• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wingnuts Unite: Ron Paul Joins Michelle Bachmann in Weirdest Town Hall Ever

Psychoclown said:
I think the issue is the term wingnut, which is insulting and dismissive. Merely being in disagreement with Paul (or any political figure) isn't reason enough to call someone a wingnut (or any other insulting slur). I can list a ton of areas where I disagree with Obama, but that doesn't mean I think he's a wingnut. Even though I disagree with him on many points, I recognize that he's an intelligent, well studied man who has different conclusions.

If folks who disagree with Paul could say the same without resorting to childish insults, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't even care if people call Paul names, so long as they provide an intellectual argument of some sort to validate their insults.
 
Ethereal said:
Secure Fence Act...Obama...wing-nut.
Click to expand...

More than one issue...

I like how you latch onto one thing and try and make it look like I am inconsistent. I listed over a dozen issue votes, one does not mean anything alone. Obama did vote for the secure fence, and was wrong to do so, it's a nutty idea that sounds good and makes a few people happy while solving no problems and costing a ton. However, Obama has never sponsored a sanctity of life bill, did not vote against improving the GI Bill or funding for the VA, and so on.
 
Ethereal said:
I don't even care if people call Paul names, so long as they provide an intellectual argument of some sort to validate their insults.
Click to expand...

Except you can accept no intellectual argument. Every argument, no matter how well considered and based on Paul's actions, words, and votes is seen by you as unfair and not intellectually supported. You make a nice claim here, it's too bad that actions are not the same as your words.
 
Redress said:
More than one issue...
Click to expand...

None of which you've elaborated upon.

I like how you latch onto one thing and try and make it look like I am inconsistent.
Click to expand...

YOU latched onto the issue, and you'd still be touting it as evidence of Ron Paul's insanity if I hadn't told you the Messiah voted for it, too.

I listed over a dozen issue votes, one does not mean anything alone.
Click to expand...

You're the one who singled it out.

You're the one who made it a demonstration of Ron Paul's wingnut status.

Now it's irrelevant...fancy that.

Obama did vote for the secure fence, and was wrong to do so, it's a nutty idea that sounds good and makes a few people happy while solving no problems and costing a ton.
Click to expand...

How do you know that it didn't solve any problems?

Do you know what the bill sought to accomplish?

Do you have any evidence that the bill has failed to accomplish its goals?

However, Obama has never sponsored a sanctity of life bill...
Click to expand...

Why does that make him a wingnut?

...did not vote against improving the GI Bill...
Click to expand...

Why does that make him a wingnut?

...or funding for the VA, and so on.
Click to expand...

Why does that make him a wingnut?
 
Redress said:
Except you can accept no intellectual argument. Every argument, no matter how well considered and based on Paul's actions, words, and votes is seen by you as unfair and not intellectually supported. You make a nice claim here, it's too bad that actions are not the same as your words.
Click to expand...

Listing things Ron Paul has voted for and saying it makes him a wingnut is not an intellectual argument.

I'm plenty receptive to criticisms of Ron Paul, since I disagree with him on several issues, but you haven't offered anything worth discussing.
 
Ethereal said:
Listing things Ron Paul has voted for and saying it makes him a wingnut is not an intellectual argument.

I'm plenty receptive to criticisms of Ron Paul, since I disagree with him on several issues, but you haven't offered anything worth discussing.
Click to expand...

You are not the least open to criticism of him. All you want is more and more, and never accept what is written. I am not going to spend hours of time researching every tiny detail and documenting all them, you would not accept it any way and I got better things to do with my time. Paul, and Libertarians are way out there politically. When viewed from a more mainstream position, you guys look nutty. I listed plenty of reasons, and you want details on all of them, while never offering anything yourself. It's an easy game to play, and intellectually dishonest. Always ask for more, and then claim victory when the person gets tired of explaining and linking.
 
Redress said:
You are not the least open to criticism of him. All you want is more and more, and never accept what is written. I am not going to spend hours of time researching every tiny detail and documenting all them, you would not accept it any way and I got better things to do with my time. Paul, and Libertarians are way out there politically. When viewed from a more mainstream position, you guys look nutty. I listed plenty of reasons, and you want details on all of them, while never offering anything yourself. It's an easy game to play, and intellectually dishonest. Always ask for more, and then claim victory when the person gets tired of explaining and linking.
Click to expand...

Whatever. I'm crazy then. Go back to your bubble.
 
Redress said:
You are not the least open to criticism of him.
Click to expand...

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.

All you want is more and more, and never accept what is written. I am not going to spend hours of time researching every tiny detail and documenting all them, you would not accept it any way and I got better things to do with my time.
Click to expand...

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.



Paul, and Libertarians are way out there politically. When viewed from a more mainstream position, you guys look nutty.
Click to expand...

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...


I listed plenty of reasons, and you want details on all of them, while never offering anything yourself. It's an easy game to play, and intellectually dishonest. Always ask for more, and then claim victory when the person gets tired of explaining and linking.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BmanMcfly said:
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.



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.





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...




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.
Click to expand...

It's exactly posts like this which is why Libertarians get such a bad rap.
 
the makeout hobo said:
It's exactly posts like this which is why Libertarians get such a bad rap.
Click to expand...

Now just wait 1 second!

WTH you think you have some sort of legitimate point just offering THAT as a reply??

Now back up your statement. Or I'll just label you like I see : an anti-american fool.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Now just wait 1 second!

WTH you think you have some sort of legitimate point just offering THAT as a reply??

Now back up your statement. Or I'll just label you like I see : an anti-american fool.
Click to expand...

A liberal getting called anti-american to dismiss him. How different...
 
Redress said:
A liberal getting called anti-american to dismiss him. How different...
Click to expand...

Democrats recently did it to the Republicans as well. And if y'all can have your dismiss against libertarians by universally declaring us "wingnuts" (thus insulting our intelligence), why can't there be a dismiss against your side?
 
Redress said:
A liberal getting called anti-american to dismiss him. How different...
Click to expand...

No, you're expressed opinion that anything constitutional is 'kooky' IS NOT democrat OR republican, previously both the left and the right argued WITHIN the bounds of the constitution... now you come around and treat it like 'a goddamned piece of paper'... THAT makes me sick, I don't care who you are, if you don't like living in a republic you would litterally be more comfortable in places like China or North Korea and then those of us that like the constitution and what it stands for, won't have to worry about losing what is good about america.

Now, you flapped your gums and attacked my views, now back up your position. Unless you can't offer any type of justification above and beyond what those mouthpieces on the news have told you.
 
BmanMcfly said:
No, you're expressed opinion that anything constitutional is 'kooky' IS NOT democrat OR republican, previously both the left and the right argued WITHIN the bounds of the constitution... now you come around and treat it like 'a goddamned piece of paper'... THAT makes me sick, I don't care who you are, if you don't like living in a republic you would litterally be more comfortable in places like China or North Korea and then those of us that like the constitution and what it stands for, won't have to worry about losing what is good about america.

Now, you flapped your gums and attacked my views, now back up your position. Unless you can't offer any type of justification above and beyond what those mouthpieces on the news have told you.
Click to expand...

Hey, let's build a strawman! Keep up the good work.
 
Redress said:
Hey, let's build a strawman! Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

Yes keep moving along without addressing : WHAT makes it kooky??

It's as stupid as if I called your argument 'racist'... no rhyme or reason to it... just cause I said so... now come on, explain your point... or are you admitting you didn't have one... you just like calling Ron Paul kooky??

And if you didn't read the post and see that every point was constitutional views... and you're expressed opinion is that it's 'kooky', I'm asking you to explain why and you continue to dodge the question... please stop debating like a 5 yr old.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Democrats recently did it to the Republicans as well. And if y'all can have your dismiss against libertarians by universally declaring us "wingnuts" (thus insulting our intelligence), why can't there be a dismiss against your side?
Click to expand...

If it's not right when its done against you, why are you defending it when your side does it?
 
Ikari said:
Why is that again?
Click to expand...

Well lets see what he does in that post:

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.
Click to expand...
Let's see: first, he plays the victim card, talking about how this slippery slope that's going to leave to him having his voice silenced. Then he starts going on about how only libertarians care at all about the constitution.

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.
Click to expand...
Then he throws out this red herring about Obama that isn't relevent.

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...
Click to expand...
Then he insults people who don't agree with him by ranting about how they believe what "mouthpieces on TV" tell them, and how they've been "spoonfed by experts what to think". Then another ramble about how his opponents hate the constitution.

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.
Click to expand...

Nonsequiters about where power should be held, then a tirade about how opponents don't care about individual rights, then trying to suggest his opponents want things to be like in China.

Make sense now?
 
the makeout hobo said:
If it's not right when its done against you, why are you defending it when your side does it?
Click to expand...

I'm not, I'm pointing out your side's hypocrisy. I didn't defend it or justify it. I merely said that her side uses it too, she herself used deflection terms. Just calling the spade a spade; nothing more.
 
the makeout hobo said:
If it's not right when its done against you, why are you defending it when your side does it?
Click to expand...

Ron Paul gets attacked from both the right and the left in much the same ways... now the official attacks are just as baseless as yours are... just as anti-constitutional, just as pro-central governance, jsut as pro-war, and so on...

So, when someone comes along with old fashioned american values and sticks to those values with a level of integrity unheard of amongst pretty well any other politician... and THAT is what you are calling kooky... and you can't explain your position... just make the statement, it's hardly a valid argument you're making.

That both the left and right are righteously indignant of their position and anything that goes against that position simply does not exist (or if it does exist more recently it's become 'racist') In either case I will be forced to source every opinion and statement ad nauseum... and here you come along and speak to the mental capacity of a simple belief (or set of beliefs) and apply a psychological analysis of entire groups based on that one set of views, and you can't even back it up with anything further... it's a pathetic debating tactic, keep it up so that anyone reading your tripe will see how strong your position really is.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Make sense now?
Click to expand...

