What are libertarians?

[Pogo]

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd

She didn't say Marx influenced anybody retroactively either. She used the term "Marxist' as it is understood today to describe concepts that leftists attribute to the Founders today. The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. But we didn't have a label to put on them until Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. I simply refuse to believe that you are too dense to understand that, so I have to believe by now you are simply too proud to admit that you are wrong.

Are you saying then that there is no difference between "Marxism" and "socialism"?
If so, why did we need the word "Marxism"?

Clearly the term is specific; if you say "Marxist" you're referring to something Karl Marx espoused; if you mean simple 'socialism' --- then you say "socialism". Were there "Keynseian economics" before Keynes was born? Hegelian philosophy before Hegel? Were there "Christians" before Jesus, Islam before Mohammed, Buddhism before Buddha? Did Plato pusilaminously plagiarize the past platonic?

I've never heard leftists, or anyone else, propose that the Founders were that prescient; Kaz's insertion of that canard as if it's a fait accompli comprises a strawman. But I've since read the poster has left town and may not be reading all this, so it would be unfair to pile on this point before his/her/its return.

 

[Foxfyre]

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd

She didn't say Marx influenced anybody retroactively either. She used the term "Marxist' as it is understood today to describe concepts that leftists attribute to the Founders today. The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. But we didn't have a label to put on them until Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. I simply refuse to believe that you are too dense to understand that, so I have to believe by now you are simply too proud to admit that you are wrong.

Are you saying then that there is no difference between "Marxism" and "socialism"?
If so, why did we need the word "Marxism"?

Clearly the term is specific; if you say "Marxist" you're referring to something Karl Marx espoused; if you mean simple 'socialism' --- then you say "socialism". Were there "Keynseian economics" before Keynes was born? Hegelian philosophy before Hegel? Were there "Christians" before Jesus, Islam before Mohammed, Buddhism before Buddha? Did Plato pusilaminously plagiarize the past platonic?

I've never heard leftists, or anyone else, propose that the Founders were that prescient; Kaz's insertion of that canard as if it's a fait accompli comprises a strawman. But I've since read the poster has left town and may not be reading all this, so it would be unfair to pile on this point before his/her/its return.

I did not comment on differences between socialism and Marxism. I only commented on Kaz's ability to use the term "Marxist" to describe a particular phenomenon observable on message boards and rejected your assertion that she cannot use that term to describe that particular phenomenon if it applies to something that occurred before Marx was born.

And you refuse to acknowledge that this is the argument and now you're trying to change the subject. Tsk tsk. It really does suck when you reach the point that you can't defend your own argument--I suspect we have all been there at one time or another--but that does seem to be the case for you here.

 

[Pogo]

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd

She didn't say Marx influenced anybody retroactively either. She used the term "Marxist' as it is understood today to describe concepts that leftists attribute to the Founders today. The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. But we didn't have a label to put on them until Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. I simply refuse to believe that you are too dense to understand that, so I have to believe by now you are simply too proud to admit that you are wrong.

Are you saying then that there is no difference between "Marxism" and "socialism"?
If so, why did we need the word "Marxism"?

Clearly the term is specific; if you say "Marxist" you're referring to something Karl Marx espoused; if you mean simple 'socialism' --- then you say "socialism". Were there "Keynseian economics" before Keynes was born? Hegelian philosophy before Hegel? Were there "Christians" before Jesus, Islam before Mohammed, Buddhism before Buddha? Did Plato pusilaminously plagiarize the past platonic?

I've never heard leftists, or anyone else, propose that the Founders were that prescient; Kaz's insertion of that canard as if it's a fait accompli comprises a strawman. But I've since read the poster has left town and may not be reading all this, so it would be unfair to pile on this point before his/her/its return.

I did not comment on differences between socialism and Marxism.

Here it is, repeated:

The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy.

I only commented on Kaz's ability to use the term "Marxist" to describe a particular phenomenon observable on message boards and rejected your assertion that she cannot use that term to describe that particular phenomenon if it applies to something that occurred before Marx was born.

And you refuse to acknowledge that this is the argument and now you're trying to change the subject. Tsk tsk. It really does suck when you reach the point that you can't defend your own argument--I suspect we have all been there at one time or another--but that does seem to be the case for you here.

