Unless you always wear full body armor, all he needs is a .22 and good aim.

Sweetie.

im not a libertarian, but i do get tired of these ignorant /.'ers trying to tell libertarians what they believe.

No True Libertarian would put up with such nonsense, either.

There's no right answer here.

You're more likely to be killed by you fucking living room couch falling on you than from a terrorist attack. The "right answer" is to stop cowering under your bed any time a corrupt authoritarian yells "Boo", whichever party he's from.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/

He's a hardcore winger authoritarian. And when he's not, he's busy making excuses for immigrants from Russia in 1990 having a greater right to land in the West Bank than the families that have been living their since 1390.

Since business interests offloaded the costs of on-the-job training or master/apprentice programs onto the taxpayer via "higher education". And offloaded much of their recruiting and HR costs via internships that pay little to no money.

and the "higher education" system is not setup for that.

They are when four year degrees are the new high school diploma when it comes to job applications.

The risk of a trial outweighs any possible lesson teaching.

Risk? The only official to go to jail for the Bushco torture program wasn't one of it's operators, but one of the whisteblowers who revealed it. The CinC engaged in unlawful command influence by declaring Manning guilty, but the private remains under prosecution.

Obama has prosecuted more whisteblowers than all previous presidents combined, times two. What's one more?

That's why you don't have to pay them - because they show up primarily for their own benefit and provide few, if any, benefits to the host organization.

Few benefits? Other than cutting their recruiting and HR costs by running potential employees through their doors without having to hire them first. Other than offloading most of their on-the-job training and apprenticeships onto the taxpayer and prospective employee via higher education in the first place.

Corporations. Are they not merciful?

Corporations exist solely by virtue of Nanny State interference in the operations of the Free Market.

Because for-profit ventures didn't exist before or independently of central governments looooong before Randians existed. Because Standard Oil wasn't an abuse monopoly during the Randian Golden Age of post Civil War to WWI. Because Monsanto and Lockheed Martin would fold up shop tomorrow if everyone went Galt and world governments disappeared.

Because you guys are freaking Loony Tunes.

Also, when was an internship ever about credits rather than getting your foot in the door?

Since business interests offloaded the costs of on-the-job training or master/apprentice programs onto the taxpayer via "higher education". And offloaded much of their recruiting and HR costs via internships that pay little to no money.

Money isn't everything, but I'm constantly amazed by folks who don't really consider employment for the rest of their lives.

I'm amazed at people who aren't aware that the real unemployment rate has been 14% for years, or that college costs have gone through the roof compared to just ten years ago.

So, now kids have to take on five figure student loan debt AND work for free their first year out of school. Nice game, if you can afford it.

once again i almost agreed with you. then, once again, you had to throw in antoher ignorant libertarian remark.

Scotsmen aint got nothin on True Libertarians....

Well, I am sure that if I dig deep enough, I will find the same with your ancestors, no matter of your country of origin.

As for yours. But I'm not claiming that because the Mongols burned down my family's hut in 1235 AD, that that entitles me to seize your land and possessions almost a thousand years later.

When you aren't even descended from Mongols.

What you depict doesn't remotely resemble genocide, which was the topic.

Which is historical revisionism, i.e. lying.

Similar to the announced intention of the invading Arab armies in 1948. See this A bomb in the King David hotel compared to the mass murder of 6 million people? You don't really seem to have a sense of proportion, which might explain a lot.

Hey! Ford! Up here! (snaps fingers)

You're so far off the rails here that you can't even kept your canards separate and fly off into Godwin territory. But since you went there, isn't it just precious how the same Zionists that would lose their shit if anyone comes within a mile of Holocaust denial turn on a dime and deny the massacres and terrorist attacks of the likes of the Irgun. Which, as you know perfectly well, was the reason why your "Arab armies" invaded after the immigrants laid claim to other people's land. Not genocidal antisemitism.

Jewish immigrants that bought land, even the worst land that nobody else wanted, and made it productive.

Which entitles them to seize their neighbors lands, how exactly? So we should go ahead and give the worst land around Tel Aviv to the Romani, who were butchered by the Nazis with same enthusiasm they had for the Jews, so they can have a homeland of their own. Then, after a few thousand of them have immigrated, they up and lay claim to 75% of Israel.

You also neglect to mention the large numbers of Arabs that immigrated there as well, especially as the Jewish population began improving the economy.

You neglected to mention that those Arabs didn't turn around and lay claim to everyone else's land in the name of Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, or Morder, etc. And hey, Bobby Jindal's parents are from India, therefore the Trail of Tears is just a conspiracy theory! It's all the same ad hoc bullshit.

You seem to be making it your mission in life to remove whatever fig leaf of respectability "anti-Zionism" has and fully merging it with anti-Semitism.

Ah, the last resort of the Zionist shitbag: accuse anyone who questions Israel of antisemitism. If it's not the first result, anyway. Nice try, but you already know that little lie isn't going to fly. Dispossession and abuse were bullshit when it was being done to the Jews, and it's bullshit when Zionists do it to Arabs.

You're standing in the same company as the Inquisition that stole land and property from Jews, and the Popes that forced Jews into ghettos for hundreds of years. But now it's your turn and anyone that gets in your way can go fuck themselves.

Apparently it's not impossible because that's what happened.

In some alternate universe where Jews made up 90% of the area's population in 1900, rather than less than 10%? Where the Jews in 1948 (still a small minority) weren't just off the boat from Europe? Where Israel became a Jewish state by majority vote, including Palestinians, rather than via a war of conquest?

The formation of Israel was no more possible without land theft and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians than the formation of the United States was possible without land theft and ethnic cleansing from the Native Americans.

If Native Americans were regularly engaging in terrorism and justifying it based on some "stolen land" argument, I suspect a lot of people would be yelling at them.

WHOOSH. Of course every single attack from Native American's would have been called "terrorist attacks", if they used the same language then that we do now. But then as now, the occupiers cannot whine when the victims of land theft and systematic oppression dare to fight back.

Guess what, someone isn't a terrorist depending on whether you agree with their goals, they're a terrorist based on what they do. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.

Then the United States is the greatest terrorist state on the planet, followed by Israel.

Haha, I actually agree with that.

Oh, I doubt that.

So now that the Jews control the land, it's bullshit for the Palestinians to have a sense of entitlement to it.

So it was bullshit for Jews to go after Swiss banks and Nazi guards for actions that happened before the formation of Israel, much less the 1967 war? Or are you going for some "arbitrary time limit"?

Historical ignorance at its finest.

Halfwitted wishful thinking at it's poorest.

Yet on the 15th May â" Israel's Day of Independence â" Nasser announced a military emergency and started to sent the first two armored divisions into Sinai.

Hey, look, you left out the part where Israel lied about being attacked first.

By the 17th, Egypt ordered its armed forces to take up battle positions in Sinai.

Because Israel, the most powerful and belligerent military force in the region, has never moved troops or weapons in preparation of possible war with it's neighbors or made threats to do so. Like it's been doing to Iran, over the nuclear weapons program that Israel admits that Iran doesn't actually have.

But even buying your selective timeline, nothing changes the fact that Israel struck first, which means Israel started the war.

Oh, and then there's the almost inconsequential fact that Israelis admit they didn't expect to be attacked by Israel, making the whole operation a land-grabbing war of choice for Israel. Whoopsie doopsie.

Now you can stick that in your ignorant pipe and smoke it.