"They are risking their fucking LIVES for all of us....."Seems Larry Simons doesn't quite get the rules and responsibilities of soldiers fighting in "illegal wars".
Larry says:
When have I EVER blamed the TROOPS for the wars?? Troops dont create foreign policy, POLITICIANS do. When someone enlists to fight, even if they already know its illegal, is STILL not responsible for the wars' cause.Indeed, they might not be responsible for the cause. But individuals are responsible for their own conduct: saying "I was told to do it" is actually no defence against charges of carrying out illegal orders. And certainly signing-up to fight in "illegal wars" must be considered complicity, especially if (as Larry seems to believe) the wars are so obviously "illegal".
And even whilst Larry believes the wars are illegal, he still thinks the individuals who make it possible (by carrying out illegal orders) are deserving of tax-payer dollars, for pay, and even for healthcare which Larry would deny to America's law-abiding, but poor people. Here's Larry again:
Troops receive health care because they are SERVING IN THE MILITARY, you JACKASS! It isnt just GIVEN to them! They are risking their fucking LIVES for all of us, the LEAST the government should do is give them health care. They are risking their lives you stupid mother fucker! How dare you equate military service with POOR PEOPLE, you piece of shit!!!!So, what Larry seems to believe is an illegal war is at the same time being fought "for all of us". Funny sort of illegal.
And for carrying out illegal orders, the people on the ground directly implementing a supposedly illegal war are entitled to take money off of taxpayers - according to Larry. Just taking taxpayers money and giving it to troops engaged in illegal wars is fine, apparently. Yet it's something Larry finds an unprincipled and dangerous assault upon "American Freedom" when the issue is taxpayers money to provide healthcare for America's poorest people!
Fighting in illegal wars "for all of us" deserves taxpayers' money - but just being an American citizen -even if a poor one- just doesn't qualify. Some peoples' health is more important than others, obviously. Likewise, it seems complicity in war crimes is a lesser offence than being poor, for Larry. Indeed - it even qualifies for an income, healthcare and a pension at taxpayers cost. That's 'the least we can do' too, apparently. (!)
Larry thinks it is an infringement on "freedom" to make his "NWO elites" pay for poor peoples' healthcare. But poor people paying for the healthcare of soldiers whom are complicit in wars Larry considers illegal is fine. "The least we can do!" - he says. Somehow taxpayers' funding illegal of wars isn't theft - but funding of healthcare for American citizens is.
And for all Larry's fake posturing in defence of "the People" and against "Elites", when it comes down to it Larry stands resolutely on the side of the elites.
Here's Larry posturing as some anti-elitist:
God forbid should representatives actually try to pass something that would benefit the American people and not the private bankers that are beyond all scrutiny and above the law.And here's Larry when it comes to actually doing something:
I support the FREEDOMS of Pharma and Insurance companies...Here's some more of Larry's typical posturing:
the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests...And here's what he says today:
If I become a success and make 2 million a year, why should I have to give that to YOU just because you were content at working at Taco Bell until age 40??Spoken like a genuine Rothschild, Warburg, Harriman, Cheney or Bush. Etc Etc Etc. Likewise, here's Larry posturing as some concerned member of a community:
Building strong communities is all about establishing strong bonds and friendships with your neighbors, not grassing them up to the authorities for a quick buck.But here's Larry when it actually comes to doing something about it:
So, youre saying if I dont want children, my policy has to cover the cost of YOUR child being born?? WHY???? Tell me why?????Ah - strong communities! What every conservative claims to want but always refuses to pay for.Here's more of Larry's anti-corporate, anti-elitist posturing:
Since the corporate media is owned by the same interests that control the pharmaceutical companies, who by the way will stand to profit in the billions and even trillions....And yet this is also Larry speaking:
Do I think a CEO is worth 500,000 a year? Probably not. Do I want a bill saying the government can step in and strip away a reward for personal achievement?? NO.So, Larry's grumbles about "elites" and "corporate takeover of America" are empty and vacuous posturing. They are mere grumbles - he actually stands alongside his "elites", his "bankers" and the corporations and he works to prevent any serious challenge to them - even at the cost of denying some healthcare to America's poorest 30-40 million citizens.
