What are libertarians?

[Rikurzhen]

I wasn't even making an "argument"; I was examining the origins of a term (racism) via citations in some old books.

How the fuck do I know what's on a "Nazi website"? Am I somehow responsible for what everyone else puts on their websites? How?

You do realize how fucking silly this has devolved by now, right? Good, let's carry on. I just want this one other question addressed, to wit --- exactly how does citing from a "Nazi website" --- or any particular kind of website -- "discredit" the argument I wasn't making? The links, again, go to Google Books. They go to images of the pages cited. Not to a fucking "Nazi website". I admit, I never went to his link to see his "evidence". I didn't need to. I know where the fuck my own links go. If you've never seen the same content posted across multiple sites, you must be new to the internets.

So what the fuck are you talking about here? Are we trying to deflect from your failure to find ad hom in this thread?

Here's the link, let's go to instant-replay, notice how your effort to mislead by referencing Google Books doesn't address the commentary, you old bat, this has been explained to you dozens of times and you just ignore it because you've been caught and all you have left is to play dumb:

Quoting you form post #178

What the conservatives like to do instead of debunking their enemies' assumptions, which are also supported by mass-media, is to try to find a way to throw an accusation back at them, even a ridiculous accusation based on a specious argument and a flimsy premise. (I believe that this preference for responding with accusations, rather than truth and reason, derives from the fact that staying on the attack means not having to clarify one's own position on touchy matters. For somebody trying to win a popularity contest in the short term, rather than inform and educate for the long term, it makes perfect sense to try to keep one's own positions obscure.) The legend that Leon Trotsky coined the word racist offers a basis for that kind of rhetoric. It seems a silly argument, but they will say something like, If you use the word racist then you are a bad person like Communist mass-murderer Leon Trotsky, because he invented that word!
Did Trotsky really invent that word? No, apparently not. The work in which Trotsky is supposed to have coined that word was written and published in Russian in 1930. I found several examples of the French form, raciste, preceding Trotsky's use of the word by far.

I find pensée raciste (French for “racist thought”) and individualité raciste (“racist individuality”) in the volume of La Terro d’oc: revisto felibrenco e federalisto (a periodical championing the cultural and ethnic identity of people in southern France) for the year 1906.

Je forme des voeux pour la réussité de vos projets, car je suis persuadé que, dans cette fédération des peuples de Langue d’Oc luttant pour leurs intérêts et l’émancipation de leur pensée raciste, le prestige de Toulouse trouvera son compte. (p. 101)

("I express my best wishes for the success of your projects, because I am convinced that, in the federation of the peoples of Langue d’Oc fighting for their interests and the emancipation of their racist thought, the prestige of Toulouse will stand to gain.)
​

Quoting the NAZI website:

What the conservatives like to do instead of debunking their enemies' assumptions, which are also supported by mass-media, is to try to find a way to throw an accusation back at them, even a ridiculous accusation based on a specious argument and a flimsy premise. (I believe that this preference for responding with accusations, rather than truth and reason, derives from the fact that staying on the attack means not having to clarify one's own position on touchy matters. For somebody trying to win a popularity contest in the short term, rather than inform and educate for the long term, it makes perfect sense to try to keep one's own positions obscure.) The legend that Leon Trotsky coined the word racist offers a basis for that kind of rhetoric. It seems a silly argument, but they will say something like, If you use the word racist then you are a bad person like Communist mass-murderer Leon Trotsky, because he invented that word!

Did Trotsky really invent that word? No, apparently not. The work in which Trotsky is supposed to have coined that word was written and published in Russian in 1930. I found several examples of the French form, raciste, preceding Trotsky's use of the word by far.

