Presidential debate...

[rwh11385]

Let me know when you want to get serious about discussing why the Libertarian platform will cause Anarchy in the US if they got everything they wanted. In the mean time thrill yourself with insulting me...lol.

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.

[joshh]

I'm sorry you take the attacks on your logical fallacies personally, maybe you should work to make your arguments based on logic and reason instead. It is a logical discussion to point out all the fallacies you fill your "arguments" with. Do you usually find success in the drivel that you spew here?

Oh, so your disrespect for gay rights should be made okay because you think they are nice when they offer to share their lunch with you? Oh wait, that was illegals. Saying you don't have a problem with them as long as they aren't in your face but disregarding their civil liberties is still negative towards them, even if you believe you aren't. It's not cherry picking an argument (which was the fallacy you should have been alluding to) because no quantity of posts that showed positive opinion of them would nullify your disrespect of their rights.

No, I'm far more interested in an intelligent and logical discussion of ideas, instead of a poorly argued bullshit outpouring of false dilemmas and slippery slopes. You try to make a debate into a simplistic black and white issue, but they hardly ever are. That destroys any possibility to have any meaningful discussion, as you simply ad nauseam your viewpoint and don't listen to any logic that explains why your argument is poor. I am biased against illogical bull, but apparently you bask in it.

Bottom line: YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR LOGICAL FALLACIES BY CLAIMING THAT POINTING THEM OUT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK

Let me know when you want to get serious about discussing why the Libertarian platform will cause Anarchy in the US if they got everything they wanted. In the mean time thrill yourself with insulting me...lol.

[rwh11385]

So instead of making a logical discussion/response out of it. It's easier for you to attack the person. Time and time again. It's become your forte. It makes it impossible for it to be a discussion. No matter what I post even with facts as I've already done (you ignore those posts) you just attack....just like how you pulled all my "negative" gay posts and left out my positive ones. Making you extremely biased and showing you're far more interested in the attack than the discussion.

I'm sorry you take the attacks on your logical fallacies personally, maybe you should work to make your arguments based on logic and reason instead. It is a logical discussion to point out all the fallacies you fill your "arguments" with. Do you usually find success in the drivel that you spew here?

Oh, so your disrespect for gay rights should be made okay because you think they are nice when they offer to share their lunch with you? Oh wait, that was illegals. Saying you don't have a problem with them as long as they aren't in your face but disregarding their civil liberties is still negative towards them, even if you believe you aren't. It's not cherry picking an argument (which was the fallacy you should have been alluding to) because no quantity of posts that showed positive opinion of them would nullify your disrespect of their rights.

No, I'm far more interested in an intelligent and logical discussion of ideas, instead of a poorly argued bullshit outpouring of false dilemmas and slippery slopes. You try to make a debate into a simplistic black and white issue, but they hardly ever are. That destroys any possibility to have any meaningful discussion, as you simply ad nauseam your viewpoint and don't listen to any logic that explains why your argument is poor. I am biased against illogical bull, but apparently you bask in it.

Bottom line: YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR LOGICAL FALLACIES BY CLAIMING THAT POINTING THEM OUT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK

[joshh]

hey, just thought i'd comment on your sig regarding... "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." - Barack Obama.

that made me very outraged when i heard him say that. i immediately went to romney's site and purchased his tee saying "Government didn't build my business, I did." couldn't be more proud when i wear that shirt around, even with all the weird and nasty looks i receive.

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.

Riiiiiight. That, and all the examples I pointed out that your argument is based entirely on logical fallacies.

Maybe if you used logic and reason people wouldn't attack your posts as often? They certainly would be of more (or any) value/worth if you brought to the table anything but fallacies.

So instead of making a logical discussion/response out of it. It's easier for you to attack the person. Time and time again. It's become your forte. It makes it impossible for it to be a discussion. No matter what I post even with facts as I've already done (you ignore those posts) you just attack....just like how you pulled all my "negative" gay posts and left out my positive ones. Making you extremely biased and showing you're far more interested in the attack than the discussion.

[rwh11385]

You have just done what you accuse me of....

Attacking me personally is all you have. It's all you've had for pages....

Riiiiiight. That, and all the examples I pointed out that your argument is based entirely on logical fallacies.

Maybe if you used logic and reason people wouldn't attack your posts as often? They certainly would be of more (or any) value/worth if you brought to the table anything but fallacies.

[ethrtyiS]

You have just done what you accuse me of....

Attacking me personally is all you have. It's all you've had for pages....

hey, just thought i'd comment on your sig regarding... "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." - Barack Obama.

that made me very outraged when i heard him say that. i immediately went to romney's site and purchased his tee saying "Government didn't build my business, I did." couldn't be more proud when i wear that shirt around, even with all the weird and nasty looks i receive.

[joshh]

I really need to make the Bingo game already...

False dilemma - It's either the Republican version of small government, or anarchy
Ad hominem - It's laughable that you say anyone else has a thick head...
Guilt by Association - "Typical of you liberals..."
Slippery Slope - Voting for Gary Johnson will bring Anarchy / policies will instantly equal results without input/influence from others.
Ad nauseam - Saying the same thing 4-5 times doesn't make it a stronger point
Appeal to motive - You try to claim that CorvallisBMW doesn't post out of a logical argument but for acceptance instead, since you don't care how many people think your posts are worthless or that you're a troll, that means your posts are more valid?

You have just done what you accuse me of....

Attacking me personally is all you have. It's all you've had for pages....

[rwh11385]

No actually it's not at all. Libertarians want far less government than even hardcore conservatives do. The lack of government equals Anarchy. And if you were reading (which you clearly were not) I did not say Libertarians were Anarchists. Get that through your thick liberal head. Their policies will bring on Anarchy is what I was explaining. You can disagree all you like by mud slinging yourself and creating your own double standard which is typical of you liberals.
By the way, I don't post for pure acceptance of other people like you do.

I really need to make the Bingo game already...

False dilemma - It's either the Republican version of small government, or anarchy
Ad hominem - It's laughable that you say anyone else has a thick head...
Guilt by Association - "Typical of you liberals..."
Slippery Slope - Voting for Gary Johnson will bring Anarchy / policies will instantly equal results without input/influence from others.
Ad nauseam - Saying the same thing 4-5 times doesn't make it a stronger point
Appeal to motive - You try to claim that CorvallisBMW doesn't post out of a logical argument but for acceptance instead, since you don't care how many people think your posts are worthless or that you're a troll, that means your posts are more valid?

[joshh]

The fact that Josh thinks that only the federal government is only entity capable of providing defense, enforcing contracts, and social programs clearly disregards the capacity, power, and responsibility of state and local governments.

Genius, get this through your head. The smaller your federal gov is, the more power goes back to your state and local goverment. Less taxes being sucked at the federal level (only to be redistributed across less performing states anyway) means that your state can keep more of it.

Sent from the heavens

Hey genius, Libertarians don't believe in social programs...LMFAO. Fuck that's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Do some reading on the Libertarian platform. It's about self reliance and tiny government. And that also means a very small military as well.

http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare

Poverty and Welfare

Highlights of the Libertarian Party's "Ending the Welfare State" Proposal


From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is now almost universal acknowledgement that the American social welfare system has been a failure.

Since the start of the "war on poverty" in 1965, the United States has spent more than $5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. What we have received for this massive investment is -- primarily -- more poverty.

Our welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church and family are increasingly pushed aside; and most of all to the poor themselves, who are trapped in a system that destroys opportunity for themselves and hope for their children.

The Libertarian Party believes it is time for a new approach to fighting poverty. It is a program based on opportunity, work, and individual responsibility.
Poverty and Welfare

Highlights of the Libertarian Party's "Ending the Welfare State" Proposal


From across the political and ideological spectrum, there is now almost universal acknowledgement that the American social welfare system has been a failure.

Since the start of the "war on poverty" in 1965, the United States has spent more than $5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. What we have received for this massive investment is -- primarily -- more poverty.

Our welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church and family are increasingly pushed aside; and most of all to the poor themselves, who are trapped in a system that destroys opportunity for themselves and hope for their children.

The Libertarian Party believes it is time for a new approach to fighting poverty. It is a program based on opportunity, work, and individual responsibility.

1. End Welfare

None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.

"....and all the rest......

[joshh]

Joshh, it's clear you have absolutely ZERO idea what libertarians stand for, what they believe in or what causes they support. Because if you did, you'd realize that libertarianism is far, far removed from anarchism.

So I suggest you do some research, try to actually form a fact-based argument, and come back and try again. Because in the last 10 pages of this thread you have failed to use a single data point, legitimate info source or shred of evidence. Every single one of your posts has been straw-man, personal opinion or mud slinging. This is why no one respects you, why we all think you're a colossal douche and why you will always be the R3v Resident Troll.

No actually it's not at all. Libertarians want far less government than even hardcore conservatives do. The lack of government equals Anarchy. And if you were reading (which you clearly were not) I did not say Libertarians were Anarchists. Get that through your thick liberal head. Their policies will bring on Anarchy is what I was explaining. You can disagree all you like by mud slinging yourself and creating your own double standard which is typical of you liberals.
By the way, I don't post for pure acceptance of other people like you do.

[Kershaw]

http://www.republicansforobama.org/consider

awesome.

[streetwaves]

Joshh, it's clue you have absolutely ZERO idea what libertarians stand for, what they believe in or what causes they support. Because if you did, you'd realize that libertarianism is far, far removed from anarchism.

A more technical name for anarchists is "libertarian socialists."

I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson this election. I am certainly no economic expert so I can't honestly say I'm on board with libertarian economic ideas, but I also can't claim to believe in the economic ideas of the Green Party either. Either one is better than Obama-Romney, though. At least you have more reason to believe they mean what they say.

[Cliche Guevara]

Hey Oregonians (joshh, Corvallis, etc), you better be voting to legalize pot.

[bmwstephen]

The fact that Josh thinks that only the federal government is only entity capable of providing defense, enforcing contracts, and social programs clearly disregards the capacity, power, and responsibility of state and local governments.

Genius, get this through your head. The smaller your federal gov is, the more power goes back to your state and local goverment. Less taxes being sucked at the federal level (only to be redistributed across less performing states anyway) means that your state can keep more of it.

Sent from the heavens

[CorvallisBMW]

Joshh, it's clear you have absolutely ZERO idea what libertarians stand for, what they believe in or what causes they support. Because if you did, you'd realize that libertarianism is far, far removed from anarchism.

So I suggest you do some research, try to actually form a fact-based argument, and come back and try again. Because in the last 10 pages of this thread you have failed to use a single data point, legitimate info source or shred of evidence. Every single one of your posts has been straw-man, personal opinion or mud slinging. This is why no one respects you, why we all think you're a colossal douche and why you will always be the R3v Resident Troll.