Libertarian RMB

WA Delegate: The Amerikanisches Reich of ThinkPads (elected )

Founder: Whipjangle

BoardActivity History Admin

World Factbook Entry

Visit a region where you can gain the benefit of a small group of like minded players, but with no other restrictions, where your rights end at the tip of the other guy's nose and where smaller government is better government, and no government may be best of all.


Embassies: Red Army of the USSR, Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, USSF, The Red Fleet, Benevolent Capitalism, Libertarian Capitalist Zone 716, The Mystical Council, Peoples Federation of Qandaristan, Dill Country, Neoreaction, The Jedi Council, and ACA.

Tags: Social, Casual, Featured, Password, Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Medium, Founderless, and Serious.

Regional Power: Moderate

Libertarian contains 13 nations, the 1,029th most in the world.

Password required

Today's World Census Report

The Safest in libertarian

The World Census ranked nations on a variety of scales to produce an indication of how safe a country is to visit.

As a region, libertarian is ranked 18,030th in the world for Safest.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
Page:  «  1  2  »

Regional Happenings

More...

Libertarian Regional Message Board

Post self-deleted by Milton Hayek.

The Empire of Snifkowoland wrote:
They is no universal God-given right to immigrate to America.


The Pilgrim Fathers thought differently, and the rest as they say is American history, filled with the stories of those who flee tyranny for a better life.

So a handful of whackos go on a shoot-'em-up and you want to ban an entire people on the basis of their religion? That's not caution, that's fear, and one founded on bigotry.

The rest of your post is the usual inane ranting favouring authoritarianism and totalitarianism, favouring discrimination on the basis of what religion you are by big government, this time with the added ingredient of claiming people should be able to defend themselves when the big government you favor would not allow the notion of individual self-defence.

You're a fascist to the bone, my boy, and a very tiresome, contradictory and petulant one at that who seems to find me personally somebody you want to fight all the time every time I post because I called you out for it way back.

Come back to me when you've grown the hell up.

The Night-Watchman State of Milton Hayek wrote:The Pilgrim Fathers thought differently, and the rest as they say is American history, filled with the stories of those who flee tyranny for a better life.

Oh, yes, the pilgrim argument. Their right to immigrate to America worked out great for native americans, didn't it? If natives knew what white-faces had in store for them, they'd let them starve in winter, and then fill the remaining survivors with arrows. Luckily, modern nations have gentler option of securing borders, and expelling illegal aliens back to their home countries.

The Night-Watchman State of Milton Hayek wrote:So a handful of whackos go on a shoot-'em-up and you want to ban an entire people on the basis of their religion? That's not caution, that's fear, and one founded on bigotry.

You didn't answer me. Are women in Cologne racist, paranoid bigots for being cautious of brown muslim men?
Would you rent room in your house to a muslim man you don't know? Do you expect German taxpayers to be forced at gunpoint to pay for "refugees" welfare? Because German government is not funding "refugees" with voluntary donations. Every refuge that enters that country is financed by non-voluntary means. Do Germans being subjected that that governmental violence is justified in the name of tolerance to muslim? Now, of course, denying welfare to non-citizens would stop like 90% of "refugees". Even better would be to get rid of welfare altogether, but Germans won't do that. Do you think its racist to deny welfare from people who aren't citizens of that country?

The Night-Watchman State of Milton Hayek wrote:The rest of your post is the usual inane ranting favouring authoritarianism and totalitarianism, favouring discrimination on the basis of what religion you are by big government, this time with the added ingredient of claiming people should be able to defend themselves when the big government you favor would not allow the notion of individual self-defence.

When did I say that I favour that big government? I'd prefer if Nazi Germany released prisoners from their concentration camps, but if that was impossible to convince them to do, I'd prefer they'd at least feed and clothe those prisoners.
Would you please specify, when did I favoured totalitarianism in "rest of that post"? Because I said America should secure its borders, there is no other policy I advocated in it.

The Night-Watchman State of Milton Hayek wrote:You're a fascist to the bone

[sarcasm]Snifkowoland, you fascist, structurally privileged, cisgendered, homophobic, queer-bashing, racist jerk![/sarcasm] When your accusation could be replaced with "you heretic" without losing any substance, you are just attacking ad hominem. Also, I'd rather be called fascist than be a traitor who wants his neighbours terrorized by Muslim mobs.

