Miles Dyson

Question for libertarian Trump supporters:

Since when is a torture-loving, pro-NSA, pro-Patriot Act candidate worthy of the libertarian vote?

Satan could be used to describe the personality or role of an anonymous tempter, or a manifestation of Jesus' own conscience, or simply a personification of "worldly temptation" altogether. Lucifer, however, has nothing to do with hell, the devil, or the Temptation of Christ. According to the Latin Vulgate, 'lucifer' is just another word for the "bright, morning star" Venus.

Commies are too broke to leave the states! Dump Trump. He's a torture-loving, billionaire celebrity, NSA apologist. Screw that guy.

'Lucifer', a Latin word meaning 'light' or 'light-bearer', is St. Jerome's own rendering of the Hebrew word 'heylel'; which only appears once in the Old Testament. Nowhere, other than the Book of Isaiah, is 'lucifer' ever mentioned. To Jerome, 'lucifer' was analogous to the planet Venus (i.e. the morning star). The Bible never mentioned anything about lucifer being a fallen angel who attempted overthrow God. That is BS made up by contemporary Christians! 'Satan' derives from the Hebrew word (not name) Ha-Satan, which is a title meaning 'accuser' or 'opposer'. Ergo, neither lucifer or satan refer to actual (or even fictional) beings; but rather objects or titles. According to the Gospels, God is "all, and in all"; therefore, everything from the 'good' to the 'bad' is a function of the supreme creator.

"Policy" = state intervention; no matter what form it takes. Thats where you're mistaking my position. I'm not advocating any kind of policy, just voluntary action if necessary; something that should only be carried out under extreme circumstances. I agree, some so-called "freedom fighters" are fanatical; but those are not the type of freedom fighters I am talking about. How could you possibly "apply my beliefs across the board" when you don't even know what my beliefs are? I reiterate, you're making a straw man argument. You have this image in your head of "what I believe", which is not founded in anything that I have actually said. Do you understand? You don't know what I believe, so stop assuming that you do.

Sometimes you gotta drop some history lessons on these fools that don't know the difference.

No amount of media manipulation could possibly convince me that the situation in the Middle East is even remotely close to the Spanish Civil War of 1936. Even if I happened to be susceptible to such manipulation, which I'm not, there is no way in hell the mainstream media could package the clusterf--ked Syrian Civil War as being a cut-and-dry, black-and-white, good vs evil scenario. Not even Faux News is that good. If there was a consensus that Syria had had a prosperous secular democracy for several years, and there was a massive libertarian following in the region, and suddenly ISIS popped out of the woodwork and tried to lead a coup against the government, to install an Islamist totalitarian dictatorship in the Levant, then maybe I would support foreign volunteers aiding in protecting that democracy. Obviously, that is not the case in the Middle East. Both it's established government, and its warring rebel factions, are fundamentalist and authoritarian. So, again, you're just shadowboxing invisible opponents in this ridiculous tirade of yours. Obviously, you care way more about FSA and the Syrian Civil War than I do. Maybe you should join. And no, the U.S. government officially declaring Syria a democracy is not sufficient evidence for me to back them in a civil war. I don't trust our government, anymore than I trust our media or the Syrian government. Clearly, you have some deep-seated nationalistic sentiments; something I do not subscribe to.

That is not at all what I stand for. This is whats known as a straw man fallacy. You're trying to refute a position that I have not taken. I have never supported FSA or ISIS, nor would I condone military intervention in the Middle East, or volunteers from the West joining a never-ending feud amongst competing Islamist factions; in a region that has been torn apart by religious war for centuries. The International Brigades was a specific movement, under very specific circumstances, that are, in no way, even remotely related to, or applicable to, the Syrian Civil War. If you knew the first thing about my position, you wouldn't categorize me as a moderate; or make a straw man argument implying that I support FSA, ISIS, or military intervention in the Middle East. You obviously know nothing about my political views. In other words, you're debating an imaginary opponent. The International Brigades was an alliance of anarchists, social democrats, classical liberals, and marxists who heeded the call of a nation who was trying to protect their young republic from becoming a totalitarian dictatorship; under the rule of a ruthless military tyrant, who was trying to lead a coup against the democratically elected government. The vanguard of this revolution against fascism just happened to be an anarchist labor union, the largest union in Spain at the time, which was also experimenting with genuine direct democracy throughout major parts of Spain. Is that what is going on in Syria? NO. Then why the f--k would I support either side of that ridiculous war? I'm an anarchist. Which makes me way less moderate than you. Unlike most people in these forums, I don't vote for anyone, let alone war profiteers.