I just did defend the argument. You can either show me an example of a Christian from the fourth century BC, or you can go -- you chose the latter. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make it go away, and "common to message boards" smacks of argumentum ad populum.

Now if you want to make the case that time is not linear --- make it.

What we have here is a failure to acknowledge a strawman.

 

[Foxfyre]

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd

She didn't say Marx influenced anybody retroactively either. She used the term "Marxist' as it is understood today to describe concepts that leftists attribute to the Founders today. The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. But we didn't have a label to put on them until Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. I simply refuse to believe that you are too dense to understand that, so I have to believe by now you are simply too proud to admit that you are wrong.

Are you saying then that there is no difference between "Marxism" and "socialism"?
If so, why did we need the word "Marxism"?

Clearly the term is specific; if you say "Marxist" you're referring to something Karl Marx espoused; if you mean simple 'socialism' --- then you say "socialism". Were there "Keynseian economics" before Keynes was born? Hegelian philosophy before Hegel? Were there "Christians" before Jesus, Islam before Mohammed, Buddhism before Buddha? Did Plato pusilaminously plagiarize the past platonic?

I've never heard leftists, or anyone else, propose that the Founders were that prescient; Kaz's insertion of that canard as if it's a fait accompli comprises a strawman. But I've since read the poster has left town and may not be reading all this, so it would be unfair to pile on this point before his/her/its return.

I did not comment on differences between socialism and Marxism.

Here it is, repeated:

The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy.

I only commented on Kaz's ability to use the term "Marxist" to describe a particular phenomenon observable on message boards and rejected your assertion that she cannot use that term to describe that particular phenomenon if it applies to something that occurred before Marx was born.

And you refuse to acknowledge that this is the argument and now you're trying to change the subject. Tsk tsk. It really does suck when you reach the point that you can't defend your own argument--I suspect we have all been there at one time or another--but that does seem to be the case for you here.

I just did defend the argument. You can either show me an example of a Christian from the fourth century BC, or you can go -- you chose the latter. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make it go away, and "common to message boards" smacks of argumentum ad populum.

Now if you want to make the case that time is not linear --- make it.

What we have here is a failure to acknowledge a strawman.

The only utilizing straw men, red herrings, non sequitur, and other logical fallacies as diversionary tactics here is you. And I will not further hijack Kaz's excellent thread by continuing this absurd conversation. You are a) either incapable of understanding the concept she was expressing or b) you are too proud to admit you are wrong. In either case she is right and you and wrong and I'm pretty sure anybody able to think critically at all knows that by now..

 

[Ravi]

Dude. The founders weren't Marxist. The did, however, believe in we he people so they were collective.

 

[Bfgrn]

It is always fascinating to me how ignorant so many are of the concepts embraced and promoted by the Founding Fathers. They dishonestly cherry pick comments from this or that--almost certainly copied and pasted from some pro-big-government, pro-progressive/liberal/statist/leftist/political class site--and hold them out as justification for progressivism/liberalis/statism/leftism/political class ideology.

But an honest and comprehensive study of the founding documents will show the Founding Fathers pretty much unified on what the 'general welfare' was intended to be. They saw the general welfare as that which benefits all citizens--rich and poor, landed and unlanded, young and old equally and without prejudice. They were almost universally unified that it was not within the prerogative of the federal government to use the people's money or resources to benefit any group, demographic, or special interest.

The purpose of the federal government was to facilitate the various states being able to function as one nation, to secure the unalienable rights of the people, to promote the general welfare, and to otherwise leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they chose. The general welfare was what promoted the ability of the people to live their lives, choose their own destinies (liberty) and pursue happiness according to what that meant to each individual

And there you have libertarianism (small "L") in a nutshell.

Care to comment on these quotes from our founding fathers?

 

[kaz]

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

 

[kaz]

You can be a "Marxist" right now if you believe in it, because Karl Marx has lived and had his say.

You cannot be a "Woodist" based on the ideas of a Bob Wood, who will be born sometime in 2053*. You might have that label appended to you after both you and Bob Wood are dead and gone but that's just a commentator appending a label that you never called yourself. Doesn't make the label valid. And more to the point you could not possibly subscribe to Bob Wood's ideas before he even formed them.

