How can any gay man be a Republican?

[JB3]

What cite? The LP party website? And you seriously expect me to believe the garbage on that website lol?

Typical socialist nonsense? There is your anger issue again. I think you need to clear your mind of the indoctrination.

Ahh, there's the meat of your argument. You believe that everyone that holds views contrary to your own is wrong and that the website for a group with which you disagree must obviously be 'garbage'. You don't get to pick and choose what information people cite to support their positions. And you certainly don't have the right to write-off proof as 'garbage' since it happens to make you ignorant.

Look, your positions on libertarianism are wrong. We've given you proof that you're wrong, but you refuse to accept them because they contradict the lies that you're spreading.

 

[JB3]

WHere is the manipulated data? It's not false, and it's not manipulated. The debt did increase significantly amounts more under the Bush administration then it has under the Obama administration.

It's easy for you to say. And then you come up with numbers that aren't addressing the chart I've posted.

And here is another chart for you to address:

I'm not on either side, and I haven't said that Obama has been perfect. But he's certainly better for this country then the other party. And he's done a pretty decent job.



I don't think so. Obama is not a reincarnation of Bush. He's already reversed quite a bit of the damage Bush has already done, and the economy has shown a stable sound footing in recent months.

One would also have to compare the accomplishments Obama has done, and to put it quite simply this site shows in clear text:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Yeah guys... he's Bush reincarnated... what a crock.

Perhaps you missed the cite he included in his post to Politifact, which is a non-partisan website that has won a Pulitzer prize for their journalism. They proved that the chart was not only inaccurate, but also blatantly misleading. The chart is simply not an accurate representation. Period.

 

[JB3]

And where is the meat of your argument besides insulting people on this forum and getting your posts edited? You haven't supported anything so far, and you insist that I support my arguments... you should take your own advice.

My positions are not wrong. I've already gone through why many times.

Your positions are most certainly wrong.

You assert that libertarians would allow the environment to be destroyed. Proof has been provided that they would not.

You assert they would allow business to run rampant. Proof has been provided that they would not.

You assert that they would allow rights to be trampled. Proof has been provided that they would not.

Or, in other words, every assertion you've made has been completely false, and you have not provided a single shred of evidence besides your own opinion to support it. How about you give us some proof to support what you're saying?

 

[JB3]

I've accepted that. Perhaps that chart isn't the best to use. But also brought up the other accomplishments of the Obama administration which far outweigh the negatives. He called Obama: Bush reincarnated... I'm calling that bogus.

Read closely. He was referring to their accumulation of debt. If you read the politifact article, they discuss that if Obama's spending continues, he will far outpace Bush's debt growth. (which they say is simplistic and not accurate, but its the same type of thinking that created the chart in the first place)

 

[JB3]

My positions are most certainly NOT wrong. Again, that's just your CLAIM and ASSUMPTION. You have issues with people who dispute libertarianism it appears. Perhaps the underlying anger. Any more false claims about how I think?

Where is your evidence? Oh wait... that's right... none.

Where is your proof? And please don't give me the Libertarian website again. Can I just post the Republican or Democratic Party website as proof of something? It's political grandstanding in its finest.

I'll say it again: You claimed the libertarians did not believe in protecting the environment, workers, and would allow business to run rampant. Their own website proves you wrong. That is more than adequate proof and evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. And its certainly more than anything you've posted. (since you haven't posted any proof at all)

So why don't you give us some proof to back up your assertions. Because proof has been provided that you are totally and completely wrong.

 

[JB3]

Again here he goes with more abuse. I'm absolutely correct in saying that libertarians do not believe in protecting the environment or workers, because they believe in smaller government and less regulation.

Your thinking is fatally flawed. You assume that smaller government and less regulation would result in those things, and that because of that they do not believe in them. You are incorrect. Again, their own website proves you completely wrong.

They are also in favor of an honor roll type system for businesses... which is ludicrous. Businesses need to be forced to do certain things, including respect the environment.

What does the first part have to do with the second part? They are unrelated.

And he's still demanding proof... yet he has NEVER POSTED PROOF for his own arguments. And he claims he provided proof that I am "totally and completely wrong". Lol. This guy can't be real.

What proved me wrong? The Libertarian party website? LOL!

Yes, it did prove you wrong. The existence of a statement on the website for the libertarian party that says:

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem

Proves you completely and totally wrong. A group unconcerned with the environment would not post something like that. The proof is there, you just refuse to acknowledge it.


Oh, and you should read this. It would help you greatly.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-Primer-David-Boaz/dp/068484768X"]Amazon.com: Libertarianism: A Primer (9780684847689): David Boaz: Books[/ame]

 

[JB3]

More and more and more abuse. He keeps saying that my thinking is fatally flawed... yet he can't prove why. I am not incorrect and I know I'm right. You keep posting the same old without any proof.