I find pensée raciste (French for “racist thought”) and individualité raciste (“racist individuality”) in the volume of La Terro d’oc: revisto felibrenco e federalisto (a periodical championing the cultural and ethnic identity of people in southern France) for the year 1906. Here the word racist was used without a hint of negativity:

Je forme des voeux pour la réussité de vos projets, car je suis persuadé que, dans cette fédération des peuples de Langue d’Oc luttant pour leurs intérêts et l’émancipation de leur pensée raciste, le prestige de Toulouse trouvera son compte. (p. 101)

TRANSLATION: I express my best wishes for the success of your projects, because I am convinced that, in the federation of the peoples of Langue d’Oc fighting for their interests and the emancipation of their racist thought, the prestige of Toulouse will benefit.​

The differences between what you "wrote" and the NAZI text is that you've combined some paragraphs together and you've omitted the red texted word Translation. Otherwise what you claim as your own writing is what is found on this Nazi website.

 

[Pogo]

And Pogo, the roots of Nazism go as far back as 1834. In 1904 Hans Knirsch proposed that 'National Socialist' be added to the Austrian DAP name, however it was rejected by the Austrian Congress of conferees. By 1909 the first meeting of the Workers Party was convened in Prague. All these were precursors, and led to the foundation of the Nazi party in 1919. I hate to call you down on the historicity of Nazism, but you brought this on yourself.

I don't know jack shit about that. I never even brought up Naziism -- troll boy did that. Neither the thread, nor the post, had anything whatsoever to do with "Naziism".
Again, it's got nothing to do with me. Burden of proof.

 

[Pogo]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

Wrong. I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.

If the text of your comment matches the text on the Nazi website, then maybe you wrote the text for the Nazi website. The text you claim is yours, by your writing, is word for word identical on the Nazi website and I'm not talking about the translated text, I'm talking about the commentary surrounding the translated text. Stolen. Plagiarized.

Yammer yammer yammer plagiarized yammer yammer Nazi yammer yammer...

This is what I said in the first place -- you're a troll.
Everything was and still is duly linked. Everybody here knows I link meticulously and deride those who fail to, the only exception being other message boards, which we can't, but in this case the books were, and remain, duly linked. I don't know what the fuck you think you found somewhere else that matches but it doesn't matter; the citations are linked; the citations are fully credited, and the links work. So suck it.

Lying by misdirection is still lying. All your commentary is plagiarized and not one link you supplied had the commentary text. Keep spinning your stories. I've given the link and people go there and read about your unmasking as it played out, comment by comment.

"Not one link supplied had the commentary text" -- NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's because I wrote it that night.
Troll.

So you posted a blog on a Nazi website? Is this what we are to derive from this post? Why then is it on a Nazi website? Can you explain why?

You've painted yourself into a corner.

I have never written a blog for anybody except myself. What this "Nazi website" the troll thinks he has is about, I really don't know. His link doesn't even work so I can't jump there, nor is it my problem. I'm not the one making a claim here -- burden of proof is on the accuser.

And no I can't explain where other people's websites get their stuff. I'm not fucking responsible for that. Are you?
DUMBASS.

Well, then why does your post match one on a Nazi website? You refuse to answer the question.

At any rate. The onus is on you, not the accuser. They provided evidence, you did not.

It's NOT MY CLAIM, TK. On what planet is an accusee required to prove a negative?? How in the wide world of fuck can I "provide evidence" of NOT HAVING DONE SOMETHING???

Are you asking why he tried to hijack that thread? That's a fair question -- I presume something in the post, which I thought was just a side note on semantics, was dangerous to his agenda. I never did figure that out. But then again he's trying to hijack this thread as well, so maybe he's just a damn troll. Which is what I said in the first place.

I like your graphic. It reminds us to ask, since the thread in question wasn't about Naziism, what's the significance of something being on a "Nazi website"? Does it somehow change the character of the information posted? What's the point there? Seems to me I put this question to the troll and he ignored it. Do these perfectly legitimate French books suddenly change their words and meanings because some Nazi website posted them? Howzat work?

And btw as I recall the three citations, which were a historical etymology, were from something like 1894, 1902 and 1906, all of which way preceded Naziism. They even precede WW1, let alone WW2. So what the fuck are we talking about besides trollism?

Your post matched the one on the Nazi website, your essay notwithstanding. You know, I have a different theory, you chose to quote that post and not link to it, since citing anything from a Nazi website would instantaneously discredit your argument. But, however, you still never answered my question, why is that post on a Nazi website?

I wasn't even making an "argument"; I was examining the origins of a term (racism) via citations in some old books.

How the fuck do I know what's on a "Nazi website"? Am I somehow responsible for what everyone else puts on their websites? How?

You do realize how fucking silly this has devolved by now, right? Good, let's carry on. I just want this one other question addressed, to wit --- exactly how does citing from a "Nazi website" --- or any particular kind of website -- "discredit" the argument I wasn't making? The links, again, go to Google Books. They go to images of the pages cited. Not to a fucking "Nazi website".

So what the fuck are you talking about here? Are we trying to deflect from your failure to find ad hom in this thread?

Once again, why is that post on a Nazi website? Either the post was cited by the website, or you pulled it from there. I'll keep asking this question until you answer it, that or you choose to leave the thread. Either way, your argument is discredited when you have Neo-Nazis citing something you did. Unwittingly or otherwise.

That's about the cheapest cop-out I've ever heard.

So you think troll-boy was trying to discredit my sources by saying they're mirrored on a "Nazi website"?
Anyone who would take that kind of blatant fallacy seriously ain't worth my time. If they're worth yours, I pity you.

 

[Ropey]

What are Libertarians?

They are people who would like to take liberties with my liberties and will if only they can find a way to fit it within their own liberties.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So Pogo, do you see any of your responses here? It wasn't until page six that you replied. Do you deny this? Or will you assail me on my lack of evidence? Here's the evidence.

What are libertarians US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I've explained to you before, page numbers are user-set here. What is "page 2" for you is not "page 2" for me. Your links take me to pages that have no relevance to anything. The first one goes to the OP. I already know where that is.

Again if you have a specific post (or posts) -- link to those posts or better yet quote them. "Page numbers" are meaningless.

Not an excuse. You can no less review the events that took place. Whatever page it is does not change the fact you started this pissing contest. I trust you have the ability to read? Then go through the posts and look at them yourself. Deflecting is doing you no favors.

I already did go through the posts. How the fuck could I quote them all if I didn't??

Look, once again your page 5 is not my page 5. Whatever you refer to on "page 5" doesn't show up for me. Those are references for your user profile only. I can't respond to what you won't tell me.

The question of "who started the pissing contest" has been settled, posted, quoted and slam dunked. If you have a dispute on it, then do what I did and quote something to make your case. Empty hyperbole walks.

Funny, you dismiss it by saying it's already settled. I'm sorry, but don't delude yourself. You dug the hole. You were the one caught with the shovel in hand. You prove my point, and you prove that you did in fact start it by calling others names and antagonizing them as can be seen in the last few pages (regardless of the post per page) of commentary... And for the record, you selectively quoted those posts. If the reader goes through those posts chronologically, your argument is destroyed.

So you have nothing. Several hours went by and you can't document jack shit. I documented exactly the point where it started, and six more subsequent entries. You posted a bunch of page numbers that relate to absolutely nothing. A lot of hot air but when it comes to show it -- hot air.

Dismissed.

Dismissed? This isn't boot camp Pogo. In actuality there is no hot air since I am typing not speaking. I posted where this took place. You use the pages to dismiss my argument, when in reality you want to be lazy and not read the posts. In a way you are admitting your own defeat.

Good, back to this thread at least.
.
I don't see what is so damned cryptic about this -- you set your USMB account for X number of posts per page --- I set mine for Y number of posts per page. In this thread for example I am on page 38. That is not going to correspond to the page you're on. What you linked above are the first several pages of this thread. That has no relevance -- I'm not even IN those pages. And I know how to navigate pages.

I'll say this for the fourth time................ if you want a comment on a particular post, you have to link or quote the post. Page numers tell us NOTHING.

Got it?

Whether the pages correspond or not is irrelevant. All you have to do is read the posts. Rikurzhen linked to the comment twice, conveniently you ignored it. Beat your head on the wall all you want, you got busted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

Wrong. I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.

If the text of your comment matches the text on the Nazi website, then maybe you wrote the text for the Nazi website. The text you claim is yours, by your writing, is word for word identical on the Nazi website and I'm not talking about the translated text, I'm talking about the commentary surrounding the translated text. Stolen. Plagiarized.

Yammer yammer yammer plagiarized yammer yammer Nazi yammer yammer...

This is what I said in the first place -- you're a troll.
Everything was and still is duly linked. Everybody here knows I link meticulously and deride those who fail to, the only exception being other message boards, which we can't, but in this case the books were, and remain, duly linked. I don't know what the fuck you think you found somewhere else that matches but it doesn't matter; the citations are linked; the citations are fully credited, and the links work. So suck it.

Lying by misdirection is still lying. All your commentary is plagiarized and not one link you supplied had the commentary text. Keep spinning your stories. I've given the link and people go there and read about your unmasking as it played out, comment by comment.

"Not one link supplied had the commentary text" -- NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's because I wrote it that night.
Troll.

So you posted a blog on a Nazi website? Is this what we are to derive from this post? Why then is it on a Nazi website? Can you explain why?

You've painted yourself into a corner.

I have never written a blog for anybody except myself. What this "Nazi website" the troll thinks he has is about, I really don't know. His link doesn't even work so I can't jump there, nor is it my problem. I'm not the one making a claim here -- burden of proof is on the accuser.

And no I can't explain where other people's websites get their stuff. I'm not fucking responsible for that. Are you?
DUMBASS.

Well, then why does your post match one on a Nazi website? You refuse to answer the question.

At any rate. The onus is on you, not the accuser. They provided evidence, you did not.

It's NOT MY CLAIM, TK. On what planet is an accusee required to prove a negative?? How in the wide world of fuck can I "provide evidence" of NOT HAVING DONE SOMETHING???

Are you asking why he tried to hijack that thread? That's a fair question -- I presume something in the post, which I thought was just a side note on semantics, was dangerous to his agenda. I never did figure that out. But then again he's trying to hijack this thread as well, so maybe he's just a damn troll. Which is what I said in the first place.

I like your graphic. It reminds us to ask, since the thread in question wasn't about Naziism, what's the significance of something being on a "Nazi website"? Does it somehow change the character of the information posted? What's the point there? Seems to me I put this question to the troll and he ignored it. Do these perfectly legitimate French books suddenly change their words and meanings because some Nazi website posted them? Howzat work?

And btw as I recall the three citations, which were a historical etymology, were from something like 1894, 1902 and 1906, all of which way preceded Naziism. They even precede WW1, let alone WW2. So what the fuck are we talking about besides trollism?

Your post matched the one on the Nazi website, your essay notwithstanding. You know, I have a different theory, you chose to quote that post and not link to it, since citing anything from a Nazi website would instantaneously discredit your argument. But, however, you still never answered my question, why is that post on a Nazi website?

I wasn't even making an "argument"; I was examining the origins of a term (racism) via citations in some old books.

How the fuck do I know what's on a "Nazi website"? Am I somehow responsible for what everyone else puts on their websites? How?

You do realize how fucking silly this has devolved by now, right? Good, let's carry on. I just want this one other question addressed, to wit --- exactly how does citing from a "Nazi website" --- or any particular kind of website -- "discredit" the argument I wasn't making? The links, again, go to Google Books. They go to images of the pages cited. Not to a fucking "Nazi website".

So what the fuck are you talking about here? Are we trying to deflect from your failure to find ad hom in this thread?

Once again, why is that post on a Nazi website? Either the post was cited by the website, or you pulled it from there. I'll keep asking this question until you answer it, that or you choose to leave the thread. Either way, your argument is discredited when you have Neo-Nazis citing something you did. Unwittingly or otherwise.

That's about the cheapest cop-out I've ever heard.

