Presidential debate...

[rwh11385]

its mediCAID

Yeah, and explain how the strategies are fundamentally different. Johnson wants to do with Medicare and Medicaid exactly what Ryan wants to do with just Medicaid. Attacking Johnson's policy directly brings Ryan's under criticism.

[gwb72tii]

its mediCAID

[rwh11385]

fail

Strategies are the same - give up federal control for states to make choices for themselves. And believe states can be more efficient.

The trouble is people criticizing the libertarian economic policies also open up the Republican ones to the same since they are similar. It's not fair to have a double standard that when one party says something it is a good idea but crazy when another says the same.

[gwb72tii]

Let states manage money for Medicare directly via block grants like Ryan wants?

fail

[rwh11385]

We're talking about their platform now aren't we.



My point is maintained very well. The Fair Tax is far from worked out well. As I show there. Yet there's Mr. Libertarian siding with the Fair Tax...yet it's unworkable as it sits.

Nice link from The New York Times...lol. But I've seen with my own eyes the jobs immigrants take from Americans in construction. And they aren't general labor workers. They're skilled laborers. Plus your link doesn't take into account the fact 23 million Americans are either unemployed or under employed while you cry about population growth. Not making sense there bud.

Ah yes and another logical fallacy from you because you choose to alter my ideas. Which just makes you look desperate again...as usual.

Why do you not share your criticism of Republicans support of a flat tax or fairtax and focus only on Libertarian support of it? Biased much?

Sorry you competed with immigrants and hold a personal grudge against them because of it. But they help grow the economy. If only the longterm unemployed had an immigrants mentality to do work, any work, instead of holding out for their old job to come back or be paid the same amount we could cut the unemployed number almost in half. But people in construction, secretaries, and similar fields that have reduced demand hold out instead of switching.

What logical fallacy did I make? You assume that no one will stop a party from implementing its platforum in full yet provide no rationale that it would actually occur - except that liberals don't have the balls to stand up against it. You don't think Republicans would pick and choose elements they like and use the support for smaller government and a VAT along with lower marginal income tax rates and business taxes, while Democrats enjoy the support for more civil liberties? Do you have any good reasoning why everything would go POOF and a minority party would overpower the existing powers and enforce its policies on everyone without any checks or balances?

[joshh]

Well you said I need to learn what a logical fallacy was when you keep making them and I keep pointing them out, seemed ironic.


Since when has any political party have all their ideas adopted?


Whoever said it was going to be simple? And you can't maintain your own view through that paragraph.

.
It is. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...american-jobs/




There's Republicans who said Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional, so if by your logic you shouldn't vote Libertarian because of that, then you shouldn't vote Republican either. So congrats on voting for Obama next week.



So your argument is that they will be free to create Anarchy because of your logical assumption that "liberals don't have any balls".

We're talking about their platform now aren't we.



My point is maintained very well. The Fair Tax is far from worked out well. As I show there. Yet there's Mr. Libertarian siding with the Fair Tax...yet it's unworkable as it sits.

Nice link from The New York Times...lol. But I've seen with my own eyes the jobs immigrants take from Americans in construction. And they aren't general labor workers. They're skilled laborers. Plus your link doesn't take into account the fact 23 million Americans are either unemployed or under employed while you cry about population growth. Not making sense there bud.

Ah yes and another logical fallacy from you because you choose to alter my ideas. Which just makes you look desperate again...as usual.

[rwh11385]

Ah yes still on the attack I see...lol.

Well you said I need to learn what a logical fallacy was when you keep making them and I keep pointing them out, seemed ironic.

As I've already said, they have some good ideas. And they have some fucking retarded ones.

Since when has any political party have all their ideas adopted?

The Fair Tax just is not going to be that simple. A flat 23% tax (depending on your income) is going to replace all the current taxes we have? Property taxes, income taxes, death taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes etc. It's just not going to happen. How are you going to prove what you bought is new or used? What's going to be considered a necessity? What about the fact that we just slapped a tax on every item we now sell on the American market (to other countries)? A huge tax on items I don't need doesn't make me want to buy. However I'm all for lower taxes. And all for much less pork.

Whoever said it was going to be simple? And you can't maintain your own view through that paragraph.

Our population growth is important while we have 23 million people out of work/under employed...good point

.
It is. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...american-jobs/

"Meanwhile, the research has found that immigrants – including the poor, uneducated ones coming from south of the border — have a big positive impact on the economy over the long run, bolstering the profitability of American firms, reducing the prices of some products and services by providing employers with a new labor source and creating more opportunities for investment and jobs. Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California at Davis, estimated that the wave of immigrants that entered the United States from 1990 to 2007 increased national income per worker by about $5,400 a year on average, in 2007 dollars. He also concluded that the wave had a small positive impact on the average wage of American workers, by lifting the overall economy. If immigrants hurt anyone, it was the previous cohort of immigrants, with whom they most directly compete in the labor market."