I have proven why. Or can you not understand simple english? You are making a fatally flawed assumption and it destroys your argument.

But it's propaganda, and it didn't prove me wrong. Libertarians tend to state many falsehoods and personally attack others I'm finding. They think anyone who argues against them is against freedom.

You still haven't proved anything.

It proves you completely wrong. You said they don't care about the environment, they say otherwise. Anyone with a brain will be inclined to believe the libertarians over your flawed opinion of them.

No it doesn't. There is no proof there. And it's just propaganda and political grandstanding.

You just don't like it because it proves you wrong. It is as much proof as anything you've yet posted.

Rubbish.

Read this:

Amazon.com: Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (9780674005112): John Rawls, Erin Kelly: Books

Here is another book that will help you:

Amazon.com: The Theory of Social Democracy (9780745641133): Thomas Meyer, Lewis Hinchman: Books

Social democratic theory is as flawed as what you've asserted here. It doesn't work.

 

[Kulindahr]

And where is the meat of your argument besides insulting people on this forum and getting your posts edited? You haven't supported anything so far, and you insist that I support my arguments... you should take your own advice.

My positions are not wrong. I've already gone through why many times.

And he's saying I'm the ignorant one. Hmm...

By your approach, the Libertarian Party doesn't know what libertarians are -- but you do. I suppose that firemen don't know what firefighting is -- but you do. Probably Palestinians don't know what it means to be Palestinian -- but you do.

A citation from the official site of the country's actual libertarian organization most certainly establishes what libertarians are about -- but you think you're superior to that, that you know more than the libertarians themselves.

Your positions "are not wrong" only if you think you're some kind of god who knows what everyone actually believes, even though that's contrary to what they say they believe.

 

[texpatriot]

Again here he goes with more abuse.

More abuse?

Strap yourself in Missy!

I'm absolutely correct in saying that libertarians do not believe in protecting the environment or workers, because they believe in smaller government and less regulation.

Just like "conservatards," and "liburals" your "socialist" way of thinking is clouded by your own prejudices.

Libertarians believe in accountability, and personal responsibility.

To bad that there aren't any running for, or who are currently elected representatives.

Libertarians = Those in favor of Liberty over "Government."

Socialism works pretty well within a Libertarian ideal too, you should do some research.

But from what I know of you from your posts, your EGO won't allow it.

They are also in favor of an honor roll type system for businesses... which is ludicrous. Businesses need to be forced to do certain things, including respect the environment.

I call BULLSHIT!

The "business" model that you speak of has only ONE PURPOSE; PROFIT for their shareholders.

Libertarians KNOW this, and you're now trying to characterize/marginalize a political train of thought with Tea Baggers, and Republithugs.

Pull your head out of your ass and realize that THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS, and LOTS OF SHADES OF GREY!

And he's still demanding proof... yet he has NEVER POSTED PROOF for his own arguments.

Let's be fair about this; neither have you in ANY of your arguments!

And he claims he provided proof that I am "totally and completely wrong". Lol. This guy can't be real.

Sadly, you present yourself as being "real" but based upon your post history your opinions only represent one asshole.

We all have one, so don't try to deny it.

What proved me wrong? The Libertarian party website? LOL!

The perception that most of us have discovered about you; we can't all get our heads that far up our asses!

A real source would be this one:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010407063531/http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/libcrit.txt

Which is a comprehensive criticism of Libertarianism and how it has some fatal flaws. I could go through it for you if you want.

You're such a tease!

 

[JB3]

Oh and here's some additional proof:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1858146

http://www.tburg.k12.ny.us/hsking/Apgov/Radicals for Capitalism.pdf

https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/ejis/article/viewArticle/14507

http://direct.mises.org/journals/jls/17_4/17_4_1.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...ge&q=libertarian environmental policy&f=false

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...andle=hein.journals/eclawq32&div=19&id=&page=

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Incentive-Based_Environmental_Regulation.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.192.7529&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

[Kulindahr]

Again here he goes with more abuse. I'm absolutely correct in saying that libertarians do not believe in protecting the environment or workers, because they believe in smaller government and less regulation.

No, you are. You're merely pretending that you know what millions of people really believe, when it's contrary to what they say they believe. That comes under the definition of the term "delusional".

They are also in favor of an honor roll type system for businesses... which is ludicrous. Businesses need to be forced to do certain things, including respect the environment.

Again, false. Reason magazine and Liberty magazine have churned out gobs of articles on how to hold corporations responsible, and the systems are devastating compared to the punt interventions government makes. As I already told you, Dow chemical and others wouldn't even be in business any more under a libertarian system, because instead of giving the government a pittance and muttering, "We're sorry", they'd have had to pay damages plus punitive damages to every person harmed by their products. Just as an example, if a company spilled toxins into the water at St. Louis, they'd have to pay damages to every single person downstream all the way to the Gulf -- billions of dollars, not just the few hundred thousand the government would nick them with.

And he's still demanding proof... yet he has NEVER POSTED PROOF for his own arguments. And he claims he provided proof that I am "totally and completely wrong". Lol. This guy can't be real.

What proved me wrong? The Libertarian party website? LOL!

Yes, the LP website -- just as we would accept the Vatican website as the final authority on matters Roman Catholic.

A real source would be this one:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010407063531/http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/libcrit.txt

Which is a comprehensive criticism of Libertarianism and how it has some fatal flaws. I could go through it for you if you want.

A site critical of libertarianism is not an authority on what libertarians believe -- the libertarians are. We don't ask Rick Santorum what Barrack Obama believes, we ask Obama; we don't ask Rick Perkins (FRC) what gays believe, we ask gays.

Besides which, what that essay is examining isn't libertarianism, it's what some consider a subset of libertarianism, called "propertarianism". It's an Ayn Rand offshoot, really, a distortion of libertarianism based on greed and the exaltation of private property. Not all libertarians hold to Hayek; it's not even a majority, if the LP Oregon is a valid sample. Though the most damning part of that critique is that it doesn't actually address the core of libertarianism, but treats it as a sort of basket of beliefs thrown together.

 

[JB3]

I've already provided my own set of sources (4-5 of them) and you haven't refuted them. Your argument is not working, JB3. You can't just post links and add nothing to them.

I've made my case already. You haven't. Your argument is that you know libertarians better than libertarians know themselves, which is ridiculous.

 

[JB3]

I've posted several sources and books, and I haven't made my case? I think you need to get some help...

And yes I know more about libertarians then they know about themselves... why? I don't believe the lies.

And now you post a picture insulting me further...

Right. Have a good day. I'm done arguing with you both. You two refuse to look at alternate viewpoints.

Wait a sec. WE refuse to look at alternate viewpoints? You're the one that professes to know everything about everything.

YOU are the one that claims to know more about libertarianism than libertarians, and YOU are the one that openly disparages a movement you know absolutely nothing about. Seems to me the problem here is you...

 

[JB3]

And you have been pretending this entire thread to know what I believe or think. You haven't proved your case, like JB3. And delusional? Really? More insults from the one who uses insults as the basis for his argument.



Again false? Easy for you to say when you again cannot back your argument up with any form of proof. You keep posting words, but have no substance behind these words. It's called political rhetoric. Libertarians don't have the record to show as far as environmental protection.



Bad analogy again. The LP website is a biased website. One has to look at other sources and seeing the reality.



BAD BAD analogies. A site critical of libertarianism can help debunk certain libertarian myths. It is often best to look at non-biased sources, as I have provided.



Again, this is just weak... a very weak argument on your part... you keep saying "well that's not libertarianism!"... any time anyone tries to criticize it. You didn't even read the essay I bet.

That you can't understand that a website that only posts things critical of a movement is certainly biased against it speaks volumes to the lack of academic thought inside your head.

Further, when someone that actually knows more about libertarianism than you tells you quite plainly that something you posted is NOT referencing libertarianism and you lash out, it also tells us how very little you know of the subject. STOP now before you look even more foolish.

 

[texpatriot]

Another personal insult... I guess libertarians view personal insults as a vital part to their argument.
.

No more than you're ill informed logic allows:

 

[opinterph]

If you guys make me clean up this thread again, I'll award points.

 

[JB3]

He doesn't know more about libertarianism.

And I've already posted facts. You are the one who should stop. You two are more biased then I previously thought. And all you resort to are insults.

Your posts and the lack of anything resembling fact proves otherwise.

 

[JB3]

Yes you refuse to look at alternate viewpoints, then you resort to insulting. I have provided citations, now you seem to ignore it... typical. lol.

I don't think you seem to grasp politics well at all really.

Here is an image I like:

I minored in political science and wrote a thesis on progressive thought in America. I am more aware of American political thought than you could ever dream of being.

 

[texpatriot]

If you guys make me clean up this thread again, I'll award points.

Don't tempt me with a good time!

 

[JB3]

Um you minored in political science? I majored in it, and have a Masters in Political Science. But hey have fun with that. I've studied American politics for years in an American university. Have a rather large library of poli sci books... though most of it is on Comparative and International Politics.

Please... lets stop this. For everyones sake.

Funny, no one would ever mistake you for someone with a masters in it based on what you post.