So you think troll-boy was trying to discredit my sources by saying they're mirrored on a "Nazi website"?
Anyone who would take that kind of blatant fallacy seriously ain't worth my time. If they're worth yours, I pity you.

Cop out? If it were a cop out, which it isn't, it would be no better than the cop-outs you've been posting for hours on end.

You cannot deny the fact that post was on a Nazi website, you cannot deny that you cited a Nazi website, the very fact it was on a Nazi website destroys your argument. Sorry.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

Wrong. I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.

If the text of your comment matches the text on the Nazi website, then maybe you wrote the text for the Nazi website. The text you claim is yours, by your writing, is word for word identical on the Nazi website and I'm not talking about the translated text, I'm talking about the commentary surrounding the translated text. Stolen. Plagiarized.

Yammer yammer yammer plagiarized yammer yammer Nazi yammer yammer...

This is what I said in the first place -- you're a troll.
Everything was and still is duly linked. Everybody here knows I link meticulously and deride those who fail to, the only exception being other message boards, which we can't, but in this case the books were, and remain, duly linked. I don't know what the fuck you think you found somewhere else that matches but it doesn't matter; the citations are linked; the citations are fully credited, and the links work. So suck it.

Lying by misdirection is still lying. All your commentary is plagiarized and not one link you supplied had the commentary text. Keep spinning your stories. I've given the link and people go there and read about your unmasking as it played out, comment by comment.

"Not one link supplied had the commentary text" -- NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's because I wrote it that night.
Troll.

So you posted a blog on a Nazi website? Is this what we are to derive from this post? Why then is it on a Nazi website? Can you explain why?

You've painted yourself into a corner.

I have never written a blog for anybody except myself. What this "Nazi website" the troll thinks he has is about, I really don't know. His link doesn't even work so I can't jump there, nor is it my problem. I'm not the one making a claim here -- burden of proof is on the accuser.

And no I can't explain where other people's websites get their stuff. I'm not fucking responsible for that. Are you?
DUMBASS.

Well, then why does your post match one on a Nazi website? You refuse to answer the question.

At any rate. The onus is on you, not the accuser. They provided evidence, you did not.

It's NOT MY CLAIM, TK. On what planet is an accusee required to prove a negative?? How in the wide world of fuck can I "provide evidence" of NOT HAVING DONE SOMETHING???

Are you asking why he tried to hijack that thread? That's a fair question -- I presume something in the post, which I thought was just a side note on semantics, was dangerous to his agenda. I never did figure that out. But then again he's trying to hijack this thread as well, so maybe he's just a damn troll. Which is what I said in the first place.

I like your graphic. It reminds us to ask, since the thread in question wasn't about Naziism, what's the significance of something being on a "Nazi website"? Does it somehow change the character of the information posted? What's the point there? Seems to me I put this question to the troll and he ignored it. Do these perfectly legitimate French books suddenly change their words and meanings because some Nazi website posted them? Howzat work?

And btw as I recall the three citations, which were a historical etymology, were from something like 1894, 1902 and 1906, all of which way preceded Naziism. They even precede WW1, let alone WW2. So what the fuck are we talking about besides trollism?

Your post matched the one on the Nazi website, your essay notwithstanding. You know, I have a different theory, you chose to quote that post and not link to it, since citing anything from a Nazi website would instantaneously discredit your argument. But, however, you still never answered my question, why is that post on a Nazi website?

I wasn't even making an "argument"; I was examining the origins of a term (racism) via citations in some old books.

How the fuck do I know what's on a "Nazi website"? Am I somehow responsible for what everyone else puts on their websites? How?

You do realize how fucking silly this has devolved by now, right? Good, let's carry on. I just want this one other question addressed, to wit --- exactly how does citing from a "Nazi website" --- or any particular kind of website -- "discredit" the argument I wasn't making? The links, again, go to Google Books. They go to images of the pages cited. Not to a fucking "Nazi website".

So what the fuck are you talking about here? Are we trying to deflect from your failure to find ad hom in this thread?

Once again, why is that post on a Nazi website? Either the post was cited by the website, or you pulled it from there. I'll keep asking this question until you answer it, that or you choose to leave the thread. Either way, your argument is discredited when you have Neo-Nazis citing something you did. Unwittingly or otherwise.

That's about the cheapest cop-out I've ever heard.

So you think troll-boy was trying to discredit my sources by saying they're mirrored on a "Nazi website"?
Anyone who would take that kind of blatant fallacy seriously ain't worth my time. If they're worth yours, I pity you.

Not your sources you old battle-axe, your commentary. You keep purposely distorting the charge. I never said one word about your SOURCES, your plagiarism is all of the commentary that you claimed you wrote. Not the translations.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now, back to the main topic of the thread. Libertarians aren't anarchists, the are minarchists. Not all of them prefer the Laissez-Faire type of governance. Individual freedom is key, and personal choices should not be dictated by a government. A person should be allowed to follow their own path, and shouldn't be told that they must accept one person or another when doing business with the general public. They believe that government should adhere to the Constitution. That's my take on the subject.

 

[Pogo]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

Wrong. I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.

If the text of your comment matches the text on the Nazi website, then maybe you wrote the text for the Nazi website. The text you claim is yours, by your writing, is word for word identical on the Nazi website and I'm not talking about the translated text, I'm talking about the commentary surrounding the translated text. Stolen. Plagiarized.

Yammer yammer yammer plagiarized yammer yammer Nazi yammer yammer...

This is what I said in the first place -- you're a troll.
Everything was and still is duly linked. Everybody here knows I link meticulously and deride those who fail to, the only exception being other message boards, which we can't, but in this case the books were, and remain, duly linked. I don't know what the fuck you think you found somewhere else that matches but it doesn't matter; the citations are linked; the citations are fully credited, and the links work. So suck it.

Lying by misdirection is still lying. All your commentary is plagiarized and not one link you supplied had the commentary text. Keep spinning your stories. I've given the link and people go there and read about your unmasking as it played out, comment by comment.

"Not one link supplied had the commentary text" -- NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's because I wrote it that night.
Troll.

So you posted a blog on a Nazi website? Is this what we are to derive from this post? Why then is it on a Nazi website? Can you explain why?

You've painted yourself into a corner.

I have never written a blog for anybody except myself. What this "Nazi website" the troll thinks he has is about, I really don't know. His link doesn't even work so I can't jump there, nor is it my problem. I'm not the one making a claim here -- burden of proof is on the accuser.

And no I can't explain where other people's websites get their stuff. I'm not fucking responsible for that. Are you?
DUMBASS.

Well, then why does your post match one on a Nazi website? You refuse to answer the question.

At any rate. The onus is on you, not the accuser. They provided evidence, you did not.

It's NOT MY CLAIM, TK. On what planet is an accusee required to prove a negative?? How in the wide world of fuck can I "provide evidence" of NOT HAVING DONE SOMETHING???

Are you asking why he tried to hijack that thread? That's a fair question -- I presume something in the post, which I thought was just a side note on semantics, was dangerous to his agenda. I never did figure that out. But then again he's trying to hijack this thread as well, so maybe he's just a damn troll. Which is what I said in the first place.

I like your graphic. It reminds us to ask, since the thread in question wasn't about Naziism, what's the significance of something being on a "Nazi website"? Does it somehow change the character of the information posted? What's the point there? Seems to me I put this question to the troll and he ignored it. Do these perfectly legitimate French books suddenly change their words and meanings because some Nazi website posted them? Howzat work?

And btw as I recall the three citations, which were a historical etymology, were from something like 1894, 1902 and 1906, all of which way preceded Naziism. They even precede WW1, let alone WW2. So what the fuck are we talking about besides trollism?

Your post matched the one on the Nazi website, your essay notwithstanding. You know, I have a different theory, you chose to quote that post and not link to it, since citing anything from a Nazi website would instantaneously discredit your argument. But, however, you still never answered my question, why is that post on a Nazi website?

