop the San Andreas
and eating kibble?

and then go on to verify what we already know. You admit it,
you are for war;

For "war"? Not necessarily.

And a proud member of THE WAR party.

This one, yes indeed. Another false
assumption from the mind of a Leftist Drone.

Ask him about Vietnam. He may well recall Lt. Calley & Mei Lei .....

Big Surprise! That's what I have said all along. You are
always for every war so long as a Republican president is behind it.

Still more mindless drone false assumptions. Which other Republican
war have I been in favor of?

Gee, now he admits that the republicans are terrorists.

Take your time, use as much white space
as necessary.

I'm thinking that he's out of toilet paper for his outhouse again.

The
only wars you ever are against are the ones a Democrat instigates.

Which ones were those? I was quite in favor of the Vietnam war, a
Democrats war.

??
HUH?

Not the way it was ultimately fought, having been one
of the voluntary participants (twice)

He had fun. The little kids did not.

Since we
have had a predominance of Republican presidents in the last 50 years that
means you are virtually always on the side advocating war.

Oddly enough..its been the Democrats who have started all those
wars..and a Republcan which finished em for the majority.

Wingers love to lie.

That is what the
evidence shows. You can deny it all you want but your ilk always find the
case for war strong enough to start attacking someone, somewhere.

Sure you are not in deep denial?

Found those "WMDs" yet?

As was pointed out to you..its been
the Dems that seem to start the majority of wars.

THE WAR party with THE WAR President?

Normal
people don't find war nearly as necessary as your kind do.

So you are admitting Dems are not normal?

The Lithium must be running low again.

Oh, and any
objective analysis of your postings clearly demonstrates that you do indeed
have extreme right wing conservative views, you are authoritarian, and are a
total martinet.

Another mindless drone fatally flawed assumption.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Gads man..you prove
my claim with ever line you post.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

How could I, a rabid survivalist, be
an authoritarian and a martinet? Evern my Nym indicates the opposite.

You are thinking of that Nazi?


and I do hold Leftists like you in utter contempt.

From what I've seen you hold everyone that doesn't agree with your whacked
out Republican ideology in contempt.

More insults, more fatally flawed Mindless Drone assumptions based on
fatally flawed claimes.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

You're a my way or the highway kind of
person (read that as authoritarian). You also continue to call anyone who
opposes your right wing philosophy a "leftist" including me even thought I
am a registered independent and in no way support everything on the left
wing.

Chuckle if it has stripes, hooves and roams the plains in Africa..its
still a Zebra, no matter if you call it a lounge chair or not.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Not because of the party line, as Im a Republitarian, but because of the
necessity of the war, and the long standing actions and agendas of the Left.

That's the point isn't it? People like you always come down on the side of
seeing war as the only course of action. To you war is a necessity but other
less emotional people see it as a last resort only, and would never resort
to war nearly as quickly as you would. Throughout history war mongers have
always seen going to war as necessary when more reasonable people don't.
Unfortunately, it's the rest of the people that have to pay for your
"necessities".

More reasonable people?

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Again, you base your claims on Mindless Drone
fatally flawed claims.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

You? Reasonable? Hardly.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

I dont have to be a cop to hate child molesters. I dont have to be a
Christian (and Im not) to support some concepts of morality.

Simply irrelevant.

Deep dnial on your part again.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

If it doesnt fit your world view,

Found those "WMDs" yet?

no matter how relevant or accurate..you dismiss it.

Found those "WMDs" yet?


You on the other hand..have a Talking Points fax line from the DNC
plugged into that half empty gourd you call a skull.

As is your habit, you end with your usual insult once again showing your
ignorance and lack of originality. The other thing is that your head has to
be as dense as granite, because no matter how many times you hear it you
still keep perpetuating the myth that everyone you disagree with is getting
their ideas from the DNC. I'm sure that the reason you think that is because
the reality is it's Republicans, which you admitted to being, who are known
for their adherence to top down hierarchy and like-minded thinking. It's
also people like you who blindly parrot every line uttered by the likes of
Sean Vanity and Rush Bimbo. I'm not a Democrat. I don't know how many times
you have to be told that before you get it into your tiny brain, but I'm not
going to waste time on someone as slow on the uptake as you are. You are a
Republican and in my book that's about the worst insult I can think of to
call someone.