One moment Larry is posing:
L: the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests........the incessant pillaging of America’s economic security by a handful of financial elitesthe next moment he's working to defend those same things:
L: people who have lots of money achieved that and should not have to support OTHERS because they accomplished individual success.Any notion of Larry being anti-elitist is disproven by the following quote of his:
A person might be poor but they still have the same freedom to accomplish anything they want.If that's true, what "elitism" can there be? If everyone is free to accomplish "anything they want" then where's the elitism Larry is supposed to so loathe? And why does he spend his time criticising it if it doesn't exist, or at least has absolutely no impact on the world REAL Americans and others inhabit?
According to Larry the elites he rages against daily have no detrimental impact on one's life chances. Everyone has the exact "same freedom to accomplish anything they want." So, Larry's elites obviously do nothing......everyone can still accomplish anything they want. And so one wonders why Larry opines:
Do something people, anything to save these globalist, money and power-hungry bastards from taking over.
26 comments:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Nuremberg Principle IV
Signing up to the army to go and fight is a choice.
Because the wars are illegal doesnt subtract from the fact that they are RISKING THEIR LIVES asshole!!! Do bank robbers STILL risk their lives for their illegal action? The difference between bank robbers and troops is that bank robbers are guilty of illegal action---troops are NOT. If a war is illegal, the troops are NOT committing an illegal act. The illegal act is being committed by the POLICY makers. Ask any fucking lawyer that.
"Signing up to the army to go and fight is a choice."
Yeah, and in most places in America, it's the ONLY choice since MOST people that enlist ARE poor and they have no other option but to join the military---so that makes your statement on my blog even more interesting:
"Troops fighting (in a war Larry believes is illegal) deserve public-money for healthcare. But poor Americans - whom never engaged in illegal conflict overseas - don't."
Its MOSTLY the poor who enlist, so it IS the poor who go fight, because they have no other option. That's even in Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9-11" where he talks about it being MOSTLY poor kids enliting----ASSHOLE! He's one of your left-wing buddies right?
Oh, and by the way, why didnt you post your reply on MY blog? Why post it on YOURS? I'll tell you why, you scumbag mother fucker----because I asked you to answer TWO questions that I asked you for like 6 straight posts and you IGNORED them, and I told you that if you didnt answer them, Id ban your ass. So, not only do you NOT answer them [even after coming to my site TWICE since then] but you come to YOUR blog and post the response, because you were too chickenshit to post this on MY blog because you knew your fucking ass would be banned if you came to my blog and didnt answer the questions.
I have news for you asshole, my warning to answer my questions or be banned stands for ALL time. Meaning: if you choose to ignore me for 6 months and then post something, you'll STILL be banned for not answering them. I wont forget the questions.
"And certainly signing-up to fight in "illegal wars" must be considered complicity"
And you'd be WRONG. In his book "the Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder" retired prosecutor Vnce Bugliosi says that troops are an "innocent agent" in any illegal conflict.
"And even whilst Larry believes the wars are illegal, he still thinks the individuals who make it possible (by carrying out illegal orders) are deserving of tax-payer dollars, for pay, and even for healthcare which Larry would deny to America's law-abiding, but poor people."
The troops are not guilty of illegal action, the policy makers are. How many fucking times do I have to say this? You keep saying "poor people have broken no laws"--either have the TROOPS dumbass!! In fact, the law on the books states that the innocent agent is NOT an offender. Call any fucking lawyer in America and ask them about the innocent agent law.
The law of the innocent agent allows a defendant not present [policy makers: Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc...] at the commission of the crime [killings in Iraq] to be convicted as a principal in the first degree if the defendant engaged in actions which caused the actual perpetrator to commit the crime as aninnocent agent of the defendant. Courts have said that the innocent agent "is NOT an offender" and the defendant is as guilty as if he had done the act himself. This law says that it doesnt even matter if the principal WANTED the innocent agent to commit murder---only that he CAUSED him to.
So, there, that debunks any and all comments you make on the troops being "guilty" or "complicit" in illegal wars, so your continuance to repeat your lie will only result in you looking like the complete and utter jackass you already are.
