Do Libertarians support pit bull and chicken fighting?

[The Rabbi]

I still don't know what a narco-libertarian is.

And I'm still waiting for some facts to back up your claim that libertarians support animal torture.

Anytime you're ready to post a link showing narco-libertarians support laws restricting animal cruelty. Just anytime.

Since there is no such thing as a "narco-libertarian", what they support is moot.

Ron Paul is just an avatar? That would explain a lot.

 

[kwc57]

Anytime you're ready to post a link showing narco-libertarians support laws restricting animal cruelty. Just anytime.

Since there is no such thing as a "narco-libertarian", what they support is moot.

Ron Paul is just an avatar? That would explain a lot.

Spanky the cat is my avatar. Try making sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

Since there is no such thing as a "narco-libertarian", what they support is moot.

Ron Paul is just an avatar? That would explain a lot.

Spanky the cat is my avatar. Try making sense.

Try reading comprehension.

 

[kwc57]

Ron Paul is just an avatar? That would explain a lot.

Spanky the cat is my avatar. Try making sense.

Try reading comprehension.

My comprehension is fine. How does your question, "Ron Paul is just an avatar?" in any way respond to my comment of, "Since there is no such thing as a "narco-libertarian", what they support is moot."?

You let your socialist/statist emotions get in your way when you view libertarianism as nothing more than an excuse for a drug free for all. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to use reason and logic instead of letting your emotions cause you to make up words.

 

[The Rabbi]

So called "Narco terrorists" or narco traffickers want to inundate this country with drugs. Narco libertarians are their convenient stooges.
Ron Paul is the patron saint of the narco libertarians. So if you want to maintain that there is no such thing as narco libertarians then you have to explain away Ron Paul's existence. Calling him an avatar would be one way and about as plausible as anything else you've posted here.
But I see that Manifold has left the conversation, unable to meet the challenge of supporting his statements.

 

[manifold]

I'm sure most of us have heard of the story of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac to appease God. And since this is all I have to go on, I'm going to have to assume that Jews indeed support killing their children as sacrificial offerings to God. That is, unless somebody can produce some factual evidence to the contrary.

Bible list of the Ten Commandments
Note Number 6.

Now, back to you. Have you found any evidence to support your position that narco-libertarians support laws regulating how private citizens treat their animals?

I see no factual evidence to suggest that Jews believe that murder = sacrificing children as an offering to God.

Back to you chumley

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm sure most of us have heard of the story of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac to appease God. And since this is all I have to go on, I'm going to have to assume that Jews indeed support killing their children as sacrificial offerings to God. That is, unless somebody can produce some factual evidence to the contrary.

Bible list of the Ten Commandments
Note Number 6.

Now, back to you. Have you found any evidence to support your position that narco-libertarians support laws regulating how private citizens treat their animals?

I see no factual evidence to suggest that Jews believe that murder = sacrificing children as an offering to God.

Back to you chumley

Well we can argue that another time. I provided evidence and you ignored it, as is your right.
But let's ask why you have failed, despite numerous requests, to support your statements. Are you incapable of it? Just say so. Everyone makes mistakes. Yours was posting here in the first place.

 

[manifold]

You're fail is ever growing...


You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence to back up your claim that libertarians support animal torture. Why is that? Are you incapable? Just say so, everyone makes mistakes. Yours was thinking your bullshit word games would work on your intellectual superior.

Game over. Please insert $0.25 if you wish to play again.

 

[Bern80]

Bible list of the Ten Commandments
Note Number 6.

Now, back to you. Have you found any evidence to support your position that narco-libertarians support laws regulating how private citizens treat their animals?

I see no factual evidence to suggest that Jews believe that murder = sacrificing children as an offering to God.

Back to you chumley

Well we can argue that another time. I provided evidence and you ignored it, as is your right.
But let's ask why you have failed, despite numerous requests, to support your statements. Are you incapable of it? Just say so. Everyone makes mistakes. Yours was posting here in the first place.

Your opinion is not evidence. But I'm guessing that you are referring to the libertarian stance that most currently illegal drugs should be made legal. Is that correct?

 

[kwc57]

So called "Narco terrorists" or narco traffickers want to inundate this country with drugs. Narco libertarians are their convenient stooges.
Ron Paul is the patron saint of the narco libertarians. So if you want to maintain that there is no such thing as narco libertarians then you have to explain away Ron Paul's existence. Calling him an avatar would be one way and about as plausible as anything else you've posted here.
But I see that Manifold has left the conversation, unable to meet the challenge of supporting his statements.

Why do you select the single term of "narco" when there are a multitude of other positions held by libertarians you could use as descriptive terms. Frre trade-libertarians. Pro-choice-libertarians, small gubmint-libertarians, low tax-libertarians. But for some reason you choose narco. hmmmm It's almost as if you have a particular axe to grind and you've chosen what you believe to be the most heinous of their libertarian positions to create a hyphenated word to use in a derisive manner. As I said earlier, wouldn't your position make you a socialist-conservative since you advocate a nanny state to control people's personal behavior? Is a socialist-conservative or statist-conservative a better animal than a narco-libertarian?

 

[The Rabbi]

You're fail is ever growing...


You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence to back up your claim that libertarians support animal torture. Why is that? Are you incapable? Just say so, everyone makes mistakes. Yours was thinking your bullshit word games would work on your intellectual superior.

Game over. Please insert $0.25 if you wish to play again.

Deflect, dissemble, repeat.
Here is evidence that narco-libertarians object to laws criminalizing torturing animals, which is what I have always maintained.
Defending the Undefendable: Michael Vick, Dog Killer by Todd Steinberg

Now that we have that out of the way, and I have provided proof for everything you've asked, maybe you can show you have more than 1 dying brain cell and bring support for your statements. This is only the fifth time or so I've asked.