I don't get why linear time is so complex for some people. I really don't. You cannot travel through time -- go ask Albert Einstein.

"Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei ... led us to this perfect day"... who knows that reference?

That would make sense if I said they called themselves Marxists or studied Marx. I didn't, so you are pounding a non-point. But wow, you're really traumatized by this. Is there a childhood trajedy you suffered from someone using today's terms to describe the views of people in the past?

Stevie! I miss you Stevie! Sob, sob. So Stevie was talking about Isabel and Ferdinand and how they sent Columbus to America for ... money. "OMG, he said, they were greedy capitalists, they were...." At that moment, the world froze. You knew the next word that was going to come out of his mouth. Noooooooooo you shouted and tried to shove him. But it was to late.. As he fell, he finished the sentence. "Republicans." And that was it. As you sobbed over his dead, lifeless body, all you could say was, "Stevie, why oh why? Columbus was the 1490s, the Republicans did come arrive until the mid 1800s! What a tragedy, I will miss you my friend!

Anyway, I appreciate you trying to save my life, but I still don't see the problem with when liberals like dad2three argue all money belongs to the State and that rw believes government has ubiquitous power and so on that they think they were Marxists. I will be willing to promise you I will not use that term if I talk to people who lived at the time of the Founding Fathers so I don't confuse them.

LOL, what a dolt...

 

[Bfgrn]

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

It's amusing how libertarians ignore what our founders said (post #346), or how anti-laissez-faire they governed.

But carry on...

 

[kaz]

It is always fascinating to me how ignorant so many are of the concepts embraced and promoted by the Founding Fathers. They dishonestly cherry pick comments from this or that--almost certainly copied and pasted from some pro-big-government, pro-progressive/liberal/statist/leftist/political class site--and hold them out as justification for progressivism/liberalis/statism/leftism/political class ideology.

But an honest and comprehensive study of the founding documents will show the Founding Fathers pretty much unified on what the 'general welfare' was intended to be. They saw the general welfare as that which benefits all citizens--rich and poor, landed and unlanded, young and old equally and without prejudice. They were almost universally unified that it was not within the prerogative of the federal government to use the people's money or resources to benefit any group, demographic, or special interest.

The purpose of the federal government was to facilitate the various states being able to function as one nation, to secure the unalienable rights of the people, to promote the general welfare, and to otherwise leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they chose. The general welfare was what promoted the ability of the people to live their lives, choose their own destinies (liberty) and pursue happiness according to what that meant to each individual

And there you have libertarianism (small "L") in a nutshell.

Care to comment on these quotes from our founding fathers?

I'm thinking that Marx actually got his ideas from the Founding Fathers. What you you think?

 

[Bfgrn]

It is always fascinating to me how ignorant so many are of the concepts embraced and promoted by the Founding Fathers. They dishonestly cherry pick comments from this or that--almost certainly copied and pasted from some pro-big-government, pro-progressive/liberal/statist/leftist/political class site--and hold them out as justification for progressivism/liberalis/statism/leftism/political class ideology.

But an honest and comprehensive study of the founding documents will show the Founding Fathers pretty much unified on what the 'general welfare' was intended to be. They saw the general welfare as that which benefits all citizens--rich and poor, landed and unlanded, young and old equally and without prejudice. They were almost universally unified that it was not within the prerogative of the federal government to use the people's money or resources to benefit any group, demographic, or special interest.

The purpose of the federal government was to facilitate the various states being able to function as one nation, to secure the unalienable rights of the people, to promote the general welfare, and to otherwise leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they chose. The general welfare was what promoted the ability of the people to live their lives, choose their own destinies (liberty) and pursue happiness according to what that meant to each individual

And there you have libertarianism (small "L") in a nutshell.

Care to comment on these quotes from our founding fathers?

I'm thinking that Marx actually got his ideas from the Founding Fathers. What you you think?

I really don't know. I have never read Marx and don't care what he said.

 

[kaz]

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

It's amusing how libertarians ignore what our founders said (post #346), or how anti-laissez-faire they governed.

