Wingnuts over America

By -
The insane Washington Times blames our withdrawal from Iraq for leaving the "door open to [a] sectarian battle for power."

Right. It wasn't invading the country and toppling the government that opened that door, it was withdrawing when we agreed to withdraw.

Comments

  1. Ken B10:09 AM

    When my house collapsed it wasn't because I took down a supporting beam, it was because I replaced the old beam 10 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:54 AM

      What a moronic comment, Ken. The US never replaced the beam, it just yanked out the old one. (Yes, it *tried* to replace it, but never did it establish a government that could rule the country.) Iraq's civil society collapsed as soon as Saddam was deposed, and has never recovered since. What is your solution: that we should not have withdrawn our troops ON THE TIMETABLE AGREED TO BY GEORGE BUSH and instead kept them there, against the wishes of our "allied" government... what, forever?

      The failure was OBVIOUSLY yanking the beam with no good plan about what to do afterwards. Other than making Iraq a colony and ruling it with an even more brutal regime than Saddam's, all of this was the inevitable consequence of BUSH's decision.

      Delete
    2. Bob Murphy12:55 PM

      What a moronic comment, Ken.

      Depends how we define "moronic."

      Delete
    3. Anonymous9:10 PM

      I think that he might've been referring to Moros, the Greek spirit of impending doom. Or perhaps Moron, the Jaredite King from the Book of Ether.

      Delete
    4. Wabulon7:11 PM

      Excellent!

      Delete
  2. Unknown1:12 PM

    My house collapsed because when i fired a rocket launcher at my neighbours house it backfired

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more