If Xenomit starts arguing with Lemon Crush his thread will go on for another 40 pages.

At 5/31/14 03:44 AM, Clamstuffer wrote: If Xenomit starts arguing with Lemon Crush his thread will go on for another 40 pages.

If I'm not mistaking, why would they fight? I thought they both had similar stances toward the government.

The problem with libertarians is people think they want as much freedom as possible so therefore libertarianism is the best answer. That's failing to see the big picture. I'm all for the personal freedoms of the individual. If you want to cook meth and sacrifice goats with your ten wives in your basement I don't care as long as you're not bothering anybody else. The problem is extending these liberties to corporations because you don't think the government should regulate them.

The short sightedness of libertarianism is in saying "the market will regulate itself". The market will regulate itself alright, those involved in the most ruthless practices will rise to the top as those with any integrity will go under. I don't want to live in a world where as long as you got the money you can dump your toxic waste, chop down every tree, destroy renewable resources with unregulated overconsumption, monopolize, buy up everything to price gouge and fuck the poor. If you don't trust the government to do the right thing, why on earth would you trust corporations to? The government isn't perfect, but they at some level at least have some sense of preserving some of your interests. Corporations don't.

Clamstuffer has his opinion right on the money. I can understand why libertarians think like they do but I see communism coming to fruition faster than pure capitalism/anarchy

I feel like such a moron for not noticing that stupid was spelled "stup" in the title. That still doesn't mean you're much smarter than non South Park fans (I am one, BTW).

At 5/31/14 03:35 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 5/30/14 06:46 PM, TyrionLannister wrote: Disregard Nixon, George Bush Senior, and George Bush Junior.

This isn't about Republicans though. The premise I'm debating is the, eh, "peaceful" tendencies of democrats. I'd also like to add that nuking civilians, and the Vietnam debacle are about 1000 times worse than anything Bush or Nixon did.

Let's forget the fact that Nixon definitely was a huge proponent of Vietnam.

Especially since Obama wasn't the one who pined for the start of the war, but was left to clean up after it.

Cleaning up means starting more wars and deploying more troops and forces to existing battles? That's an interesting take. Tell me about how dropping bombs on and murdering civilians is "cleaning up"

Tell me about what wars Obama started and the increasing numbers of troops that he deployed. Oh wait. He didn't start any further wars, and he pulled nearly all the troops out.

FDR a war mongering piece of shit?

Absolutely.

With of course, nothing to back that statement up. Typical of you.

Oh pardon him for declaring war in response to thousands of US servicemen and citizens being killed in an unprovoked attack.

Unprovoked attack? Are you retarded?

No. But it's obvious that you are based on your responses that don't provide any context to your answers.

Deploying peace keeping forces in an effort to curb PROVEN genocide....

Is this serious? Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Lione, and Iraq. Death, famine, disease...yep, real fucking peaceful. Oh, and let's not forget he's trying to currently convince Obama to invade Syria.

Clinton had nothing to do with Iraq. But that's nice. Somalia? Oh wait. That's right. UN was attempting to drop off food and couldn't do so without warlords assaulting/murdering them. Can't have any forces deployed in an attempt to maintain safety for those peacekeepers. Same crap was going on in Sudan and Sierra Leone. Convince Obama to invade Syria. Sometimes the means justify the ends. If one military death prevents 100-1000 civilian deaths, I'd say it's an even trade. Nevermind the fact that the syrian government is bombing the hell out of it's own civilian populace right now. Yugoslavia? Genocide.

You're not only a nutbar, but it's obvious you don't know anything about the history of what you are talking about. Not only that, but you're wearing a full blown tin foil hat. You aren't using any facts or historical context. You're just saying 'THIS IS WHY AND THAT'S HOW IT IS". Nope. Logic and argument does not work that way dude.

relevant to thread

At 5/31/14 06:04 PM, TyrionLannister wrote: Let's forget the fact that Nixon definitely was a huge proponent of Vietnam.

This has literally NOTHING to do with this debate. The point was brought up that DEMOCRATS support PEACE. Therefore, Republicans are completely irrelevant to the discussion

Especially since Obama wasn't the one who pined for the start of the war, but was left to clean up after it.

Tell me about what wars Obama started and the increasing numbers of troops that he deployed. Oh wait. He didn't start any further wars, and he pulled nearly all the troops out.

Actually he started wars in Libya and Yemen, and escalated the pre-existing wars in Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. We also have the not-quite-as-bad-but-still-pretty-fucking-evil acts of selling weapons to terrorist dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, planned $330 Billion spent for nuclear weapon manufacture and development, sending troops to Poland to "counter Russian aggression", announced support for military action against Syria, and supported the war Iraq. Not to mention the 20,000 drone strikes in his first term. BTW, that 20,000 is more than Bush's drone strikes of his entire presidency.

With of course, nothing to back that statement up. Typical of you.

World War 2....you've heard of that, right?

No. But it's obvious that you are based on your responses that don't provide any context to your answers.

It's obvious.

Clinton had nothing to do with Iraq.

ACTUALLY, during his presidency, he issued many embargoes and sanctions against Iraq, causing death and famine for the population

:Somalia? Oh wait. That's right. UN was attempting to drop off food and couldn't do so without warlords assaulting/murdering them. Can't have any forces deployed in an attempt to maintain safety for those peacekeepers. Same crap was going on in Sudan and Sierra Leone.

You do know that Clinton protected and backed those warlords, right? That he fully supported Charles Taylor and the Revolutionary United Front? In your view, destroying a pharmaceutical factory is Sudan, on the suspicion (which turned out to be false) of making WMD's was an attempt to "maintain safety for peacekeepers"? Tell me, how does destroying a medicine factory help that cause?

:Convince Obama to invade Syria. Sometimes the means justify the ends. If one military death prevents 100-1000 civilian deaths, I'd say it's an even trade.

Oh. Well, that's completely terrifying. So you support war as long as you agree with it? Did you feel this same way when Bush made his invasions?

:Nevermind the fact that the syrian government is bombing the hell out of it's own civilian populace right now.

Which has exactly ZERO to do with America whatsoever (except that we sold Syria the weapons in the first place).

:Yugoslavia? Genocide.

I know the propaganda SAYS that, but in reality, it was Clinton's bombing that caused displacement of the people of Kosovo.

You're not only a nutbar, but it's obvious you don't know anything about the history of what you are talking about. Not only that, but you're wearing a full blown tin foil hat. You aren't using any facts or historical context. You're just saying 'THIS IS WHY AND THAT'S HOW IT IS". Nope. Logic and argument does not work that way dude.

Actually I'm not. Everything i've posted is an actual fact. You don't have to accept it, because regardless of if you do, it doesn't change anything. Democrats are every bit evil as any republican. in in many cases, even more so.

South Park is still a funny and relevant show.

Everybody's dumb. Except for me. I'm more smarter.

their writers have been doing whatever the new thing is for years now they used to come up with their own ideas but i think it's finally time for it to die.let kenny die.

At 6/2/14 03:44 AM, LemonCrush wrote: A whole bunch of garbage with no peer reviewed citation.

Nice dude.

At 6/2/14 07:15 PM, TyrionLannister wrote: Nice dude.

Wow. You're non rebuttal really convinced me.

Basically, you just admitted defeat. Everything I said is a fact, and either you're too lazy to try to refute it, or know I'm correct and can't refute it.

Either way it means the same thing, doesn't....

Or maybe YOU'RE right. Maybe the political party responsible for millions of innocent deaths and multiple wars, and the corporate takeover america is the "peaceful, good guys". Maybe the party who sends blacks to seperate schools, sends minorities to prison for non-crimes, and doesn't hesitate (and in fact gloats) over killing civilians and children, and "criminals"...yeah, maybe those are the beacon of peace and justice.

just seeing the possibility of lemoncrush's posts relating to the government about it being evil make me really fucking depressed, and generally make me know that nothing will ever change, except for the worse, at least in america.

there is no hope, the republicans might as well as take the 1st amendment away soon time soon

At 5/20/14 09:49 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: -id

I mean if it's anything I noticed around here, I noticed all the south park fans are really biased libertarians, and believe that liberals are the evil and they can spur various insults like the n word for instance, and when somebody calls them out it, they spur something like "MU FREEDOMS" or " I STARTED THIS BUT SOMEHOW YOU ARE THE BIGOT FOR NOT RESPECTING MY FREEDOM".

Oh because you know the MLP fanbase isn't annoying at all with all there brony shit and rule 34 illustrations.
You will respect my authoritah!

At 6/4/14 03:51 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 6/2/14 07:15 PM, TyrionLannister wrote: Nice dude.

Wow. You're non rebuttal really convinced me.

Basically, you just admitted defeat. Everything I said is a fact, and either you're too lazy to try to refute it, or know I'm correct and can't refute it.

Then I'm sure you will have no problem proving it with reliable objective articles that don't derive from a tin foil hat wearing nut case.

At 6/5/14 03:52 AM, TyrionLannister wrote: Then I'm sure you will have no problem proving it with reliable objective articles that don't derive from a tin foil hat wearing nut case.

Well see, that's the issue with people like you. Every source or anything contrary to the propaganda you're consuming is "tin foil".

Anything that opposes your pre-made opinion is somehow a conspiracy theory. I mean, this who thread is evidence of it. You're currently asking for proof that the United States nuked Japan, and that Clinton implemented sanctions against Iraq...

I mean, step back for a second and look at how ridiculous that seems

These are things that a 6th grader knows, and is pretty well documented by everyone, ever....you seem to be the only person disputing it...it'd be like me saying that Obama was elected in 2008....it's pretty well documented universally...but you need further proof.

Do you see how silly it is to ask someone to prove that WW2 happened?

At 6/5/14 04:06 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Cherry picking

Nope. I'm asking for peer reviewed sources to prove the blatant idiocy that you are spouting. Not such obvious things as the US dropping ATOMIC weapons on Japan or the Clinton administration sanctioning Iraq.

You're a complete tool bag.

At 6/9/14 02:32 AM, TyrionLannister wrote: Nope. I'm asking for peer reviewed sources to prove the blatant idiocy that you are spouting. Not such obvious things as the US dropping ATOMIC weapons on Japan or the Clinton administration sanctioning Iraq.

Like what? What makes the the US nuking Japan "obvious" but none of the other things are obvious, even though they have the same sources and documentation.

You'er not making any sense. you're like those nuts who read the bible...take one part as truth, other parts that don't suit your agenda are irrelevant.

You're completely and utterly insane beyond rehabilitation

At 6/9/14 10:02 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Like what? What makes the the US nuking Japan "obvious" but none of the other things are obvious, even though they have the same sources and documentation.

Except you just made several claims without providing any sources or documentation.

You're completely and utterly insane beyond rehabilitation

Is that all you've got? Tit for tat? LOL.

At 6/10/14 11:37 AM, TyrionLannister wrote: Except you just made several claims without providing any sources or documentation.

That's the point I'm making. You aren't asking for sources or documentation for dropping bombs on Japan? Probably because it's common knowledge, right? So why are you needed sources or documentation for everything else which is also common knowledge?

The only thing stupid in this thread so far is lemon, forget the south park fanboys

Libertarian =/= Conservative.
Tea Party = Conservative.

Libertarians generally believe in limited government control in specified areas.
A liberal libertarian believes the government should not regulate morality when that perceived morality does not directly affect anyone other than the individual.
A conservative libertarian believes the government should not regulate business (nor guns, haha), because free market is essentially what this country is founded and built upon.

As for South Park having a stupid fan base: Everything has a stupid fan base. I have yet to come across a fan base that does not have its fair share of silly willies. Personally, I enjoy South Park. The social commentary, along with their dedication to making fun of everything and everyone - especially the things that most pertain to themselves, appeals to me. It's a great form of comedy, in my opinion, and typically surprisingly well informed.

But hey, it's not for everyone. I understand why people may hate it, and that's fine. I just like the show.

At 6/10/14 02:26 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 6/10/14 11:37 AM, TyrionLannister wrote: Except you just made several claims without providing any sources or documentation.

That's the point I'm making. You aren't asking for sources or documentation for dropping bombs on Japan? Probably because it's common knowledge, right? So why are you needed sources or documentation for everything else which is also common knowledge?

Any claim that can be made without proof or evidence can be dismissed without proof or evidence.

"common knowledge" is not proof or evidence.

I think we can all agree on South Park being better in it's early days

The reason the fanbase is so stupid is because it is a cartoon

I love the show, but I don't believe I'm stupid.

libertarianism = hedonistic psychopath pedo druggies who arent cool enough to be apart of the crony capitalist pedo elite