Dude, do a little research on the International Brigades and the Spanish Civil War for crying out loud. The situation in Spain was WAY different than the current situation in Syria. Comparing the two would be like comparing the American Civil War to the Russian Civil War. Apples and oranges. Yes, they're both Civil Wars, but they were fought under completely different circumstances. George Orwell was a member of the International Brigades. "Halfway stance"? Dude, give me a break. I've been a community organizer, union organizer, and a social activist for well over a decade. I've participated in just about every form of non-violent direct action there is. What have you done?

Do you keep up with DC tv? They just introduced Vixen on Arrow, and had a one-arm, old man Oliver Queen on Legends of Tomorrow; just like he was in The Dark Knight Returns comic/animated movies. They're also doing a Flash crossover on Supergirl soon; bringing Supergirl into the Arrowverse. Thats five live action tv shows (Flash, Arrow, Supergirl, Constantine, and Legends of Tomorrow) and one animated miniseries (Vixen) that all share continuity. Even if it is a multiverse, its still pretty cool. Not as cool as the MCU, but still, not bad. If they could find some way to tie it's multiverse in with the new DC expanded movie-verse, that would be even better. Either way, DC needs to step it up a notch if they're going to compete with Marvel.

Whatever subjective satisfaction a volunteer worker in the developing world gains from aiding those who are less-fortunate is inconsequential. Whether it is a purely altruistic act, or simply an act to boost one's own ego, it doesn't matter. The act itself remains unchanged. Every choice has a value that is subjective to the chooser. As long as the opportunity cost of non-profit work is considered by some to be lower than the potential emotional benefit that one can gain from doing the same, then there will always be people who do that kind of work. How many times do I have to repeat that I am an anti-authoritarian? Why on Earth would I support Westerners joining the Islamic State? The insinuation is ludicrous; not to mention, straw-man bs. According to U.S. military officials, nearly 50% of the FSA membership is comprised of Islamist extremists; and some journalists cast doubts towards its actual existence, claiming that it "only exists in name". So again… NO. Not everyone is as cynical and Malthusian as you. I agree; which is why I'm a radical, not a progressive or a conservative. My immediate enemy is the American corporate state; not Kim Jong-un or ISIS. That wouldn't stop me from showing solidarity to others around the world facing similar oppression. Thats my choice. No one is forcing you to do the same.

Democrats and American progressives are not socialist. They support New Deal style social reform; not public ownership of, and democratic control over, the means of production. They are, at best, social democrats; not socialists. The term 'libertarian' was first used, in political context, by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque, in a letter written to the first self-proclaimed anarchist Pierre Proudhon in 1857; wherein Dejacque criticized Proudhon's individualism, and used 'libertarian' to distinguish himself from mutualists. It then became a synonym for social anarchism all throughout Europe, and even spread to the U.S., long before classical liberals adopted the term with the founding of the Libertarian Party in 1971. To early anarchists who popularized the term, libertarianism and socialism were inseparable. The terms 'left' and 'right' derive from the French Revolution; wherein those who supported the old aristocracy sat to the right of the Estates-General, while those who represented the republic (classical liberals, social democrats, socialists, and even some anarchists) sat to the left. So, technically speaking, just about every liberal-minded person is 'left' by French Revolution standards, including paleoconservatives.