Now enter into the fact Libertarians want to rid the US of entitlements. That would include for those who can't care for themselves. SS, Planned Parenthood, Welfare, food stamps ect. Homeless shelters and non-profits would be swamped. Unless you want to assume there's a job for everyone in the US including the immigrants they want to open the border for.

There's Republicans who said Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional, so if by your logic you shouldn't vote Libertarian because of that, then you shouldn't vote Republican either. So congrats on voting for Obama next week.

What you're going to have is far more even richer rich people and more poorer poor people. Because Libertarians want to remove regulations and let the free market regulate itself. Even I don't agree with that. And if the liberals here had any balls they'd jump in and argue that point as well.

What you have with Libertarians is a hodgepodge of good and bad ideas that in the end will not work out.

So your argument is that they will be free to create Anarchy because of your logical assumption that "liberals don't have any balls".

[joshh]

Irony overload. Anyone who understands logic should be able to easily identify the weakness of the arguments you post and the fallacies they are based on. Again, it's not my fault that you take it personally when I point out the flaws of your arguments.



Do you want to end unneeded farm subsidies (those going to mega corporate farmers)? Let states manage money for Medicare directly via block grants like Ryan wants? You hate Obamacare right? Repeal Patriot Act? Pro 2nd amendment? Plenty of people are waiting to move towards FairTax. I can't see why you would have a problem with those items...

Maybe it's gay marriage, removing prohibition, or legalizing immigrant workers needed to grow the economy since our population growth is dismal. Yeah, is that why you think the country would enter Anarchy? Two immigrant men could work legally and marry each other while smoking weed?

Ah yes still on the attack I see...lol.

As I've already said, they have some good ideas. And they have some fucking retarded ones.

The Fair Tax just is not going to be that simple. A flat 23% tax (depending on your income) is going to replace all the current taxes we have? Property taxes, income taxes, death taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes etc. It's just not going to happen. How are you going to prove what you bought is new or used? What's going to be considered a necessity? What about the fact that we just slapped a tax on every item we now sell on the American market (to other countries)? A huge tax on items I don't need doesn't make me want to buy. However I'm all for lower taxes. And all for much less pork.

Our population growth is important while we have 23 million people out of work/under employed...good point.

Now enter into the fact Libertarians want to rid the US of entitlements. That would include for those who can't care for themselves. SS, Planned Parenthood, Welfare, food stamps ect. Homeless shelters and non-profits would be swamped. Unless you want to assume there's a job for everyone in the US including the immigrants they want to open the border for.

What you're going to have is far more even richer rich people and more poorer poor people. Because Libertarians want to remove regulations and let the free market regulate itself. Even I don't agree with that. And if the liberals here had any balls they'd jump in and argue that point as well.

What you have with Libertarians is a hodgepodge of good and bad ideas that in the end will not work out.

[rwh11385]

And you need to learn what a logical fallacy is. And that aberrating someone's comments is showing weakness in your own logic. All while you continue to avoid discussing the basic Libertarian platform...lol. No matter how you justify it.

Irony overload. Anyone who understands logic should be able to easily identify the weakness of the arguments you post and the fallacies they are based on. Again, it's not my fault that you take it personally when I point out the flaws of your arguments.



Do you want to end unneeded farm subsidies (those going to mega corporate farmers)? Let states manage money for Medicare and Medicaid directly via block grants like Ryan wants [for Medicaid]? You hate Obamacare right? Repeal Patriot Act? Pro 2nd amendment? Plenty of people are waiting to move towards FairTax. I can't see why you would have a problem with those items...

Maybe it's gay marriage, removing prohibition, or legalizing immigrant workers needed to grow the economy since our population growth is dismal. Yeah, is that why you think the country would enter Anarchy? Two immigrant men could work legally and marry each other while smoking weed?

[ethrtyiS]

I love wearing shirts like that or bumper stickers. The bumper stickers have to be on magnets so the liberals ( the tolerance crowed) don't key your car though. So you place them strategically.

yeah, i won't do bumper stickers or anything like that for that exact reason. however, i do have some suction cupped romney-ryan signs and i also get dirty looks for that, mainly from welfare/cracked out looking women, and ignorant young people. i am however, a bit scared that i will come back to my car reading obama keyed on the hood like what i've heard from others. luckily, i have insurance, and if i catch the person doing it i'll be sure to use my 1st and 2nd amendment before it's taken away from us.

[joshh]

My attack of your logical fallacies make it impossible for me to see any logic at all??

I think you need to learn what logic is before you make statements about it.

And you need to learn what a logical fallacy is. And that aberrating someone's comments is showing weakness in your own logic. All while you continue to avoid discussing the basic Libertarian platform...lol. No matter how you justify it.

[rwh11385]

And you just keep proving you cannot argue the Libertarian platform. Than you for proving that....LMFAO.
See you're all about the attack. That's not what I said at all. It was an example showing a person voting for a party he doesn't actually believe in because he knows not all the policies will make it to fruition but hopes it "helps".
You're attack attitude makes it impossible for you to see any logic at all. You may have the last word because all it'll be is an attack as usual. Feel free to keep altering what I've said so you have something to whine about....lol.

My attack of your logical fallacies make it impossible for me to see any logic at all??

I think you need to learn what logic is before you make statements about it.

[joshh]

No, that is not a logical argument. You wouldn't know what a logical argument if it hit you in the face. A logical argument must be based on logical and valid premises, not assumptions or a poor basis.

So... you argue their agenda would make it all the way as a whole like the Democrats, which you just admitted were limited by Republicans. You were able to disprove your own point in a few sentences.

What's still ironic is you claiming someone else cannot make a real argument. Almost as ironic as you emphasizing what Obama was talking about in regards to maintaining infrastructure, even as you take his words out of context in your signature.

So now you are attacking people who vote for Gary Johnson because it is as bad in your mind as voting for the Communist party??

And you just keep proving you cannot argue the Libertarian platform. Thank you for proving that....LMFAO.
See you're all about the attack. That's not what I said at all. It was an example showing a person voting for a party he doesn't actually believe in because he knows not all the policies will make it to fruition but hopes it "helps".
You're attack attitude makes it impossible for you to see any logic at all. You may have the last word because all it'll be is an attack as usual. Feel free to keep altering what I've said so you have something to whine about....lol.

[rwh11385]

Ah yes it would. That's the whole point. What that party intends to bring to this country. Just like what the Democrats and Republicans want to bring to this country. That is a logical argument as much as you might hate it.
Now you're going to say something as asinine as their agenda will never make it as a whole into this country. Well take a look at the Democrats. They've gotten very much of what they wanted socially (all the social programs ) and more. The only thing holding them in check are the evil Republicans...who are for the social programs as well.

You just simply fail at making a real argument against it because insults are far easier for you. As your last two pages of posts prove. Because you know the Libertarian platform can't produce enough taxes to keep this country out of trouble. People will be a more free society than they have ever been all while they walk on roads that are falling apart and fend for themselves amongst corporate tycoons that railroad over people's lives without the legal system being able to step in properly to help them.
Instead of the government being the problem, Anarchy or if you will the lack of enough government will be the problem.
"I'm going to vote for a Communist because I want larger government. But I don't like all of their policies. And it's impossible that all their policies will ever get enacted so I'll vote for them. Yep...and maybe that will make the change I want." That's your logic.

In other words you're avoiding talking about the Libertarian platform at all cost.

No, that is not a logical argument. You wouldn't know what a logical argument was if it hit you in the face. A logical argument must be based on logical and valid premises, not assumptions or a poor basis.

So... you argue their agenda would make it all the way as a whole like the Democrats, which you just admitted were limited by Republicans. You were able to disprove your own point in a few sentences.

What's still ironic is you claiming someone else cannot make a real argument. Almost as ironic as you emphasizing what Obama was talking about in regards to maintaining infrastructure, even as you take his words out of context in your signature.

So now you are attacking people who vote for Gary Johnson because it is as bad in your mind as voting for the Communist party??

[joshh]

The Complex Question - The fallacy of demanding a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered without first analyzing or challenging the basis of the question itself.

Forcing a question to be based on if "they got everything they wanted" is a flawed argument since the premise is highly unlikely and biased towards your conclusion.

Keep trying to defend poor logic by saying proving you are using illogical arguments are insults. . . they won't make your points valid.

Ah yes it would. That's the whole point. What that party intends to bring to this country. Just like what the Democrats and Republicans want to bring to this country. That is a logical argument as much as you might hate it.
Now you're going to say something as asinine as their agenda will never make it as a whole into this country. Well take a look at the Democrats. They've gotten very much of what they wanted socially (all the social programs ) and more. The only thing holding them in check are the evil Republicans...who are for the social programs as well.

You just simply fail at making a real argument against it because insults are far easier for you. As your last two pages of posts prove. Because you know the Libertarian platform can't produce enough taxes to keep this country out of trouble. People will be a more free society than they have ever been all while they walk on roads that are falling apart and fend for themselves amongst corporate tycoons that railroad over people's lives without the legal system being able to step in properly to help them.
Instead of the government being the problem, Anarchy or if you will the lack of enough government will be the problem.
"I'm going to vote for a Communist because I want larger government. But I don't like all of their policies. And it's impossible that all their policies will ever get enacted so I'll vote for them. Yep...and maybe that will make the change I want." That's your logic.

In other words you're avoiding talking about the Libertarian platform at all cost.