"Fighting in illegal wars "for all of us" deserves taxpayers' money - but just being an American citizen -even if a poor one- just doesn't qualify."
If I was as dumb as you are, Id seriously consider suicide....really. Ive debunked that troops are guilty of crimes just by fighting in an illegal war. The ONLY thing troops could be charged for is violating RULES of war [war crimes]---not for fighting th war ITSELF [as you keep FALSELY repeating].
Being just an American does not give us the RIGHT to health care. Health care is NOT a right anymore than it would be our right to have ANY service FREE that we use. If I get free health care, can I also have my car fixed for free? If not, why??? And why do you keep mentioning ONLY the POOR? Are you saying its ONLY the poor without health care? What about the middle class? Many middle class people are without health care too!
Ive had several jobs in my life where I was living pretty good, NOT poor, and I couldnt afford the insurance my employer offered. If my total monthly pay was $2400, paying health insurance would take about 40% of that. I couldnt afford to see 40% of my monthly salary go to health insurance, because I had other bills to pay---essentials, like rent, electric, water, car payment---and I simply couldnt afford health care. The Obama bill should have made it AFFORDABLE--but he didnt. The bill makes things WORSE now, because the government is now extracting huge fees from medical equipment, health insurance and pharm companies--and what will that do?? Jack up the prices for premiums, cause MANY job losses and it will force Americans to find another health care provider which will result in them not getting the doctor and hospital of choice!
Way to go Obama!
I have debunked EVERY SINGLE thing you said in this post on my blog. So, what do YOU do? Just come here and repeat it and you dont even link to my blog so that your 2 readers will see that I've debunked you. The old Andy Ostroy tactic. This post is nothing but lies from start to finish, that's why you came HERE to post this rather than come to my blog to spout off your response---because I fucking NAILED you on every point.
You are a TOTAL fraud! Youre afraid of the two questions I asked on my blog, which were:
1. So, youre saying if I dont want children, my policy has to cover the cost of YOUR child being born?? WHY???? Tell me why????? Do you make it a habit right NOW to walk around your neighborhood giving away free money to people you dont know for their welfare?? Hmmmm? Do you?
2. Why punish personal achievement? If I become a success and make 2 million a year, why should I have to give that to YOU just because you were content at working at Taco Bell until age 40??
He's afraid of these questions. That's why he runs to his blog, so he can shoot off his already debunked bullshit and have hopes that someone will listen to him.
He doesnt even give links to my site so that people can come to my site and see if he has debunked ME----because he knows it's the other way around.
COMPLETE fraud!
Besides, the military is a JOB, and they get paid and get benefits WHETHER THEY ARE IN WARTIME OR NOT, so they STILL would get health care even if they wasnt even IN Iraq or wherever---so that debunks any and all comments you make on military personnel receiving health care. The get it IN war time and OUTSIDE of war time----MORON. Also, as I have said dozens of times now, military personnel are INNOCENT AGENTS of war. If a war is illegal, it is the POLICY MAKERS that are guilty. That is NOT my OPINION. That is actual LAW. But you will keep repeating your usual and frequent disinfo and claim I'M the nut! Now people can go to my site and see that I have thoroughly kicked your lying, deceiving ASS with facts!
More deception from the last fraud left:
more hackery of my posts so he can make points of off comments I make take out of context:
Examples:
In THIS post, TLNL said that I said:
"I support the FREEDOMS of Pharma and Insurance companies..."
Notice the dots?? I didnt use dots in my original sentence, which was:
"I support the FREEDOMS of Pharma and Insurance companies-----NOT their ABUSES. So, youre saying if I dont become Stalin or Hitler and say to companies and citizens "you MUST do this, you MUST do that" then I support their abuses??? You need a straight jacket!!"
But TLNL LOVES taking people out of context, doesnt he?
Then theres this:
In this post TLNL says this:
"And here's what he says today:
If I become a success and make 2 million a year, why should I have to give that to YOU just because you were content at working at Taco Bell until age 40??"
What he DOESNT tell you is that that was one of the two questions I ASKED HIM for an answer on. He made it appear as if I was asking a hypothetical question. I was ASKING him that----and naturally, he never answered me.
