What are libertarians?

[kaz]

Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.

LOL, a lecture on honesty from the guy who denies what you post even when given the post you said it...

 

[kaz]

Take the freaking blinders off Foxy. I came in and got attacked by the OP

LOL, liar

 

[Pogo]

Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.

LOL, a lecture on honesty from the guy who denies what you post even when given the post you said it...

The offer doesn't close; you're still free to demonstrate where it is. But you do by now owe an explanation of what took so long.

But you won't do it because you don't have the backbone. You'll just continue the meme as if it's real.
Burden of proof: you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let me tell you a little secret, little man. There is no social security trust fund. Government is lying to you. They tax it and spend it. They save nothing.

Really? Who raided the trust fund?

The politicians you worship did. And you continue to carry their water anyway. You're a fool of the highest order.

NO, politicians I loathe did...laissez-faire welfare queen Ronald Reagan and laissez-faire Alan Greenspan raided the trust fund.

How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People

Wow, you really are that stupid. Look man, no offense to your obvious prowess at playground insults, but I don't care that you think I'm a Republican. It just keeps reminding me how stupid you are. That's why I just have fun with you.

Tell me again how liberals are the intelligent ones who aren't all black and white like the Republicans are. What a tool of Democrats you are. BTW, Reagan certainly deserves no credit for creating an actual trust fund, but there hasn't been one since the sixties.

I really don't care how often you squeal like a little girl. Many of your beliefs are FAR right.

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

It still would be if more here, mostly those on the left though there are some exceptions, were capable of discussing the concept instead of making everything personal. But then I have long accused most on the left of being incapable of focusing on and discussing a concept. They will invariably accuse those they disagree with or who they do not wish to disbelieve or accuse or blame somebody in history or throw in whatever non sequitur, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem because that is the only way they know to discuss/debate. They don't care how badly the thread is derailed or disrupted. They know no other way.

Perhaps that is why they are leftists? Because they are incapable of understanding a theory or concept? I don't know. But it sucks.

Kaz offered us an excellent topic and it was almost immediately derailed by those who refused to understand or consider the concept but who wanted to make it a dual of definitions or semantics or return to the blame game which is all that they know. It is sad.

I wish there were more who were trained in or capable of critical thought who could discuss concepts. It would make the board so much more interesting and satisfying. Libertarianism is a fascinating subject to me. But I've pretty well given up on being able to discuss it here.

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

It has been suggested that the children should take care of their parents. What if they didn't have children??

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

The MAJOR problem I have with you folks on the right is you are totally driven by ideology without any humanity, empathy or understanding of human existence.

 

[kaz]

Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.

LOL, a lecture on honesty from the guy who denies what you post even when given the post you said it...

The offer doesn't close; you're still free to demonstrate where it is. But you do by now owe an explanation of what took so long.

But you won't do it because you don't have the backbone. You'll just continue the meme as if it's real.
Burden of proof: you.

I already gave it to you, I've given it to you in multiple discussions in multiple threads, including this one. Hence my statement in red.

 

[kaz]

I really don't care how often you squeal like a little girl

I'm sorry I made you cry man, here's a tissue. It's just a discussion. Breathe in breathe out, there you go. Try to keep it together. Ooops, another tear, got it, I wiped it off for you. Can you at some point grow a pair gay boy and focus on the discussion instead of bringing all the girl emotional crap into it? Not going to happen, is it ******?

I really don't care how often you squeal like a little girl. Many of your beliefs are FAR right.

No shit dick tracy. Hence my mocking you for being black and white. You keep calling me a right winger, and you brought in Reagan as if I'm a Republican. It is that I am mocking you for. If you call me a fiscal conservative then you're accurate. Keep proving what a moron you are or address my actual views. I don't care, the choice is yours. And for God sakes, grow a pair.

 

[Pogo]

Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.

LOL, a lecture on honesty from the guy who denies what you post even when given the post you said it...