But carry on...

You don't understand how they designed our government, you don't understand laissez-faire, and you don't care. I only argue with liberals when there is something for non-liberals to read. You are useless. I don't think this one is a point non-liberals would particularly get anything out of.

 

[kaz]

It is always fascinating to me how ignorant so many are of the concepts embraced and promoted by the Founding Fathers. They dishonestly cherry pick comments from this or that--almost certainly copied and pasted from some pro-big-government, pro-progressive/liberal/statist/leftist/political class site--and hold them out as justification for progressivism/liberalis/statism/leftism/political class ideology.

But an honest and comprehensive study of the founding documents will show the Founding Fathers pretty much unified on what the 'general welfare' was intended to be. They saw the general welfare as that which benefits all citizens--rich and poor, landed and unlanded, young and old equally and without prejudice. They were almost universally unified that it was not within the prerogative of the federal government to use the people's money or resources to benefit any group, demographic, or special interest.

The purpose of the federal government was to facilitate the various states being able to function as one nation, to secure the unalienable rights of the people, to promote the general welfare, and to otherwise leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they chose. The general welfare was what promoted the ability of the people to live their lives, choose their own destinies (liberty) and pursue happiness according to what that meant to each individual

And there you have libertarianism (small "L") in a nutshell.

Care to comment on these quotes from our founding fathers?

I'm thinking that Marx actually got his ideas from the Founding Fathers. What you you think?

I really don't know. I have never read Marx and don't care what he said.

Fair answer. Given that, I will answer your question.

Madison was making a general statement. He did not make the sweeping statement that government can do anything it wants if it can justify it with the "common good." He meant that the common good is served when the Federal government does those things the Constitution Authorizes it to do. "The common good" isn't a power and he didn't mean it was.

Franklin said that people should not cheat on their taxes. He said that ... if ... government levies a just tax ... then ... that money is then the governments and people have no reasonable right to evade paying it.

I don't see how these quotes get you anywhere. I don't think you have a critical mind. Prove me wrong with a cogent response instead of a typical liberal one that ignored what I said.

 

[Foxfyre]

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

It's amusing how libertarians ignore what our founders said (post #346), or how anti-laissez-faire they governed.

But carry on...

I don't think I know any libertarians who ignore what our Founders said. Most have actually read a lot of or all of the statements, arguments, debates, letters, transcripts of speeches, and other founding documents and have a pretty good grasp of what they were all about and their basic ideological positions. I do know a lot of libertarians who don't copy and paste quotations by the Founders out of context and try to make them into something they were not. I didn't respond to your posts along those lines because each one deserves its own thread to fully discuss the Founder's teachings/comments/arguments IN CONTEXT. . . .

 

[Pogo]

You can be a "Marxist" right now if you believe in it, because Karl Marx has lived and had his say.

You cannot be a "Woodist" based on the ideas of a Bob Wood, who will be born sometime in 2053*. You might have that label appended to you after both you and Bob Wood are dead and gone but that's just a commentator appending a label that you never called yourself. Doesn't make the label valid. And more to the point you could not possibly subscribe to Bob Wood's ideas before he even formed them.

I don't get why linear time is so complex for some people. I really don't. You cannot travel through time -- go ask Albert Einstein.

"Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei ... led us to this perfect day"... who knows that reference?

That would make sense if I said they called themselves Marxists or studied Marx. I didn't, so you are pounding a non-point. But wow, you're really traumatized by this. Is there a childhood trajedy you suffered from someone using today's terms to describe the views of people in the past?

Stevie! I miss you Stevie! Sob, sob. So Stevie was talking about Isabel and Ferdinand and how they sent Columbus to America for ... money. "OMG, he said, they were greedy capitalists, they were...." At that moment, the world froze. You knew the next word that was going to come out of his mouth. Noooooooooo you shouted and tried to shove him. But it was to late.. As he fell, he finished the sentence. "Republicans." And that was it. As you sobbed over his dead, lifeless body, all you could say was, "Stevie, why oh why? Columbus was the 1490s, the Republicans did come arrive until the mid 1800s! What a tragedy, I will miss you my friend!

Anyway, I appreciate you trying to save my life, but I still don't see the problem with when liberals like dad2three argue all money belongs to the State and that rw believes government has ubiquitous power and so on that they think they were Marxists. I will be willing to promise you I will not use that term if I talk to people who lived at the time of the Founding Fathers so I don't confuse them.

LOL, what a dolt...

Squirm all you like but you tried to float a fatal strawman and got caught at it. To wit the reference:

"the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists"

-- which defies linear time and in the latest squirm apparently appeals to a third party who isn't even present.
Looks like you're trying to do the same thing with a "Stevie" now. I'm sure wherever that's going promises to be interesting. And then a segue back to the old reliable ad hom.

You enjoy your fallacies. They must be amusing. I don't get the joke.

 

[Pogo]

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

Perhaps not everyone believes in blockthink.
What a concept.
Since you and this "Stevie" have such vivid creative imaginariums, why not come up with a new fallacy? I mean hasty generalization and biased sample-- them's older than dirt.

 

[Harry Dresden]

If you believe the FDA should be abolished, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe the FAA should not exist, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe crack cocaine should be legal, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe the US military should be shrunk down to the size of a cub scout troop, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all roads should be privatized, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all federal safety regulations should be abolished, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all child labor laws should be repealed, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all insider trading and financial fraud regulations should be abrogated, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe human beings will be on their best behavior if there are no rules and regulations, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe "I got mine, screw everyone else", you might be a libertarian

thought that was a Republican?.....

 

[Foxfyre]

I really don't know. I have never read Marx and don't care what he said.

Well at least you are honest about that. Unfortunately I don't think Marx is taught much in public education these days. I run into an awful lot of young people who have no clue who he was.

Marx taught a concept in which nobody would own any private property but all would be owned by all. Everybody would contribute according to his ability and the wealth would be redistributed according to need. The ultimate goal would be a 'utopian' society that would need no leaders or authority to manage it, but until that could be achieved, all power would be placed in an authoritarian government who would have unchallenged power to confiscate wealth and property and redistribute it as needed to the people.

The communal concept of Marxian philosophy is at least as old as the Bible:

Acts 2:42-47: And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,. . .​

Many who preceded Marx shared his views.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, contemporary of the Founding Fathers, and one who heavily influenced the French revolution wrote in his Discourse on Inequality: ". . .you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Charles Fourier, French philosopher,--late 18th/early 19th Century--offered principles very similar to Marx's. Other 'utopian socialist thinkers' included Edward Bellamy, mid 19th century, who proposed state ownership of all industry and abandonment of competition. There were many others who likely influenced Marx.

But because Marx wrote it all down as a sociopolitical philosophy in his "Communist Manifesto", once required reading in all competent poli-sci or history curriculum, we acquired a descriptive adjective for the concept: "Marxist".

The Founders of course rejected all Marxist concepts and went with a concept of God given or natural unalienable rights that are the basis of human liberty, and wanted government who would secure those rights and then interfere in no way with the people who would be free to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

But Kaz is absolutely right, that many on the left go to considerable lengths to try to fit the Founders philosophy into Marxist concepts of government enforced wealth confiscation and redistribution. Some might cherry pick quotations of the Founders which, when taken out of context, could be interpreted that they supported Marxist philosophy.

 

[Pogo]

I agree with Foxy's citation of Acts and I've often cited that in discussions of 'socialism' and/or 'communism'. It's a salient reference point for a lot of topics. But that would not and can not in any way make the bible, or Acts, or Jesus, describable as "Marxist".

Communist or socialist, yes you can make a case, as those are abstract social structure concepts. When you try to attach a person who didn't yet exist, you're off the rails

Now back to Kaz to call me a "dolt" for an observation of how English works...

 

[kaz]

Squirm all you like but you tried to float a fatal strawman and got caught at it. To wit the reference:

"the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists"

-- which defies linear time and in the latest squirm apparently appeals to a third party who isn't even present.
Looks like you're trying to do the same thing with a "Stevie" now. I'm sure wherever that's going promises to be interesting. And then a segue back to the old reliable ad hom.

You enjoy your fallacies. They must be amusing. I don't get the joke.

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.