The Night-Watchman State of Milton Hayek wrote:my boy

[sarcasm]*Gasp!* He used insult with racial background! Burn the fascist witch![/sarcasm]

The Night-Watchman State of Milton Hayek wrote:and a very tiresome, contradictory and petulant one at that who seems to find me personally somebody you want to fight all the time every time I post because I called you out for it way back.

Social Justice Warriors always project. I have no personal beef with you, I just realise that those who enable and support immigration of people who will vote for more welfare, contribute to destruction of liberty. Do you really believe that people who consistently, in high proportions support introduction of sharia law, in fact, often do introduce it and enforce it in their neighbourhoods, will not harm cause of liberty in nations they immigrate to? Because I oppose that insanity, whomever preaches it.

The Night-Watchman State of Milton Hayek wrote:Come back to me when you've grown the hell up.

I sometimes do requests, but when they are followed by kind word, not insults.

It will be between Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

Do people want bigger government and 1930s style trade wars (Herbert "The Forgotten Progressive" Hoover as well as Donald Trump) or do they want smaller government - Ted Cruz.

As for illegal immigration.

To anyone who thinks that Donald Trump is sincere on illegal immigration - I have a nice bridge to sell you.

Milton Hayek

By the way the United States had a basically open border to the south for a century without mass immigration from Latin America.

The mass immigration from Latin America started when the government started to hand out FREE STUFF (Food Stamps, "emergency" health care and on and on).

The southern border is over a thousand miles long - even the Soviets would have problems preventing people crossing a border like that.

The key is to roll back the hand out of FREE STUFF.

And Donald Trump (like the late Juan Peron in Argentina) is a classic FREE STUFF candidate - he is not going to roll anything back (not even a bit).

On the contrary it will be more FREE STUFF for everyone under him.

As the Republic (like Rome before it) collapses.

Milton Hayek

This not about small government anymore, it might be too late for that. If I was American voter, I'd settle for candidate who doesn't actively want to destroy white Americans.

If Cruz manages to slash federal govt after getting elected, good for him, and good for America. I'd be genuinely happy for them to be proven wrong about Cruz.
But if Cruz is serious about getting elected, he needs to do something about his supposed ineligibility.
The way I see it, if his mother was US citizen, he is natural born citizen of US. Good enough for me. But not good enough for Americans. It might cost him election, unless he gets some sort of legally binding supreme court ruling that he is natural born citizen, or it WILL haunt him. Was Trump harsh on Cruz regarding eligibility? Well, Democrats are gonna be harsher.

If Cruz tries to slim down govt, unelected bureaucracy will do "damage control" (damage being Cruz getting elected), and stop him.
Cruz is not more likely to slim down government than Trump is to close borders and expell illegals. Trump is tricky enough to be able to go around unelected bureaucracy. The moment Cruz decides he'll play even remotely by the rules, it'll be the moment he lost.

One thing that does work for Cruz, in my mind, was that even if he was for a moment supported by establishment against Trump, they dropped him pretty quickly in favour of Marco Rubio when it looked like Rubio might have a chance. That implies THEY do see him as genuine threat. Of course, they see Trump as number one enemy, and because of that I cannot help but see him in even better light.

If it comes down to Cruz vs Trump in final round of primaries, shouldn't we be more suspicious of whomever establishment favours for nomination?

You whine about being called a fascist, and then this:

The Empire of Snifkowoland wrote:When did I say that I favour that big government? I'd prefer if Nazi Germany released prisoners from their concentration camps, but if that was impossible to convince them to do, I'd prefer they'd at least feed and clothe those prisoners.


Case closed. You don't oppose the people being in the concentration camp even though they weren't criminals but innocent Jews, but think they should have been fed and clothed better.

The ad hominem started with you about me some time ago. Don't like it? Then don't serve it.

The Empire of Snifkowoland wrote:I sometimes do requests, but when they are followed by kind word, not insults.


Oblivious hypocrite.

The rest of your post is the usual froth at the mouth ravings using a series of incidents in one night in one area of one town in one country to justify your authoritarian/totalitarian, racist-hinting tendencies.

I've called you out for it some time ago, and you resent it, deny it, then make more posts merely vindicating my argument.

Keep ranting if it makes you feel better, but I won't be listening or reading.

The Confederation of Paul Marks wrote:By the way the United States had a basically open border to the south for a century without mass immigration from Latin America.
The mass immigration from Latin America started when the government started to hand out FREE STUFF (Food Stamps, "emergency" health care and on and on).
The southern border is over a thousand miles long - even the Soviets would have problems preventing people crossing a border like that.
The key is to roll back the hand out of FREE STUFF.
And Donald Trump (like the late Juan Peron in Argentina) is a classic FREE STUFF candidate - he is not going to roll anything back (not even a bit).
On the contrary it will be more FREE STUFF for everyone under him.
As the Republic (like Rome before it) collapses.


Excellent post.

The Night-Watchman State of Milton Hayek wrote:Case closed. You don't oppose the people being in the concentration camp even though they weren't criminals but innocent Jews, but think they should have been fed and clothed better.

There were more victims than just Jews. 5.93 million Jews and and least as much gentiles. Red cross and other charities can, and did send prisoners some packages with food, clothes, medicine, etc. Did they supported concentration camps, because they wanted prisoners to at very least be treated better?

You continue to interpret everything I say in most insane way possible. You are incapable of assuming than your opponent might make hold certain beliefs differing from yours with best intentions in mind, everyone but you must be stark-raving murderous lunatic, or your narrow world-view would collapse: "Could it mean I am not misunderstood champion of truth and justice? Nah, I'll just call everyone else names."
I specifically, at the start, said that my first choice would be if there was no concentration camps in the first place. You then openly lie, with evidence right in front of everyone's eyes, about me supporting them. I baited you into doing it, because I suspected you'd do it. And you did.

And you keep making accusations without refuting any of my points, seemingly they don't count because it was I who said them.

If I judged you by the same insane standards you judge me, I'd assume that since you object to expulsion of refugees from Germany, you support German women being raped. I could also assume that you support German and American welfare state, since you support mass immigration of peoples who will vote for more welfare. But I am not gonna make assumption like that. Because I am not "everyone but me is Hitler" insane.

The Night-Watchman State of Milton Hayek wrote:racist-hinting tendencies

Racist hinting? I beg your pardon, there was no hinting, I am racist. Why aren't you? Are IQ tests racist? Are French hospitals racist for administering test for sickle-cell anaemia only to black babies, and no white ones? (Because whites don't get it)

The Night-Watchman State of Milton Hayek wrote:fascist

No a fascist. Modern neo-nazis are dumb larpers, holocaust deniers are idiots who can't count to three, or they'd notice that there was millions of Jews before the war, and there weren't that many after it, anti-semites apparently think Jews have mind control beams they use to brainwash innocent gentiles. Fascist is merely progressive from 1930s, I am reactionary, and for someone like you, that is much worse.

If you are incapable of refuting arguments, and keep lying outright, I have nothing more to say to you.

The Empire of Snifkowoland wrote:If you are incapable of refuting arguments.


Your ravings don't constitute an argument, your ravings are your ravings, and yours alone.

The Empire of Snifkowoland wrote:and keep lying outright


You are still happy to tolerate the existence of concentration camps:

The Empire of Snifkowoland wrote:
I'd prefer if Nazi Germany released prisoners from their concentration camps, but if that was impossible to convince them to do, I'd prefer they'd at least feed and clothe those prisoners.


So where is the lie?

The Empire of Snifkowoland wrote:I have nothing more to say to you.


I'm happy to hear it, and you should stick to it.

You never have anything to say to me or anyone anyway but self-justification for why totalitarian/authoritarian is best in a region founded on libertarian values and then gets very angry when people disagree with you.

Very strange behavior.

You're an attention-seeker who evidently has run out of friends to rant at and so seeks to do so to a bunch of strangers on the internet who you knew may find your views unpalatable if you managed for one minute to stop ranting, that is.

Kindly let the grown-ups have the regional message board back and stop filling it with your babbling unless you somehow miraculously have something intelligent to say.

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics