Presidential debate...

[rwh11385]

smooth, I know you must really get worked up like in that one thread about college debt (before you deleted all your posts) because you want to show off your randy opinions, but just because your fact pacts say that everyone who is wanting an alternative to the poor-serving two-party system must be a loon doesn't mean that they are.

I'm sure you have a million sites that make Drudge or ZeroHedge look sane, but here's the breed I enjoy: http://reason.com/

And another libertarian / conservative mix I enjoy: http://www.ncpa.org/

Trying to keep everyone herded into Dem or Rep and attacking anything else as "fringe" is pretty weaksauce. Sorry if it is not as easy for you to summarize a less simple political field. But let me know if you'd like to explain the dangers of not accepting D/R lock-step, since you seem so concerned about it.

[smooth]

As I stated before, if you guys are going to continue to refer to a political movement you *really* need to learn about its roots. Did you bother to read much of that article? You two responded within 20 minutes of me posting it...not much time to read a lengthy article or research who Lysander Spooner is.

Of course, since you don't agree with him or don't know much about him, he must be some lone loon...or rather he's one of the principle founders of libertarianism.


"The greatest natural rights thinker of the 19th century was the American lawyer and maverick individualist Lysander Spooner.

He responded to the tumultuous events of his era, including the Panic of 1837 and the Civil War, with pamphlets about natural rights, slavery, money, trial by jury and other timely subjects. “Lysander Spooner deserves a place of honor,” declared Boston University law professor Randy E. Barnett, “both for the principles for which he stood against the crowd and for the brilliance with which he defended those principles.” Intellectual historian George H. Smith called Spooner “one of the greatest libertarian theorists.”

-- http://www.libertarianism.org/people/lysander-spooner

"Spooner's influence extends to the wide range of topics he addressed during his lifetime. He is remembered today primarily for his abolitionist activities and for his challenge to the post office monopoly, which had a lasting influence of significantly reducing postal rates.[34] Spooner's writings contributed to the development of both left-libertarian and right-libertarian political theory in the United States, and were often reprinted in early right-libertarian journals such as the Rampart Journal[35] and Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought.[36] His writings were also a major influence on Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard and right-libertarian law professor and legal theorist Randy Barnett.
In January 2004, Laissez Faire Books established the Lysander Spooner Award for advancing the literature of liberty. The honor is awarded monthly to the most important contributions to the literature of liberty, followed by an annual award to the author of the top book on liberty for the year. The annual "Spooner" earns $1,500 cash for the winning author.[37]
Spooner's The Unconstitutionality of Slavery was cited in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case which struck down the federal district's ban on handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, quotes Spooner as saying the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.[38] It was also cited by Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago the following year.[39]"
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner

smooth, I know you must really get worked up like in that one thread about OWS because you want to show off your randy opinions, but just because your fact pacts say that everyone who is wanting an alternative to the poor-serving two-party system must be a loon doesn't mean that they are.

Where are you pulling this from? I never said anything of the sort. I'm not sure where you are going with this comment but go ahead and dig in deeper because it won't distract from your previous ignorant comments.

Interesting that you are trying to go down this road. Two comments ago you and josh were in agreement that Spooner was a loon and now you want to paint me as making such claims. Nice try, but it won't work here.

[joshh]

Um, here?


O RLY? Where is your "source" that they don't say lower taxes:

http://www.lp.org/faq

How you gonna argue against that?

Very easily. You're use of "lower". Which in fact for Libertarians almost none. But for you to swallow the rhetoric they have to make it acceptable.

http://www.libertarianism.com/content/100

There's plenty there. With few specifics of course.

Actually... there's a ton of posts of you hating on gay rights:




You do know that slippery slope is a logical fallacy.... right?



No, you're just an idiot who says that every other person's political views are wrong even though you don't know your own, besides Obama sucks and hating on gay rights. So how exactly aren't you Republican??

Hating on gay rights...lol. You mean giving my opinion on the issues. While maintaining that *marriage* should still be between a man and a woman. But that gays should be able to have a legal bond. I just dislike the way many of them go about the fight and don't like the sexual act of homosexuality. As I do the way many Christians do with Chick-Fil-A. And?
It's a logical fallacy if you have an axe to grind and like to skip my other posts sure....lol.

Annnnnd this is where it goes around in circles.

Homosexuality is a perversion of the way the human body was meant to keep the line going. Having said that. We do need to respect people's personal choices if it's not hurting anyone else. If two consenting adults want to have this type of relationship they should be allowed to have it.

So you can't answer my question about how Libertarians are going to school children?

[rwh11385]

Very easily. You're use of "lower". Which in fact for Libertarians almost none. But for you to swallow the rhetoric they have to make it acceptable.

http://www.libertarianism.com/content/100

There's plenty there. With few specifics of course.

Make what acceptable? Advocating consumption taxes instead of income taxes and reducing expenditures to reduce the crowding out effect? Sounds revolutionary... or not.

So you provide a source with few specifics but you decide to have the ability to define what Libertarians are aiming for even without information about it? Wow, you have magical assumptive powers!

Hating on gay rights...lol. You mean giving my opinion on the issues. While maintaining that *marriage* should still be between a man and a woman. But that gays should be able to have a legal bond. I just dislike the way many of them go about the fight and don't like the sexual act of homosexuality. As I do the way many Christians do with Chick-Fil-A. And?
It's a logical fallacy if you have an axe to grind and like to skip my other posts sure....lol.

Which logical fallacy is that? Or are you just saying words that I say?

You disliking their pursuit of rights doesn't equal hating on gay rights?

Your opinion should limit someone else's freedoms?

So you can't answer my question about how Libertarians are going to school children?

So needy. Parents pay for it. No economic or political philosophy is going to perfectly cater to every issue. I'm not worried about this magically happening overnight because more Americans support social liberty while also advocating for lower taxes and smaller government with more private efforts.

[rwh11385]

As I stated before, if you guys are going to continue to refer to a political movement you *really* need to learn about its roots.

Okay PhD in law and society, tell me what party advocates for socially liberal / economically free and limited government... that IS acceptable in your eyes? Or should I continue to accept the lesser of two evils? Because apparently I'm not allowed to like what some libertarian free market stuff without adopting the extreme parts - it's ALL OR NOTHING?!

It's not like I'm joining the party. I want mine to stop being so ridiculous and adopt what I like that Gary Johnson is saying... Whether or not you want to limit my ability to support what I want or not by villianizing it.

Where are you pulling this from? I never said anything of the sort. I'm not sure where you are going with this comment but go ahead and dig in deeper because it won't distract from your previous ignorant comments.

Interesting that you are trying to go down this road. Two comments ago you and josh were in agreement that Spooner was a loon and now you want to paint me as making such claims. Nice try, but it won't work here.

Just pulling from experience with you in threads. That no one can say or do things that aren't in your studies.

Why don't you tell me why people are supporting Gary Johnson, and then why they are wrong in that? And also why you think they should stay lock-step in the two-party system?

[smooth]

Just pulling from experience with you in threads.

Apparently you have me confused with someone else.

Okay PhD in political science,

Criminology, Law & Society

tell me what party advocates for socially liberal / economically free and limited government... that IS acceptable in your eyes?

I think you should do your own research and come to your own conclusions as to which party approximates your political beliefs best.
Certainly what I do or do not deem as acceptable should be of no concern to your personal beliefs unless you are so weak minded that you *need* someone to tell you how to vote--and in that case you don't do me any favors by voting by my side.

Or should I continue to accept the lesser of two evils?

When have I ever written anything even close to such a ridiculous statement?

It's not like I'm joining the party. I want mine to stop being so ridiculous and adopt what I like that Gary Johnson is saying... Whether or not you want to limit my ability to support what I want or not by villianizing it.

Why would I want to limit anyone's ability to support anything and I've certainly not villianized anything, let alone libertarianism.
Please quote any earlier statement(s) of mine that led you to this misunderstanding.

Why don't you tell me why people are supporting Gary Johnson, and then why they are wrong in that?

How can I answer for anyone else and why would I do so even if I knew the answer?
I'd have to evaluate one's reasoning before I could answer whether it was grounded in factual basis.

And also why you think they should stay lock-step in the two-party system?

What statement(s) of mine led you to believe I would think this? Please post it/them.

[rwh11385]

Apparently you have me confused with someone else.

Nah. Just because you went through and deleted every post you made it in does mean you didn't argue in the student loan forgiveness thread.

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=3110717&postcount=61

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=3110737&postcount=65

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=3110750&postcount=66

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=3110754&postcount=67

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=3110834&postcount=73

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=3110865&postcount=76

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=3110927&postcount=82

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=3110964&postcount=88

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=3111128&postcount=107

hahaha look who deleted all their replies

[smooth]

I read through each of those posts and I'm at a loss as to how they're relevant to this discussion. Perhaps you'd like to explain your point better so the rest of us can understand what you are trying to convey.

[rwh11385]

Criminology, Law & Society

Close enough. I edited it before you added your update to this post though.

I think you should do your own research and come to your own conclusions as to which party approximates your political beliefs best.
Certainly what I do or do not deem as acceptable should be of no concern to your personal beliefs unless you are so weak minded that you *need* someone to tell you how to vote--and in that case you don't do me any favors by voting by my side.

When have I ever written anything even close to such a ridiculous statement?

Why would I want to limit anyone's ability to support anything and I've certainly not villianized anything, let alone libertarianism.
Please quote any earlier statement(s) of mine that led you to this misunderstanding.

How can I answer for anyone else and why would I do so even if I knew the answer?
I'd have to evaluate one's reasoning before I could answer whether it was grounded in factual basis.


What statement(s) of mine led you to believe I would think this? Please post it/them.

Okay, so does that mean you will stop trying to tell me that what I like with Gary Johnson and also on Reason aren't really what I like and I should really be hating what other edges are saying? Is there a better description of the Reason.com version of libertarian that doesn't include the loon factor?

I read through each of those posts and I'm at a loss as to how they're relevant to this discussion. Perhaps you'd like to explain your point better so the rest of us can understand what you are trying to convey.

As I stated before, you want to show off your bookish knowledge of politics from working in a think tank, but completely disregarding what us as humans, and not statistics or a profile, want. Just because someone likes some elements or philosophies doesn't mean they have to buy the whole cow. Voting for one Republican doesn't mean you support everything the party has ever supported or every single member. I don't expect the one-size-fit-all mentality, nor just two with two sets of opposites, to serve us well.

[smooth]

Aside from the fact that I have *never* written anything on this board regarding stopping or encouraging you to like or dislike Gary Johnson and have made no reference to Reason in any way, shape, or form and I don't understand what "other edges are saying" even means, the problem with voting for a singular person because you like a single thing he or she advocates without understanding the theory or philosophy underpinning the policy change renders you incapable of evaluating whether the policy change will adversely impact the situation.


Put simply, if you don't understand why someone is arguing for a particular change then it's difficult to figure out if the change is going to make something better or worse.

Posting that you should read more about a particular political theory, preferably from the people who started it, is not villianizing it or your personal beliefs. It's simply encouraging you to understand where the people you are voting for are coming from so you can evaluate what they do, and not just blindly agree with what they claim they want to do.

If you want to value anything remotely close to freedom of thought then I would hope a primary principle would be educating yourself on the facts and history of a topic.

Instead you categorize attempts to historicize something as "bookish knowledge" and a "disregarding what us as humans...want"

that's piss-poor logic and nothing like what you say you idealize but you're like a wounded animal in the corner lashing out at whatever you perceive as a threat...even when that "threat" is trying to help heal you.

Nothing that I have ever written is to "show off" and I loathe posting in this section but when I do rarely come in here I see so much incoherence and confusion among people part of a community I've been a long-time member of sometimes my nature gets the better of my senses and I try to clarify and educate some of you against my better judgement.

[rwh11385]

Aside from the fact that I have *never* written anything on this board regarding stopping or encouraging you to like or dislike Gary Johnson and have made no reference to Reason in any way, shape, or form and I don't understand what "other edges are saying" even means, the problem with voting for a singular person because you like a single thing he or she advocates without understanding the theory or philosophy underpinning the policy change renders you incapable of evaluating whether the policy change will adversely impact the situation.


Put simply, if you don't understand why someone is arguing for a particular change then it's difficult to figure out if the change is going to make something better or worse.

Posting that you should read more about a particular political theory, preferably from the people who started it, is not villianizing it or your personal beliefs. It's simply encouraging you to understand where the people you are voting for are coming from so you can evaluate what they do, and not just blindly agree with what they claim they want to do.

If you want to value anything remotely close to freedom of thought then I would hope a primary principle would be educating yourself on the facts and history of a topic.