Nope. What I read was a post which said that there are elements of the libertarian side which are overstated. There are some people who can go overboard. There is room for critical debate over ideals and platform. Yet the broad painting of libertarians as uniform and unequivically dismissing our opinions and political platform by calling us "wingnuts" or whatever other attack against our intellectual integrity is made is unfair. And he says that while there are disagreements in fundamental philosophy, but that doesn't mean that we are crazy for having alternative opinions.

That's what's being said. You applied your own bias to make it say the twisted stuff you're trying to claim. You're doing the same thing, you're looking for the deflect and dismiss. Picking out certain things and trying to make it say something more so that you can label us as "wingnut" or whatever other insulting term you want to use (and then look surprised when we've taken offense) in order to dismiss the point without engaging. Spade is a spade.
 
Last edited:
the makeout hobo said:
Well lets see what he does in that post:


Let's see: first, he plays the victim card, talking about how this slippery slope that's going to leave to him having his voice silenced. Then he starts going on about how only libertarians care at all about the constitution.
Click to expand...

Because my views get treated with blanket statements like 'see that's why you're kooky'... THEN I went on to show the views that he was calling 'kooky' and if you're insulting a set of views it's implied that you believe the opposite...


Then he throws out this red herring about Obama that isn't relevent.
Click to expand...

I spoke out against Bush equally if not more then Obama... The right and left are equally guilty of the same type of delusional thinking.

I was actually backing up your point that it's frustrating to have to source the same material over and over that never gets read, just denied... denial seems to be the favored debate tactic... man, some discernment, I wasn't even attacking you, and you turned around and blanketed my entire view as 'kooky' without any explanaition... at least you're trying now.

Then he insults people who don't agree with him by ranting about how they believe what "mouthpieces on TV" tell them, and how they've been "spoonfed by experts what to think".
Click to expand...

I watched those same newscasts where the 'mouthpieces' said your argument almost verbatim... they backed up their positons almost as well as you did too... since they aren't here to back up their positions and you're here defending those exact same points then you can justify in their place.

Then another ramble about how his opponents hate the constitution.
Click to expand...

This alone could be it's own thread... although YES, the left and right work day and night to circumvent the constitution. It's been going on since LONG before Obama, but since Obama is a continuation of this same process and THROUGH HIS ACTIONS has shown that he holds unconsititional views of what the role of government should be...

Now, I have no problem backing up my views... just cause some of my arguments are going above your head doesn't make them kooky... if you don't know history then how can you know that the propaganda demonizing Ron Paul supporters (I could show you a document for law enforcement which outright calls Ron Paul supporters radical extremists that should be approached with EXTREME CAUTION. Lil old Ron Paul is THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE ESTABLISHMENT, so much so that they spend rediculous amounts of ressources in getting the message across that his views are kooky.

Nonsequiters about where power should be held
Click to expand...

Hey, when you make a blanket attack that's open to interpretation and won't back it up, then you're asking for interpretation on your position... you were careless in your attack and found yourself supporting something that you disagree with and now you're going around tryng to

, then a tirade about how opponents don't care about individual rights, then trying to suggest his opponents want things to be like in China.

Make sense now?
Click to expand...

Ya, based off obama's own words and actions... while you seem to base your opinions on him from the promises he made before being elected...

Yes, your position makes a bit more sense... though you haven't explained either how Ron Pauls constitutionalist position is 'kooky' nor have you explained the implications to that belief, being that the 'constitution' doesn't really mean anything in this country, and it's crazy to even talk about it, and also what this country would look like if we DIDN"T have the constitutional protections that are being gradually removed.
 
Ikari said:
Nope. What I read was a post which said that there are elements of the libertarian side which are overstated. There are some people who can go overboard. There is room for critical debate over ideals and platform. Yet the broad painting of libertarians as uniform and unequivically dismissing our opinions and political platform by calling us "wingnuts" or whatever other attack against our intellectual integrity is made is unfair. And he says that while there are disagreements in fundamental philosophy, but that doesn't mean that we are crazy for having alternative opinions.

That's what's being said. You applied your own bias to make it say the twisted stuff you're trying to claim. You're doing the same thing, you're looking for the deflect and dismiss. Picking out certain things and trying to make it say something more so that you can label us as "wingnut" or whatever other insulting term you want to use (and then look surprised when we've taken offense) in order to dismiss the point without engaging. Spade is a spade.
Click to expand...

Ummm... where did Bman say all that? What I saw that you used to "twist" things included

"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."

"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"

"Listen, you might disagree that government should allow the people to retain the power through the cities and states, "
 
the makeout hobo said:
Ummm... where did Bman say all that? What I saw that you used to "twist" things included
Click to expand...

Here, I'll walk you through.

BmanMcfly said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

BmanMcfly said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

BmanMcfly said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.

BmanMcfly said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Here, I'll walk you through.



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.



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.



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.



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. We 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.
Click to expand...

I really don't think the point that libertarians can be as insulting and rude as anyone else, and how Bman was being rude, dismissive, and insulting in this thread, really registered. I mean, you couldn't even accept that the part about me being spoonfed information instead of doing research was an insult. I really don't think you're going to actually take a critical look at things here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom