A funny? It's funny you put Bush in a skirt. It's funny that you choose to hide behind the skirts of female troops doing your fighting for you in two wars.

What are you reffering to with this remark ?

"It's funny that you posted an opinion without any fore thought and then tried to weasle out of being shown the error of your thinking with innuendos you can't support."

Your diversionary tactic/comment of me hiding behind a skirt was to avoid acknowledging my challenge to your above statement.

"would probably work out" tells me you put little thought into your statement.

Having "land barons" control large tracts of land and water would be a huge mistake, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you were trying to deflect deserved criticism.

I guess I may have went a little too quickly there.....


In our discussion of a Libertarian society I thought we were assuming private ownership of pretty much everything, and I think people with similar interests would join together to make whatever impact they desire.........

I think you are saying that all the bad people will buy all the good stuff that you want, and leave you with no President to condemn for it.......

In our imaginary Libertarian society supply and demand economics will really be powerfull....no Uncle Sugar interfering with those pesky subsidies and lucrative contracts, so a large group of motivated citizens will swing a bigger hammer......

Sure, timber companies will still manage their land in the interest of sustained yield, instead of trying to grow 600 year old forests.......

There will still be millions of people who want millions of acres of land set aside untouched by mankind...........

If a particular company goes bad, then consumers will avoid their product until they get the message........

I may have a little more faith in mankind's ability to think than you, but I only expect that under a completely different government, the way things are now, thinking isn't necessary, Uncle Sugar likes dummies, and hands out the cash to keep them alive and lazy.

You did because you are posting from the perspective of a theoretical situation that does not, and will not ever exist.

I'm posting from the prospective of having knowledge of situations and acts that have already occured.

People with similar interests like fishing? Since when have fishermen joined together to make any impact other than harvesting? Damned few of them do anything positive to save what they supposedly love. Been there. Have the Tshirt.

I am saying that only the people who can afford to participate in aquisitions will be the ones with access. Your comment about condemning a president is out in left field along with the rest of your silly assumptions. This and past presidents have almost no impact in this scenario.

You probably ought to give up your attempt at making this a partisan argument.

Right now, it looks like "Muslims" have the biggest hammer. The coporate whores will vaporize them before allowing them to be in charge.

In theory, they won't HAVE any land. Richer interests would have pooled their resources to "save and protect" forests. Till they need money for more aquisitions to save. Then, they'll strip it bare.

And they will be able to wish in one hand and sh!t in the other to see which gets full faster. It won't be untouched. The rich will have their finger prints all over it.

You really need to get out more. :rolleyes:

Faith? That isn't faith. It's wishful thinking based on your youthful inexperience.