Instead you categorize attempts to historicize something as "bookish knowledge" and a "disregarding what us as humans...want"

that's piss-poor logic and nothing like what you say you idealize but you're like a wounded animal in the corner lashing out at whatever you perceive as a threat...even when that "threat" is trying to help heal you.

Nothing that I have ever written is to "show off" and I loathe posting in this section but when I do rarely come in here I see so much incoherence and confusion among people part of a community I've been a long-time member of sometimes my nature gets the better of my senses and I try to clarify and educate some of you against my better judgement.

Maybe I should get a PhD then so I can be educated enough like you to be able to vote properly. Will then I be allowed to like who I like?

[joshh]

Make what acceptable? Advocating consumption taxes instead of income taxes and reducing expenditures to reduce the crowding out effect? Sounds revolutionary... or not.

So you provide a source with few specifics but you decide to have the ability to define what Libertarians are aiming for even without information about it? Wow, you have magical assumptive powers!



Which logical fallacy is that? Or are you just saying words that I say?

You disliking their pursuit of rights doesn't equal hating on gay rights?

Your opinion should limit someone else's freedoms?



So needy. Parents pay for it. No economic or political philosophy is going to perfectly cater to every issue. I'm not worried about this magically happening overnight because more Americans support social liberty while also advocating for lower taxes and smaller government with more private efforts.

You caught on without actually knowing it. I find that funny. That's the whole fucking point. Libertarians won't give specifics except let the free market work itself out or let people be free or no income tax or just a sale tax blah blah blah. They're allover the place. The point being they would not be able the generate enough revenue to keep the basics of the country going (specifically defense of the country). Except that the government would be very very small, which would cause problems. They would be forced to tax somewhere because government would fail without the revenue to keep it afloat.
Libertarians do have some good ideas though. But on the whole it won't work. Which can be said for both Republicans and Democrats at this point as well.

My ideas don't limit gays from having their life the way they want it. Sorry to spoil your hate.

More people advocate for smaller government..that's why Obama got into office right and why government has been growing and growing and getting more and more intrusive in our lives. Yes Americans do support social liberties more but they also support government handouts more as well.

[rwh11385]

You caught on without actually knowing it. I find that funny. That's the whole fucking point. Libertarians won't give specifics except let the free market work itself out or let people be free or no income tax or just a sale tax blah blah blah. They're allover the place.

The same could be said about Republicans a lot of the time. Not to make being unclear or unspecific doesn't matter but they aren't always alone in not tying plans down. It's not a big deal since the likelihood to have to implement anything (like if they won) is pretty slim.

As Corvallis mentioned, it's a signaling move and not an expectation of an actual outcome being different - showing that I want social liberty combined with more free market.

The point being they would not be able the generate enough revenue to keep the basics of the country going (specifically defense of the country). Except that the government would be very very small, which would cause problems. They would be forced to tax somewhere because government would fail without the revenue to keep it afloat.

Libertarians do have some good ideas though. But on the whole it won't work. Which can be said for both Republicans and Democrats at this point as well.

The point is that they, and Republicans too, would move towards taking government away from what it does ineffectively and should be done privately and save money. Like forced charity - that should be personal decision not some Congressmen deciding. But also if there is a rise in social enterprise and personal, then our results can improve without government control, like if Habitat for Humanity boomed we would need effort from HUD to fix the problem. And in my mind, the private realm - particularly including young innovative people - can accomplish more with less than the government.

As I've said, I'm not saying to follow them as a whole - clearly I've said pick and choose and compromise, but the mixture of two things that we cannot from either of the two parties should be displayed since many Americans don't want to settle on just half of what they want.

My ideas don't limit gays from having their life the way they want it. Sorry to spoil your hate.

Um, no. Not if people like you vote against them being allowed to have the civil liberties that they want and deserve.

More people advocate for smaller government..that's why Obama got into office right and why government has been growing and growing and getting more and more intrusive in our lives. Yes Americans do support social liberties more but they also support government handouts more as well.

Yes there is push for more social liberties, even if some people like you are dragging their feet and Sanatorum or Perry wants to attack them outright. But as mentioned, NPOs or businesses that partner their efforts to improving the world can help in reducing the need for government handouts. Like Bono discovered, teaching people to fish is a LOT more effective than keep giving people fish every year.

[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.

[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