Ummm... where did Bman say all that? What I saw that you used to "twist" things included
Here, I'll walk you through.
I'm open to legitimate criticisms... just with a wide-stroke calling him and anyone that thinks like him is 'kooky', is the first step to saying that they are dangerous and should have their voices silenced... that they are talking about dangerous subjects... like the constitution.
Here he's saying that we're open to legitimate criticism. Not everyone is going to agree with us, we're not going to agree with everyone else, we're not even going to agree with each other. There will be criticism and he's not opposed to criticism spawned from legitimate concerns.
However, merely labeling someone of opposing or different viewpoint as "wingnut" or whatever us unfair. And it's dangerous. You're going to immediately start dismissing arguments without even listening to what people say. While what he states here about the slippery slope could be slight overstatement, it's not playing the victim card as YOU tried to make it out to be. It's a word of caution. If you start calling them loony or wingnut or whatever you want to say to elude to the fact that those whom espouse this philosophy are mentally unstable or not all together there (as is being done, Redress being one of the bigger violators of this) with no concern for actual argument, there is a bad path which exists here. Don't do it, listen to what people say. We're not afraid of legitimate criticism, but don't just dismiss our arguments with some generalized broad stroke and insult our intelligence.
The victim card thing was 100% made up by you Hobo.
I totally hear you on that, it's almost rediculous especially when it deals with anything that goes against Obama.... it's always denied and the discussion is spent proving that something exists when the real discussion should be whether or not it is desired.
Pointing out the double standard and hypocrisy of your side. Nothing more. Spade is a spade. This isn't red herring. This is Redress saying "hey, I'm not going to prove every detail blah blah blah" and the response being "I understand it, it's particularly annoying to pointlessly and endlessly argue "proof". I have experienced it myself in many Obama discussions where those more ravenous supporters will harp on proof and links till the cows come home". No red herring, you made that up. This is pointing out that we're being bitched at for something commonly engaged in by others. Why is it that our side is held to the higher standard? Why do we have to do X, Y, and Z while the other side can lob whatever they want?
That's all this was, and it's true. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
You just say that because that's what the mouthpieces you see on the news say just that... if you spent more time researching the details for yourself then reliying on the 'experts' to spoon feed to you how to think, then you'd see that the constitution isn't 'kooky', the intent was to have very limited government... yet both the left and right are all gung ho about creating a huge megolithic federal government...
First off, on an aside I find it funny you complained about this one being an insult against your side when you're side has done nothing but blanket insult us. Not a peep out of you then, but when the rock comes back at ol' Hobo...well there's gonna be hell to pay eh? Oh, and didn't you earlier bitch about playing the victim card? Oh the poor libertarians are beating you up...feel pity. HAHAHAH
Not exactly an insult. The problem is that the mass media has a major misrepresentation of the libertarian party and it's ideals. You saw it clearly when Ron Paul ran for President. The first debate what happened? Ron Paul talked about small government, watching what we do, warning us of blow back. What happened. Post debate interview, Hannity and Colmes (ok, I agree, not a source of calm, level headed fairness; but they were doing the interview) give Paul very little time, call him names, claim he's trying to blame America, and kick him out basically. The libertarian platform and philosophy is constantly misconstrued and misrepresented by the mainstream press to make it seem as if on the whole we're all a bunch of survivalist crazies living in the woods who unfairly and without reason hate the government. If you do nothing but digest the mainstream without looking into the issues or discussing it with different libertarians (we come in many flavors), you're going to blanket us all as "wingnuts". Hmmm, has that been done in this very thread? Yes. So, not an insult as it seems to be true in this case.
You want to whine and cry about insults at your side after they spent pretty much an entire thread hurling them at our side. Sorry if the sympathy train doesn't make a visit to you.
Listen, you might disagree that government should allow the people to retain the power through the cities and states, and the federal government deals with what the constitution tells it to deal with and nothing more... you might disagree with that, but that does not make it crazy to put individual rights protected above and beyond the federal governments attempt at creating a 'collective'... Look at China, that's what happens when you have a hugely powerful ruling class with a subservient lower class system.
This says that we may disagree fundamentally on the basis of power of the government and it's duty to the people. Is that not true? We all whitewashed, believe the same way? Or are things dynamic and changing and we disagree. Just because you may disagree with us does not mean that we are crazy for believing in individual rights. We are not crazy and insane because we put value and emphasis on individual rights, and wish to constrain the govenrment to that. Just because you may have a different opinion on the matter does not make us intellectually unable to come to proper and rational decision. That's what that says. He then warns with the extreme. Look at what happens when you take that to its conclusion.
Now before you freak out because I used the word conclusion, please understand the context. If taken to its full end, doesn't mean we necessarily drive there, but if taken full out what happens. So let's caution ourselves about your superiority over us. Don't get so holier than thou that you think we can't have a rational thought because our opinions and where we think the base of power in government should be is different.
That's it. All your spin was made up crap. You say "China" in there and were like "ohhhh libertarian bringing up China, he's totally talking about....". Because it was clear that your interpretation was based on your own bigotries and biases against libertarians.