 

[uscitizen]

Everything god does is proper.
First thing to learn in a religion.

Everything your religious elders does is proper.
second thing to learn in a religion.

God needs money.
Third thing to learn in a religion.

 

[manifold]

You're fail is ever growing...


You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence to back up your claim that libertarians support animal torture. Why is that? Are you incapable? Just say so, everyone makes mistakes. Yours was thinking your bullshit word games would work on your intellectual superior.

Game over. Please insert $0.25 if you wish to play again.

Deflect, dissemble, repeat.
Here is evidence that narco-libertarians object to laws criminalizing torturing animals, which is what I have always maintained.
Defending the Undefendable: Michael Vick, Dog Killer by Todd Steinberg

Now that we have that out of the way, and I have provided proof for everything you've asked, maybe you can show you have more than 1 dying brain cell and bring support for your statements. This is only the fifth time or so I've asked.

If you believe this guy represents libertarians then you probably also believe that Fred Phelps represents Christians. And that makes you a disingenuous doucher or seriously fucked in the head. Take your pick.

My support is simple logic and reasonableness, both of which you obviously lack. Libertarians believe in limited government and limited restrictrictions on individual liberty. They do not believe in no government and no restrictions. It's a matter of simple logic and reasonableness to conclude that laws against animal torture do not run afoul of libertarian ideals. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous hyperbole at best (USCitizen) and pure intellectual dishonesty at worst (You). But of course you know this so you throw out the bullshit red herring that I somehow need to validate what I know to be logical and reasonable with a written opinion of another. You fail.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're fail is ever growing...


You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence to back up your claim that libertarians support animal torture. Why is that? Are you incapable? Just say so, everyone makes mistakes. Yours was thinking your bullshit word games would work on your intellectual superior.

Game over. Please insert $0.25 if you wish to play again.

Deflect, dissemble, repeat.
Here is evidence that narco-libertarians object to laws criminalizing torturing animals, which is what I have always maintained.
Defending the Undefendable: Michael Vick, Dog Killer by Todd Steinberg

Now that we have that out of the way, and I have provided proof for everything you've asked, maybe you can show you have more than 1 dying brain cell and bring support for your statements. This is only the fifth time or so I've asked.

If you believe this guy represents libertarians then you probably also believe that Fred Phelps represents Christians. And that makes you a disingenuous doucher or seriously fucked in the head. Take your pick.

My support is simple logic and reasonableness, both of which you obviously lack. Libertarians believe in limited government and limited restrictrictions on individual liberty. They do not believe in no government and no restrictions. It's a matter of simple logic and reasonableness to conclude that laws against animal torture do not run afoul of libertarian ideals. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous hyperbole at best (USCitizen) and pure intellectual dishonesty at worst (You). But of course you know this so you throw out the bullshit red herring that I somehow need to validate what I know to be logical and reasonable with a written opinion of another. You fail.

The problem being that there are libertarians who believe in no government.

 

[manifold]

The problem being that there are libertarians who believe in no government.

Those would be anarchists, not libertarians.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're fail is ever growing...


You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence to back up your claim that libertarians support animal torture. Why is that? Are you incapable? Just say so, everyone makes mistakes. Yours was thinking your bullshit word games would work on your intellectual superior.

Game over. Please insert $0.25 if you wish to play again.

Deflect, dissemble, repeat.
Here is evidence that narco-libertarians object to laws criminalizing torturing animals, which is what I have always maintained.
Defending the Undefendable: Michael Vick, Dog Killer by Todd Steinberg

Now that we have that out of the way, and I have provided proof for everything you've asked, maybe you can show you have more than 1 dying brain cell and bring support for your statements. This is only the fifth time or so I've asked.

If you believe this guy represents libertarians then you probably also believe that Fred Phelps represents Christians. And that makes you a disingenuous doucher or seriously fucked in the head. Take your pick.

My support is simple logic and reasonableness, both of which you obviously lack. Libertarians believe in limited government and limited restrictrictions on individual liberty. They do not believe in no government and no restrictions. It's a matter of simple logic and reasonableness to conclude that laws against animal torture do not run afoul of libertarian ideals. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous hyperbole at best (USCitizen) and pure intellectual dishonesty at worst (You). But of course you know this so you throw out the bullshit red herring that I somehow need to validate what I know to be logical and reasonable with a written opinion of another. You fail.

You could have saved time and bandwidth and just admitted you cannot back up your statement with anything other than your own "feelings."
You are an intellectual fraud. You probably need to be jailed for impersonating a sentient being.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The problem being that there are libertarians who believe in no government.

Those would be anarchists, not libertarians.

They are anarchists and libertarians.

From my thread "What Is Libertarianism?"

Minarchism vs. Anarchism:
Yes, there are anarchists who are also libertarians. They are anarcho-capitalists, who believe that a government is unnecessary because the free market can supply anything that the government can for less money, more efficiently, and without aggressing against the rights of the citizens.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/117696-what-is-libertarianism.html

Furthermore, Mr. Libertarian, Murray Rothbard, was the originator of anarcho-capitalism.

Murray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995) was an American intellectual, individualist anarchist,[1] author, and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism and popularized a form of free-market anarchism he termed "anarcho-capitalism".

Murray Rothbard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like it or not, there are libertarians who are anarchists.

 

[Ravi]

So Kev, do you agree there are narco-Libertarians (not sure really what that means)? But good for you for pointing out that all Libertarians aren't the same.

 

[Anguille]

I'm beginning to support putting you dimwits in a cage and letting you tear each other to shreds while I sell tickets.

STFU already.

All they would do is cluck louder and lay more eggs.

 

[JWBooth]

You probably need to be jailed for impersonating a sentient being.