Actually, Im a registered Libertarian.

Perhaps also a registered Communist & Democrat G.

What you and your cronies need to understand is that you are members of the
far right, not the middle. To you everyone to your left is a liberal. It
simply isn't so. It's just that from your far out perspective the middle
seems way to the left. To those of us in the middle the people to our left
are liberals but your kind are just so far to the right you can't even see
the forest for the trees, which is why you only get along with others that
are just like you are.

One other thing, all you far righties are always super patriotic war freaks
and you are a shining example of that fact. The majority of Americans are
not, so it's you all that's out of step not me and the rest of the people
who oppose the Bush Administration's foolhardy policies. Too bad you'll
never get that even though it's a fact.

Hawke


Snicker...so you are claiming to be "in the middle"?

Found those "WMDs" yet?

More mindless drone drivel.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Gunner

Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:33:47 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

Strabo wrote:

"atheist" is inconsistent with libertarian.

You can be an agnostic and a libertarian but atheists claim
an unprovable knowledge (the non-existence of a god).

I'm almost embarrassed to waste even a minute on this; but...

The idea that an atheist (or anybody else) needs to "prove" some
kind of non-existence is one of the most ridiculous and destructive
non-ideas that's ever polluted human minds.

Proof is affirmative. It only works on things that actually do
exist. To attempt to twist it around and prove a negative - ANY
negative, is to admit that you don't have a clue about what proof is,
about how logic works, or about which end of you is your head and which
is your ass.

Here's a simple test: Can you prove that there's not a 16 foot
tall, purple, fire breathing dragon standing right behind you, right
this minute, about to bite your ass off? No, you can't. Looking behind
you doen't work. The dragon might have moved as you turned your head.
Or it might be an invisible dragon. Reaching out to feel around for it
won't work, either. Dragons are very quick and clever. (Prove that
they're not!) Did you look all over the room, under the desk, and
behind the file cabinet? That's not proof of anything. It only means
that you didn't find the dragon. It doesn't prove anything about
whether the dragon actually exists.

You say you're still alive, so there must not be any real danger?
Not yet. But what about thirty seconds from now? Nobody else you know
has ever seen a dragon? That only means you're hanging around with
reallly unobservant people.

Try all you like, twist yourself into knots. You can't PROVE that
the dragon isn't there. Not in the true sense of a proof. All you can
do is hope that there's no dragon, for the moment.

Here's a better example. I accuse you of committing a horible
crime. Can you prove that you didn't? No, don't ask what crime I'm
talking about. I think you know. Can you prove that you don't? No,
I'm not going to tell you when the crime was committed, or who the
victim was. I'm sure you already know all that, and you can't prove the
non-existence of such knowledge. And, if you want non-existence to be
proveable, then the burden of proof is on you, since you CLAIM you don't
know what I'm talking about, and that you didn't do anything wrong.

Want to know how important it is to understand the true meaning of
proof, and the reason WHY non-existence should NEVER be required to
prove itself? It's because if we thought any other way, you'd be guilty
until proven innocent - every single time anybody accused you of anything.

Like most brain-lazy people, you accept the vitally important,
life-saving protections earned for you by people who actually USE their
minds; but you don't bother to care how or why they protect you, or what
would happen to you if they didn't.

If you ask an atheist to prove the non-existence of gods, then be
prepared for someone, someday, to ask you to prove your innnocence in a
crime you've never heard of. You'll deserve that, and all that follows.
You asked for it.

Rational people understand that emotions, beliefs, and even
superstitions, are a part of human life. We live with them. But when
you start pretending that you know the rules about what we can or can't
believe, or start imagining that your own beliefs are somehow special or
priviledged, and that you have scientific or logical justification for
your self-deception, then you deserve to have your ass bitten off by
dragons.

You can believe whatever myths and stories you like; but don't
pretend that you're doing anything else, unless you're prepared to learn
what "proof" really is, and how it works, and then to use it to prove
the existence of superghosts in the sky.

KG

Some might "argue" ....
--
Cliff