He says this too----more hackery:
"But here's Larry when it actually comes to doing something about it:
So, youre saying if I dont want children, my policy has to cover the cost of YOUR child being born?? WHY???? Tell me why?????"
Not only does TLNL NOT tell you that was the 2nd question I actually ASKED him for his answer----but it wasnt the FULL statement I made, which was:
"So, youre saying if I dont want children, my policy has to cover the cost of YOUR child being born?? WHY???? Tell me why????? Do you make it a habit right NOW to walk around your neighborhood giving away free money to people you dont know for their welfare?? Hmmmm? Do you?"
[By the way, he never answered this one either]
Lies, deception, out of context word hackery and complete spin. And he claims he hates disinfo??? LOL
more spin brought to you by TLNL:
He says:
"One moment Larry is posing:
L: the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests........the incessant pillaging of America’s economic security by a handful of financial elites
the next moment he's working to defend those same things:
L: people who have lots of money achieved that and should not have to support OTHERS because they accomplished individual success."
But NEVER...ONCE in his entire post does he tell you that on MY blog, I clearly made the point that most, if not all, the elites did not get their fortunes by "individual success" but by either inheritance or corruption by robbing the American people.
He leaves that out-----why?
Easy, so he can deceive his 3 readers.
TLNL gives the impression that I was lumping the REAL elites [bankers, criminals like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds] in with the true successes that began with nothing and worked their way to the top [Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey]. Of course, I wasnt, and unless he's really mentally retarded, he knew I wasnt too. But it's the only way he can serve his agenda and combat REAL truth tellers, by making shit up, using deception and being the big piece of shit he is.
Why the need to deceive, chop up posts, completely OMIT the very points of my remarks if YOU possess the truth? There would be NO need to do that, but you HAVE to, because its the ONLY way you have to give the appearence that you win.
haha
you think you help your position any?
the more you explain, the deeper you dig yourself
BRILLIANT reply asshole! You debunked NOTHING I said. You must be proud!! LOL
Go read a law book about "innocent agents". It's your own post that makes you look like the colossal DUNCE you are. Even if you took my name completely from your post, it still makes you look foolish. Anyone on Earth that knows law and about innocent agents will belly laugh at your post. Every time you let a post remain that I have thoroughly debunked, I laugh my fucking head off, because you dont even realize [or care] how incredibly stupid it makes you look.
Then again, this is the biggest reason why you dont reveal your name, so you can post colossal lies and still be relieved of anyone calling you out BY NAME on your deception and disinfo.
Even if you would have at least addressed my responses, I often find it quite telling at not just what you address, but mainly what you do NOT address. So, you addressing what I said is really pointless, because things you address I debunk, and things you ignore just openly display to your 3 readers that what I said was too tough/non-debunkable to even address---so either way, I win! And with that lame comment you posted comes yet another glaring piece of evidence that you couldnt debunk one goddamned thing I said.
Shoot yourself---that would be more honorable on your part.
"the more you explain, the deeper you dig yourself"
Oh really? Well, DO tell HOW I dig myself deeper! LOL. I cannot wait to hear it.
I "dig myself deeper", yet you couldnt give ONE fucking example of me "digging myself deeper".
DIPSHIT
L: I often find it quite telling at not just what you address, but mainly what you do NOT address.
You have avoided answering the simple question of whether you are an architect - or not - for 9 months.
You have refused to give an explanation for the "who, when, how, what, where" of controlled demolition of the WTC --- something you repeatedly posit as a fact, yet completely refuse to explain.
-------
Back to the subject........
two words, Larry - "THE CONSTITUTION."
You think the wars were clearly illegal, but following orders so as to wage the war is "legal".
And not only "legal", but entirely deserving of the reward of taxpayer funded healthcare...and very good pensions.....which you would deny to every other citizen whom has ***not*** been subjected to and carried out orders which implement the greatest war crime - a crime against peace.
---------
For you, using taxpayers' money to subsidise healthcare for the poorest citizen is "THEFT".
Whereas using taxpayers' money to reward soldiers (implementing illegal orders) is "the least we could do".
Why is it no longer "theft" just because you think the military are doing "a good thing"? (Why do you think implementing orders to pursue (what you consider to be an illegal war) are "a good thing"?)