The offer doesn't close; you're still free to demonstrate where it is. But you do by now owe an explanation of what took so long.

But you won't do it because you don't have the backbone. You'll just continue the meme as if it's real.
Burden of proof: you.

I already gave it to you, I've given it to you in multiple discussions in multiple threads, including this one. Hence my statement in red.

Those are MY words in red, not yours. And they stand unmolested. You make claims about me you can't demonstrate, and that makes you --- a liar. Not that complex.

 

[kaz]

Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.

LOL, a lecture on honesty from the guy who denies what you post even when given the post you said it...

The offer doesn't close; you're still free to demonstrate where it is. But you do by now owe an explanation of what took so long.

But you won't do it because you don't have the backbone. You'll just continue the meme as if it's real.
Burden of proof: you.

To quote the sage bripat, I don't take instructions from imbeciles. I've shown you the quote repeatedly, I won't do it every time you ask me to do it again and ignore that I did when I do.

 

[kaz]

Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.

LOL, a lecture on honesty from the guy who denies what you post even when given the post you said it...

The offer doesn't close; you're still free to demonstrate where it is. But you do by now owe an explanation of what took so long.

But you won't do it because you don't have the backbone. You'll just continue the meme as if it's real.
Burden of proof: you.

I already gave it to you, I've given it to you in multiple discussions in multiple threads, including this one. Hence my statement in red.

Those are MY words in red, not yours. And they stand unmolested. You make claims about me you can't demonstrate, and that makes you --- a liar. Not that complex.

Sorry on the quote, highlighted the wrong part. As for your juvenile taunting, whatever, *****.

 

[bripat9643]

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

I've never seen him post anything even remotely racist. I suppose you have some evidence to support this accusation?

BTW, Lincoln was a white supremecist.

Why don't you ask Rikurzhen.

THIS Abe Lincoln?

In 1863, the black activist Frederick Douglass visited the White House to discuss the treatment of black Union soldiers. ''I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,'' wrote Douglass, who praised the president's ''entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.'' Lincoln was the first prominent white American ''who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.'' ref

Yes, that Abe Lincoln. The same one who said the following:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

 

[Pogo]

Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.

LOL, a lecture on honesty from the guy who denies what you post even when given the post you said it...

The offer doesn't close; you're still free to demonstrate where it is. But you do by now owe an explanation of what took so long.

But you won't do it because you don't have the backbone. You'll just continue the meme as if it's real.
Burden of proof: you.

I already gave it to you, I've given it to you in multiple discussions in multiple threads, including this one. Hence my statement in red.

Those are MY words in red, not yours. And they stand unmolested. You make claims about me you can't demonstrate, and that makes you --- a liar. Not that complex.

Sorry on the quote, highlighted the wrong part. As for your juvenile taunting, whatever, *****.

Still no proof. The more things stay the same, the more they say the same.

​

whatever, *****.

See what I mean, Foxy?

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

It still would be if more here, mostly those on the left though there are some exceptions, were capable of discussing the concept instead of making everything personal. But then I have long accused most on the left of being incapable of focusing on and discussing a concept. They will invariably accuse those they disagree with or who they do not wish to disbelieve or accuse or blame somebody in history or throw in whatever non sequitur, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem because that is the only way they know to discuss/debate. They don't care how badly the thread is derailed or disrupted. They know no other way.

Perhaps that is why they are leftists? Because they are incapable of understanding a theory or concept? I don't know. But it sucks.

Kaz offered us an excellent topic and it was almost immediately derailed by those who refused to understand or consider the concept but who wanted to make it a dual of definitions or semantics or return to the blame game which is all that they know. It is sad.

I wish there were more who were trained in or capable of critical thought who could discuss concepts. It would make the board so much more interesting and satisfying. Libertarianism is a fascinating subject to me. But I've pretty well given up on being able to discuss it here.

Take the freaking blinders off Foxy. I came in and got attacked by the OP and slathered with bullshit lies from both him/her and Fingerboy. I challenged both of them to back it up and both of them cowarded-out.

"The left" my ass. Open your partisan eyes.

Your very first post (#118) was ad hominem re Kaz and complained that the poll didn't fit the OP. You did not then nor have you since directly addressed the concept of what libertarianism is or is not. You have not addressed the concept since , and my experience with you is that you are unlikely to ever do so. That is my experience with most leftists.

Now yes, many of those who could and would have discussed the topic have been dragged off course in sparring sessions with those on the left. And yes, that is equally frustrating to me, even when I am guilty of that myself. But then that is the goal of most leftists who come into a thread like this, is it not? They are not interested in libertarianism. They are interested in accusing and blaming people past and present. And when those on the right are so outnumbered, that is what the thread becomes.

Which is why I do most of my debating on topics like this elsewhere with people who do understand and can debate concepts. But I am the eternal optimist. I guess I keep trying because I would like not to be forced to go elsewhere to discuss an interesting topic.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

 

[kaz]

whatever, *****.

See what I mean, Foxy?

Your hypocrisy and lack of self awareness are just comical. If you're not going to write serious posts, can you at least not whine about having some fun instead?

 

[Pogo]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

It still would be if more here, mostly those on the left though there are some exceptions, were capable of discussing the concept instead of making everything personal. But then I have long accused most on the left of being incapable of focusing on and discussing a concept. They will invariably accuse those they disagree with or who they do not wish to disbelieve or accuse or blame somebody in history or throw in whatever non sequitur, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem because that is the only way they know to discuss/debate. They don't care how badly the thread is derailed or disrupted. They know no other way.

Perhaps that is why they are leftists? Because they are incapable of understanding a theory or concept? I don't know. But it sucks.

Kaz offered us an excellent topic and it was almost immediately derailed by those who refused to understand or consider the concept but who wanted to make it a dual of definitions or semantics or return to the blame game which is all that they know. It is sad.

I wish there were more who were trained in or capable of critical thought who could discuss concepts. It would make the board so much more interesting and satisfying. Libertarianism is a fascinating subject to me. But I've pretty well given up on being able to discuss it here.

Take the freaking blinders off Foxy. I came in and got attacked by the OP and slathered with bullshit lies from both him/her and Fingerboy. I challenged both of them to back it up and both of them cowarded-out.

"The left" my ass. Open your partisan eyes.

Your very first post (#118) was ad hominem re Kaz and complained that the poll didn't fit the OP. You did not then nor have you since directly addressed the concept of what libertarianism is or is not. You have not addressed the concept since , and my experience with you is that you are unlikely to ever do so. That is my experience with most leftists..

Bullshit, Foxy.

I don't know if 118 was my first post or not but here it is, in full:

Libertarians are right-wing hippies.

So we're Republicans who smoke pot. Actually, I haven't smoked pot in over 30 years, so why am I still a libertarian?

And that's the only difference you know between us and Republicans? Pot? You do know almost nothing about everything.

Now how did you pull "pot" out of "hippies"?

Ah -- no true blanket generalinonsequitur time.

Weird thread. I staunchly resist other people putting labels on me -- here you are literally asking for it. Plus, your title asks for what "libertarians" are, but then your poll asks what YOU are. No true nonsequitorial blanket goalpost moving time.

That's it. Find me the ad hom.

WELL?

Everything was hunky-dory, over several pages we toyed with logical fallacies and parallel questions of government overreach such as FDA examples, all was civil. Then Kaz went:

Ignorance time, you are stating as fact conclusions on discussions you have obviously not read. ...
If you asked me, I would have been glad to direct you to the quote. But that you chose to go the two year old route and just call me a liar over something you obviously don't know what you are talking about, I'll not bother doing that.

Followed by:

Let's go to the video tape:


LOL, you're a tool. And an idiot calling me a liar when you obviously don't know. How do you know what other liberals said in conversations with me? You're reading every post written to me? You're obviously not because there have been many, many discussions where liberals are assigning Marxist principles to the founding fathers.

("calling me a liar" is another strawman- didn't yet exist) -- followed by:

That would make sense if I said they called themselves Marxists or studied Marx. I didn't, so you are pounding a non-point. But wow, you're really traumatized by this. Is there a childhood trajedy you suffered from someone using today's terms to describe the views of people in the past?
....
LOL, what a dolt...

Followed by...

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

Follwed after an interlude with TK in Kaz' absence by:

Moving the goal posts, LOL. What has been established is that you take everything literally. It's childish. You must have been a hoot in school, I bet people made fun of you all the time for that.

Followed by

You are so full of shit. Show that post, liar. I never take anyone to task for what gender they call me, and I always answer when asked. I never correct people unless it's relevant to the discussion.

You are a butt hurt, idiotic liar and I am calling ... you ... out. Back up your crap for once in your history on this board and show me where I took you to task or didn't answer if you asked me.

And also liar, we have discussed my gender many times. You're an acne faced teenager struggling with your gender identity. When you figure out your orientation, life will get a lot simpler for you. You're obsessed with the gender thing. I don't care, and gay boy you're assigning your own obsession with gender identity to me...

Followed by:

Look you lair of a limp dicked little teen age ******. Our conversations on the subject have been the same. You are obsessed with gender identification, I say I don't care what people think I am unless it's pertinent to the discussion....

Grow up, liar.

NONE of which were answered in kind. I might add I had to wait in line while while many other ad homs were dispensed, not that I either minded or expected any more. And also noted that Kaz was out of town and it wouldn't be fair to continue on that point in his/her absence.

I stopped harvesting posts at that point. Shall I go on?

All right then don't try to feed me this BULLSHIT when the record clearly says otherwise. And don't ever think I won't fact check. Especially when I already know I'm being bullshat. And don't EVER think I'm going to take a false accusation lying down.

As I said -- partisan blinders. Emphasis on "blind".

 

[TemplarKormac]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

It still would be if more here, mostly those on the left though there are some exceptions, were capable of discussing the concept instead of making everything personal. But then I have long accused most on the left of being incapable of focusing on and discussing a concept. They will invariably accuse those they disagree with or who they do not wish to disbelieve or accuse or blame somebody in history or throw in whatever non sequitur, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem because that is the only way they know to discuss/debate. They don't care how badly the thread is derailed or disrupted. They know no other way.

Perhaps that is why they are leftists? Because they are incapable of understanding a theory or concept? I don't know. But it sucks.

Kaz offered us an excellent topic and it was almost immediately derailed by those who refused to understand or consider the concept but who wanted to make it a dual of definitions or semantics or return to the blame game which is all that they know. It is sad.

I wish there were more who were trained in or capable of critical thought who could discuss concepts. It would make the board so much more interesting and satisfying. Libertarianism is a fascinating subject to me. But I've pretty well given up on being able to discuss it here.

Take the freaking blinders off Foxy. I came in and got attacked by the OP and slathered with bullshit lies from both him/her and Fingerboy. I challenged both of them to back it up and both of them cowarded-out.

"The left" my ass. Open your partisan eyes.

Your very first post (#118) was ad hominem re Kaz and complained that the poll didn't fit the OP. You did not then nor have you since directly addressed the concept of what libertarianism is or is not. You have not addressed the concept since , and my experience with you is that you are unlikely to ever do so. That is my experience with most leftists..

Bullshit, Foxy.

I don't know if 118 was my first post or not but here it is, in full:

Libertarians are right-wing hippies.

So we're Republicans who smoke pot. Actually, I haven't smoked pot in over 30 years, so why am I still a libertarian?

And that's the only difference you know between us and Republicans? Pot? You do know almost nothing about everything.

Now how did you pull "pot" out of "hippies"?

Ah -- no true blanket generalinonsequitur time.

Weird thread. I staunchly resist other people putting labels on me -- here you are literally asking for it. Plus, your title asks for what "libertarians" are, but then your poll asks what YOU are. No true nonsequitorial blanket goalpost moving time.

That's it. Find me the ad hom.

WELL?

Everything was hunky-dory, over several pages we toyed with logical fallacies and parallel questions of government overreach such as FDA examples, all was civil. Then Kaz went:

Ignorance time, you are stating as fact conclusions on discussions you have obviously not read. ...
If you asked me, I would have been glad to direct you to the quote. But that you chose to go the two year old route and just call me a liar over something you obviously don't know what you are talking about, I'll not bother doing that.

Followed by:

Let's go to the video tape:


LOL, you're a tool. And an idiot calling me a liar when you obviously don't know. How do you know what other liberals said in conversations with me? You're reading every post written to me? You're obviously not because there have been many, many discussions where liberals are assigning Marxist principles to the founding fathers.

("calling me a liar" is another strawman- didn't yet exist) -- followed by:

That would make sense if I said they called themselves Marxists or studied Marx. I didn't, so you are pounding a non-point. But wow, you're really traumatized by this. Is there a childhood trajedy you suffered from someone using today's terms to describe the views of people in the past?
....
LOL, what a dolt...

Followed by...

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

NONE of which were answered in kind. I might add I had to wait in line while while many other ad homs were dispensed, not that I either minded or expected any more. And also noted that Kaz was out of town and it wouldn't be fair to continue on that point in his/her absence.

I stopped harvesting posts at that point. Shall I go on?

All right then don't try to feed me this BULLSHIT when the record clearly says otherwise. And don't ever think I won't fact check. Especially when I already know I'm being bullshat. And don't EVER think I'm going to take a false accusation lying down.

As I said -- partisan blinders. Emphasis on "blind".

Pogo, stop lying. Before your post, kaz was debating Disir, g5 and Derideo_Te, you came in and chose to prod kaz by flaming his thread. No, you were not attacked, you chose to pick a fight with him. Stop playing the victim when in fact you were the aggressor. There were no posts from you prior to that one that he allegedly attacked you for. I sat there for 30 minutes looking for a post of yours he may have attacked, but I didn't find anything. Calling Foxfyre blind is like telling a bird it is unable to fly. Seriously? If you think I'm sticking up for kaz, go see for yourself. You accuse others of not having a backbone, how about you show one of your own, sir?

 

[Pogo]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

It still would be if more here, mostly those on the left though there are some exceptions, were capable of discussing the concept instead of making everything personal. But then I have long accused most on the left of being incapable of focusing on and discussing a concept. They will invariably accuse those they disagree with or who they do not wish to disbelieve or accuse or blame somebody in history or throw in whatever non sequitur, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem because that is the only way they know to discuss/debate. They don't care how badly the thread is derailed or disrupted. They know no other way.

Perhaps that is why they are leftists? Because they are incapable of understanding a theory or concept? I don't know. But it sucks.

Kaz offered us an excellent topic and it was almost immediately derailed by those who refused to understand or consider the concept but who wanted to make it a dual of definitions or semantics or return to the blame game which is all that they know. It is sad.

I wish there were more who were trained in or capable of critical thought who could discuss concepts. It would make the board so much more interesting and satisfying. Libertarianism is a fascinating subject to me. But I've pretty well given up on being able to discuss it here.

Take the freaking blinders off Foxy. I came in and got attacked by the OP and slathered with bullshit lies from both him/her and Fingerboy. I challenged both of them to back it up and both of them cowarded-out.

"The left" my ass. Open your partisan eyes.

Your very first post (#118) was ad hominem re Kaz and complained that the poll didn't fit the OP. You did not then nor have you since directly addressed the concept of what libertarianism is or is not. You have not addressed the concept since , and my experience with you is that you are unlikely to ever do so. That is my experience with most leftists..

Bullshit, Foxy.

I don't know if 118 was my first post or not but here it is, in full:

Libertarians are right-wing hippies.

So we're Republicans who smoke pot. Actually, I haven't smoked pot in over 30 years, so why am I still a libertarian?

And that's the only difference you know between us and Republicans? Pot? You do know almost nothing about everything.

Now how did you pull "pot" out of "hippies"?

Ah -- no true blanket generalinonsequitur time.

Weird thread. I staunchly resist other people putting labels on me -- here you are literally asking for it. Plus, your title asks for what "libertarians" are, but then your poll asks what YOU are. No true nonsequitorial blanket goalpost moving time.

That's it. Find me the ad hom.

WELL?

Everything was hunky-dory, over several pages we toyed with logical fallacies and parallel questions of government overreach such as FDA examples, all was civil. Then Kaz went:

Ignorance time, you are stating as fact conclusions on discussions you have obviously not read. ...
If you asked me, I would have been glad to direct you to the quote. But that you chose to go the two year old route and just call me a liar over something you obviously don't know what you are talking about, I'll not bother doing that.

Followed by:

Let's go to the video tape:


LOL, you're a tool. And an idiot calling me a liar when you obviously don't know. How do you know what other liberals said in conversations with me? You're reading every post written to me? You're obviously not because there have been many, many discussions where liberals are assigning Marxist principles to the founding fathers.

("calling me a liar" is another strawman- didn't yet exist) -- followed by:

That would make sense if I said they called themselves Marxists or studied Marx. I didn't, so you are pounding a non-point. But wow, you're really traumatized by this. Is there a childhood trajedy you suffered from someone using today's terms to describe the views of people in the past?
....
LOL, what a dolt...

Followed by...

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

NONE of which were answered in kind. I might add I had to wait in line while while many other ad homs were dispensed, not that I either minded or expected any more. And also noted that Kaz was out of town and it wouldn't be fair to continue on that point in his/her absence.

I stopped harvesting posts at that point. Shall I go on?

All right then don't try to feed me this BULLSHIT when the record clearly says otherwise. And don't ever think I won't fact check. Especially when I already know I'm being bullshat. And don't EVER think I'm going to take a false accusation lying down.

As I said -- partisan blinders. Emphasis on "blind".

Pogo, stop lying. Before your post, kaz was debating Disir, g5 and Derideo_Te, you came in and chose to prod kaz by flaming his thread. No, you were not attacked, you chose to pick a fight with him. Stop playing the victim when in fact you were the aggressor. There were no posts from you prior to that one that he could have attacked you for. I sat there for 30 minutes looking for a post of yours he may have attacked, but I didn't find anything. Calling Foxfyre blind is like telling a bird it is unable to fly. Seriously? If you think I'm sticking up for kaz, go see for yourself. You accuse others of not having a backbone, how about you show one of your own, sir.
'

Saying so doesn't make it revisionist history TK. I documented mine. The posts ad hommed are all linked, every last one of 'em. You can go see what they respond to. There are no secrets. Just mythologies.

Whatcha got? Show me.

We're waiting.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

It still would be if more here, mostly those on the left though there are some exceptions, were capable of discussing the concept instead of making everything personal. But then I have long accused most on the left of being incapable of focusing on and discussing a concept. They will invariably accuse those they disagree with or who they do not wish to disbelieve or accuse or blame somebody in history or throw in whatever non sequitur, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem because that is the only way they know to discuss/debate. They don't care how badly the thread is derailed or disrupted. They know no other way.

Perhaps that is why they are leftists? Because they are incapable of understanding a theory or concept? I don't know. But it sucks.

Kaz offered us an excellent topic and it was almost immediately derailed by those who refused to understand or consider the concept but who wanted to make it a dual of definitions or semantics or return to the blame game which is all that they know. It is sad.

I wish there were more who were trained in or capable of critical thought who could discuss concepts. It would make the board so much more interesting and satisfying. Libertarianism is a fascinating subject to me. But I've pretty well given up on being able to discuss it here.

Take the freaking blinders off Foxy. I came in and got attacked by the OP and slathered with bullshit lies from both him/her and Fingerboy. I challenged both of them to back it up and both of them cowarded-out.

"The left" my ass. Open your partisan eyes.

Your very first post (#118) was ad hominem re Kaz and complained that the poll didn't fit the OP. You did not then nor have you since directly addressed the concept of what libertarianism is or is not. You have not addressed the concept since , and my experience with you is that you are unlikely to ever do so. That is my experience with most leftists..

Bullshit, Foxy.

I don't know if 118 was my first post or not but here it is, in full:

Libertarians are right-wing hippies.

So we're Republicans who smoke pot. Actually, I haven't smoked pot in over 30 years, so why am I still a libertarian?

And that's the only difference you know between us and Republicans? Pot? You do know almost nothing about everything.

Now how did you pull "pot" out of "hippies"?

Ah -- no true blanket generalinonsequitur time.

Weird thread. I staunchly resist other people putting labels on me -- here you are literally asking for it. Plus, your title asks for what "libertarians" are, but then your poll asks what YOU are. No true nonsequitorial blanket goalpost moving time.

That's it. Find me the ad hom.

WELL?

Everything was hunky-dory, over several pages we toyed with logical fallacies and parallel questions of government overreach such as FDA examples, all was civil. Then Kaz went:

Ignorance time, you are stating as fact conclusions on discussions you have obviously not read. ...
If you asked me, I would have been glad to direct you to the quote. But that you chose to go the two year old route and just call me a liar over something you obviously don't know what you are talking about, I'll not bother doing that.

Followed by:

Let's go to the video tape:


LOL, you're a tool. And an idiot calling me a liar when you obviously don't know. How do you know what other liberals said in conversations with me? You're reading every post written to me? You're obviously not because there have been many, many discussions where liberals are assigning Marxist principles to the founding fathers.

("calling me a liar" is another strawman- didn't yet exist) -- followed by:

That would make sense if I said they called themselves Marxists or studied Marx. I didn't, so you are pounding a non-point. But wow, you're really traumatized by this. Is there a childhood trajedy you suffered from someone using today's terms to describe the views of people in the past?
....
LOL, what a dolt...

Followed by...

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

NONE of which were answered in kind. I might add I had to wait in line while while many other ad homs were dispensed, not that I either minded or expected any more. And also noted that Kaz was out of town and it wouldn't be fair to continue on that point in his/her absence.

I stopped harvesting posts at that point. Shall I go on?

All right then don't try to feed me this BULLSHIT when the record clearly says otherwise. And don't ever think I won't fact check. Especially when I already know I'm being bullshat. And don't EVER think I'm going to take a false accusation lying down.

As I said -- partisan blinders. Emphasis on "blind".

Pogo, stop lying. Before your post, kaz was debating Disir, g5 and Derideo_Te, you came in and chose to prod kaz by flaming his thread. No, you were not attacked, you chose to pick a fight with him. Stop playing the victim when in fact you were the aggressor. There were no posts from you prior to that one that he could have attacked you for. I sat there for 30 minutes looking for a post of yours he may have attacked, but I didn't find anything. Calling Foxfyre blind is like telling a bird it is unable to fly. Seriously? If you think I'm sticking up for kaz, go see for yourself. You accuse others of not having a backbone, how about you show one of your own, sir.
'

Saying so doesn't make it revisionist history TK. I documented mine. Whatcha got?

We're waiting.

I'm not a mod, so I didn't revise anything. None of the posts have been changed or deleted. Are you so childish that you have to taunt me? One hundred and seventeen posts (117) went by before you responded. I'm not 'saying so', I read each of the posts. You've been called on a lie, Pogo. If you want me to, I can link to each page where you did not reply, nor kaz to you. In fact, you chose to jump into the fray. We could go on for the next 2 1/2 hours about how you didn't say what you said when you actually said it, but I have no patience for it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So have I missed any insightful discussion here?