And if income tax is unconstitutional, as you always claim and promote, then you're compounding your problems.
Under your own terms -- you support "theft" from "the people" via "unconstitutional taxation" so as to reward soldiers implementing orders in pursuit of wars you consider to be "illegal".
Gee - take the moral high-ground, Larry?
L: But NEVER...ONCE in his entire post does he tell you that on MY blog, I clearly made the point that most, if not all, the elites did not get their fortunes by "individual success" but by either inheritance or corruption by robbing the American people.
He leaves that out-----why?
Larry - you added this caveat - later.
The fact remains that you originally claimed:
L: people who have lots of money achieved that and should not have to support OTHERS because they accomplished individual success."
Only afer I'd pointed out that your position contradicted your anti-elitist pose did you backtrack to try claiming:
L: ...most, if not all, the elites did not get their fortunes by "individual success" but by either inheritance or corruption by robbing the American people.
It's also a FACT that I then asked how you differentiate between the two groups. You have given no answer - and that's no surprise.
You claim income tax is unconstitutional - yet you support its use to pay for soldiers healthcare, pensions etc. *and* taxpayers' money as wages for soldiers carrying out an "illegal war". Why do you think it was illegal? Because it was unconstitutional?
You've argued before that it was unconstitutional - because congress never voted on it etc.
You've also argued the soldiers' pay and benefits must be unconstitutional too - as the income tax is unconstitutional. You've called it "theft" from "the people". IF the income tax is unconstitutional - and it's theft - how can healthcare for soldiers paid out of it be "the least we could do"? You think there should be more theft from "the people" by unconstitutional means? so as to pay soldiers acting out unconstitutional orders? "The least we can do" you say.
-------------
You also said "the country ran GREAT" during the 137 years before the Federal Reserve act was passed.
Those are the days of what is known as the age of the robber barons - the very people/families/interests which you claim are the cause of all corruption and evil and everything else - the NWO elites etc.
You call the days of the robber barons (and the social/legal/political climate that gave rise to them - your supposed greatest enemies) as the country "running GREAT".
Anti-elitist, my arse.
Lord Last Name Left,
I don't understand why you persist in interacting with this fool. He's clearly in need of some heavy duty psychoanalysis. Or psycho analysis?
Larry's problem is he doesn't have a proper educational background. So he ends up contradicting himself pretty much every post made.
I watched a Bette Davis flick last night called The Corn Is Green. Search for TCIG on youtube, if you want to watch it. The story takes place in Wales! Youse guys have the funniest accents. Nothing personal.
p.s. In my new entry at DFQ2, I exposed Democratic Underground as being a DLC front. It seems to me the same kind of triangulating happened with the Labour Party in England. In short, true progressives need not apply.
If you want to spend most of your internet time interacting with a wanker like Larry, there's not much more I can do to get you to stop. Larry's a classic example of what's wrong with the internet. Last Dude Left, Earl of Blogging Names, you've hammered that nail in. It's getting a bit stale. You'd be better off, imho, going after bigger targets.
"You think the wars were clearly illegal, but following orders so as to wage the war is "legal"."
Are you saying the TROOPS waged the war????? Thats a YES/NO question. I'd like an answer.
"And not only "legal", but entirely deserving of the reward of taxpayer funded healthcare...and very good pensions.....which you would deny to every other citizen whom has ***not*** been subjected to and carried out orders which implement the greatest war crime - a crime against peace."
See what I mean?? You just keep REPEATING the same old SHIT that I keep debunking.
For the last fucking time: POLICY MAKERS are the PRINCIPALS who would be GUILTY of war crimes in an illegal war--------NOT INNOCENT AGENTS [TROOPS]!!!! Now, do you UNDERSTAND THAT????????????
"For you, using taxpayers' money to subsidise healthcare for the poorest citizen is "THEFT"."
Youre right---because SOCIALISM for something that is NOT a RIGHT is NOT AMERICAN and it violates every principle of our Constitution.
"Whereas using taxpayers' money to reward soldiers (implementing illegal orders) is "the least we could do"."
"REWARD" soldiers?? Hey fuckhead---do you fucking READ my posts? Being in the MILITARY is an OCCUPATION, DUMBASS, that means they are NOT getting health care for FREE. They earn their pay, that means THEY are paying taxes TOO. Military personnel are NOT getting FREE health care!!!! COMPRENDE????
"And if income tax is unconstitutional, as you always claim and promote, then you're compounding your problems.
Under your own terms -- you support "theft" from "the people" via "unconstitutional taxation" so as to reward soldiers implementing orders in pursuit of wars you consider to be "illegal"."
Oh fucking brother. Regardless of what I think about FEDERAL TAXES [I already told your stupid fucking dumbass that STATE TAXES ARE Constitutional!!] being illegal, the stark reality is EVERYBODY pays them and you go to prison if you dont. That's a reality that will never be changed. Just because I feel our Constitution is being violated because the 16th amendment was never ratified is a completely separate issue from what WE are discussing, because I ALREADY fucking told you [but you dont read my fucking posts] that military personnel get health care WHETHER THEY ARE IN WARTIME OR NOT.
From the moment they begin training they are being PAID and it's an OCCUPATION. Whether they are in war or not is a mute point, because the armed services is an OCCUPATION, not just some fucking hobby they do in their free time---you fucking dickhead. Military people do NOT get FREE health care in the Obamacare sense. Military people get checks and they are TAXED, like EVERYONE ELSE, that means they are paying into the system TOO, HENCE, THEY ARE PAYING FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE.
You keep saying "the taxpayers this, and the taxpayers that"-----MILITARY people are taxpayers TOO------ya DICK!
"Larry - you added this caveat - later."
LIE. It was all part of the same thread of the story on my blog. I had to make that part clear because you were using the word "elites" in a general sense, as if most or all elites get their fortunes from "individual success". The whole point of our debate was "individual success", then YOU brought up ELITES as if THEY accomplish "individual success"-----and most or all DONT. So, YOUR usage of the word "elite" didnt even apply to the topic of "individual success"---which is what the whole discussion was about----asswipe.
The entire second half of your second post is just all repeated shit that I debunked, here and on my blog. Why do you keep repeating yourself? Did you repeat shit that I already debunked SEVERAL times just to avoid having to respond to the whole "innocent agents" posts I left? I notice you didnt respond to that at all---instead your two posts are nearly identical, saying the same shit over and over that I keep debunking.
This was my whole point when I said:
" I often find it quite telling at not just what you address, but mainly what you do NOT address."
You completely IGNORED 75% of my posts and the whole "troops are innocent agents" issue----why? Because you couldnt debunk me? And the things you DID address I had already previously debunked, you just keep repeating shit, over and over in order for you to create the illusion that youre not afraid to reply to me----but you'd be better off NOT replying than to re-type already debunked lies and bullshit and IGNORE vital topics that I completely school your ass on. Gonna respond to the remaining 75% of my previous posts???
"Larry's problem is he doesn't have a proper educational background. So he ends up contradicting himself pretty much every post made."
But yet I knew about the "innocent agent" doctrine in American law and pussy boy completely left that out of his most recent posts to me---instead he just repeats already debunked crapola that I easily debunk. In his next post, he'll keep repeating "the troops are getting health care with taxpayer dollars and they are complicit in the illegal war...blah..blah...blah"----shit Ive already debunked OVER and OVER.
And you say I'M not educated?
I contradict myself? But yet you failed to point out ONE specific contradiction. Hmmmmm. Why is that COCKrates???
PLEASE point out just ONE contradiction. I actually POSTED TLNL's omissions of my posts, his deception and hackery of things I say to take me out of context so it appears I said one thing, but in it's context what I said had a COMPLETELY different meaning. I give PROOF someone lies and distorts----and all you can say is that I "contradict" myself, but fail to point out ONE example.
You two are colossal DICKS.
"If you want to spend most of your internet time interacting with a wanker like Larry, there's not much more I can do to get you to stop. Larry's a classic example of what's wrong with the internet. Last Dude Left, Earl of Blogging Names, you've hammered that nail in. It's getting a bit stale. You'd be better off, imho, going after bigger targets."
Translation: Stop debating with Larry because he's embarrassing the shit out of you. He's really making you look like a fool, especially after your most recent post in which you pretty much admitted you dont know ANYTHING about the American legal definition of "innocent agents". Larry schooled you on that, and he's also doing a great job exposing how you chop up his posts so you can make a cheap point based on deception and taking him out of context. He posts the original contexts, which really make you look like a fool---so move on and dont waste anymore time on him. I wouldn't want to see Larry embarrass you worse than he's already done.
"Bigger targets"----LOL. He gets schooled by ME---what makes you think he can take on BIGGER targets?? LOL
@Socrates: yeah......true.
but the topics change, and the same arguments need to be put.
I wish Larry were.....different. But there we are. Tedious isn't it?
:)
On the other hand, I think it is important to show the contradictory nature of these "populists" who claim both that taxation is "illegal" and "theft from the people" whilst also claiming its use to pay the military to "protect America" is "the least we can do".
Larry calls the army an occupation even when it isn't actually fighting. Clearly he doesn't apply the same logic to workers who aren't working. In that case, it's theft. A principled position, obviously.
He's an easy target - mea culpa.
"Larry calls the army an occupation even when it isn't actually fighting. Clearly he doesn't apply the same logic to workers who aren't working. In that case, it's theft. A principled position, obviously."
Does someone REALLY have to tell you that the purpose of the military is to be a defense system at ALL times? Meaning, if there is an attack on our country or some mass emergency, that we have a defense system in play ready to go? Please tell me you REALLY didnt have to be TOLD that. Are you saying if we are NOT in war, military personnel are just sitting around twiddling their thumbs??
So, yes, CLEARLY I do NOT apply that to "workers who arent working" because workers who arent working ARENT WORKING!!! Jesus Christ, you CANT be THAT stupid????
Oh yeah, maybe you CAN.
By the way, LOVE how you keep ignoring 75% of what I said in my posts and particularly with the "innocent agents" issue. It's always clear to see that when you are completely SCHOOLED on a subject, you just ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore.
You write a ridiculous post saying "Seems Larry Simons doesn't quite get the rules and responsibilities of soldiers fighting in "illegal wars"", then when I not only show you that I DO understand the rules FAR BETTER than YOU do [mentioning the innocent agents law], you are completely SILENT on it REPEATEDLY----and then you continue to LEAVE THE POST UP, showcasing to all three people who frequent your site that you are the biggest idiot who has ever lived.
Ramble all you want. It indicates only ONE thing: I have schooled you point by point and you ADMIT I school you by IGNORING 75% of my posts.
"He's an easy target"
Oh is THAT why you continue to ignore the "innocent agents" issue and 75% of my posts?
Ohhhhhhhh I see.
So, being that it's SO EASY to refute me---why arent you doing it???
LOL
you keep ignoring 75% of what I said
More than 75%? 95?
It feels GREAT knowing that I CONTINUALLY school you on facts and all you can offer in return is sarcasm, ad hominem attacks and just plain IGNORING most of my comments. It's now crystal clear that I completely EMBARRASSED you on our American law of "innocent agents", since you completely ignore it [not just when I originally said it] but EVERY SINGLE TIME Ive mentioned it since then. Youre completely silent on it---CLEAR evidence you would rather eat a popsicle made of shit than address that issue.
I would advise you to READ books before going against my vast knowledge in the future---and I mean books OTHER than Mein Kampf.
Twit!
Well, be my guest - tell me (and the world) how "innocent agent" works to exonerate all troops from possible charges of war crimes and responsibility for engaging in a war which you yourself describe as "illegal"?
For example - is everyone serving under Bush an "innocent agent"? All innocent?
And on what principle are soldiers enagaged in "illegal" wars more deserving of taxpayers' money than innocent, non-complicit individuals?
How are taxes theft unless they are used to pay for solidery - esp. those engaged in "illegal wars"?
"And on what principle are soldiers enagaged in "illegal" wars more deserving of taxpayers' money than innocent, non-complicit individuals?"
I have ANSWERED this fucking question MANY MANY MANY times, and you just keep fucking asking it---you jackass! I answered the fucking question! Read my fucking posts!!
The innocent agent law means that if you take a life during an incident that you DID NOT CAUSE, you can be exonerated or not even charged.
Example: If you're a clerk in a convenient store, and someone comes in the store and robs you or wants to kill you--and you take out a gun from behind the counter and shoot the robber, but you MISS and it hits a customer and kills them----YOU wont be charged for the crime, the ROBBER gets charged, because he created the incident that resulted in the taking of a life. Same thing applies in a illegal war. Now, DONT fucking keep asking me this question. I ANSWERED it. You want the answer to your question above---read my past posts. I answered it SEVERAL times! DICK!
Do you seriously think a grocery store is akin to a sovereign nation state?
And, err.....are you suggesting the grocery store owner - who was being robbed - is a good example of the role of the US Army in Iraq?
Iraq is supposed to be the US's grocery store.....and is being robbed?
I don't think you thought this through, did you?
In your example, the grocery store would be Iraq, the grocery store owner the Iraqi people, and the thief would be......the US Army, right? That's more accurate, isn't it? So your example is arse-backwards.
L: if you take a life during an incident that you DID NOT CAUSE, you can be exonerated or not even charged.
So.....people who signed up to go and fight in Iraq....didn't "cause" incidents in which they took life? They have no responsibility? Really?
Even though, as you claim, the war was "illegal"?
Read my first comment?
And you have *not* addressed this issue:
you say paying for illegal wars out of taxpayers' money is "the least we could do", but you also say taxation is theft and unconstitutional.
"Do you seriously think a grocery store is akin to a sovereign nation state?
And, err.....are you suggesting the grocery store owner - who was being robbed - is a good example of the role of the US Army in Iraq?"
It doesnt matter, the same law applies.
No, in the example, the location plays no role---so its irrelevant that it's in a convenient store. The clerk is the troops, the robber is the policy makers [Bush, Cheney....] and the innocent victim who was shot is anyone the troops kill. I cant believe I had to explain that! Goodness!
"So.....people who signed up to go and fight in Iraq....didn't "cause" incidents in which they took life? They have no responsibility? Really?"
No, of course they didnt CAUSE the war. Are you saying TROOPS authorize war?? TROOPS are policy makers???? God, you should be a comedian!
"you say paying for illegal wars out of taxpayers' money is "the least we could do", but you also say taxation is theft and unconstitutional."
Ive addressed this fucking comment before you fucking stupid ass dickhead---so stop repeating the fucking thing over and over! One doesnt have anything to do with the other. If FEDERAL taxes are unconstitutional [which I believe they are], that has NOTHING to do with the fact that the IRS will still collect taxes REGARDLESS if there's a war going on or if we even have an armed forces in existence. The IRS is the true culprit here, NOT the military, not the politicians in Washington and not the people. The IRS is the culprit regarding taxes, the policy makers are the culprits regarding unjust, illegal wars. If taxes are collected for [as you say, they are "collected for illegal wars"] that doesnt mean I support one unconstitutional thing to take care of another unconstitutional thing.
You are attempting to make me shoot myself in the foot over seemingly contradictory issues here, and I KNOW youre doing it and YOU know youre doing it, and it's not working for you. I'm smarter than you.
Let me give you an analogy of the game you are playing with me. Taxes [in my view] are unconstitutional [FEDERAL taxes, that is]---BUT, it's an accepted part of society--90% of people accept it without question. Let me give you another issue that is widely accepted but wrong-----abortion. Let's say money that is gained from abortions is sent to pay for the war. YOU are suggesting to ME that if I said the war is illegal and I also said that abortion is murder and wrong, then I MUST be in total agreement with the act of abortion if I support the welfare of TROOPS who are fighting an illegal war that was started by POLICY MAKERS and politicians!
Troops are COMPLETELY separated from the actions and guilt of the ones who AUTHORIZED a war they fight. Hence "innocent agents". So according to YOU, if one bad thing is assisting another bad thing, then I must think they cancel each other out [two wrongs make a right] in order for me to support TROOPS who are the ONLY innocent party in the whole fucking scenario!
YOU ARE FUCKING INSANE!
Im not stupid. I realize you are saying all this to completely DIVERT from having to address the other shit I school you on. Tell me something---how does it feel to get completely SCHOOLED by a "kook"?
Post a Comment