I wasn't even making an "argument"; I was examining the origins of a term (racism) via citations in some old books.

How the fuck do I know what's on a "Nazi website"? Am I somehow responsible for what everyone else puts on their websites? How?

You do realize how fucking silly this has devolved by now, right? Good, let's carry on. I just want this one other question addressed, to wit --- exactly how does citing from a "Nazi website" --- or any particular kind of website -- "discredit" the argument I wasn't making? The links, again, go to Google Books. They go to images of the pages cited. Not to a fucking "Nazi website".

So what the fuck are you talking about here? Are we trying to deflect from your failure to find ad hom in this thread?

Once again, why is that post on a Nazi website? Either the post was cited by the website, or you pulled it from there. I'll keep asking this question until you answer it, that or you choose to leave the thread. Either way, your argument is discredited when you have Neo-Nazis citing something you did. Unwittingly or otherwise.

That's about the cheapest cop-out I've ever heard.

So you think troll-boy was trying to discredit my sources by saying they're mirrored on a "Nazi website"?
Anyone who would take that kind of blatant fallacy seriously ain't worth my time. If they're worth yours, I pity you.

Cop out? If it were a cop out, which it isn't, it would be no better than the cop-outs you've been posting for hours on end.

You cannot deny the fact that post was on a Nazi website, you cannot deny that you cited a Nazi website, the very fact it was on a Nazi website destroys your argument. Sorry.

I have never linked to a "Nazi website";
I have never been to a "Nazi website";
I have never cited a "Nazi website".

Once again, burden of proof. When you can't demonstrate your claim, you don't have one.

And yes, cop-out. If your post above shows up tomorrow on some "Nazi website", does it suddenly "destroy your argument"? OK I know, but pretend you actually had an argument.

Think about it. And by the way, duh.

You're full of proverbial shit, TK.

 

[Pogo]

So Pogo, do you see any of your responses here? It wasn't until page six that you replied. Do you deny this? Or will you assail me on my lack of evidence? Here's the evidence.

What are libertarians US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I've explained to you before, page numbers are user-set here. What is "page 2" for you is not "page 2" for me. Your links take me to pages that have no relevance to anything. The first one goes to the OP. I already know where that is.

Again if you have a specific post (or posts) -- link to those posts or better yet quote them. "Page numbers" are meaningless.

Not an excuse. You can no less review the events that took place. Whatever page it is does not change the fact you started this pissing contest. I trust you have the ability to read? Then go through the posts and look at them yourself. Deflecting is doing you no favors.

I already did go through the posts. How the fuck could I quote them all if I didn't??

Look, once again your page 5 is not my page 5. Whatever you refer to on "page 5" doesn't show up for me. Those are references for your user profile only. I can't respond to what you won't tell me.

The question of "who started the pissing contest" has been settled, posted, quoted and slam dunked. If you have a dispute on it, then do what I did and quote something to make your case. Empty hyperbole walks.

Funny, you dismiss it by saying it's already settled. I'm sorry, but don't delude yourself. You dug the hole. You were the one caught with the shovel in hand. You prove my point, and you prove that you did in fact start it by calling others names and antagonizing them as can be seen in the last few pages (regardless of the post per page) of commentary... And for the record, you selectively quoted those posts. If the reader goes through those posts chronologically, your argument is destroyed.

So you have nothing. Several hours went by and you can't document jack shit. I documented exactly the point where it started, and six more subsequent entries. You posted a bunch of page numbers that relate to absolutely nothing. A lot of hot air but when it comes to show it -- hot air.

Dismissed.

Dismissed? This isn't boot camp Pogo. In actuality there is no hot air since I am typing not speaking. I posted where this took place. You use the pages to dismiss my argument, when in reality you want to be lazy and not read the posts. In a way you are admitting your own defeat.

Good, back to this thread at least.
.
I don't see what is so damned cryptic about this -- you set your USMB account for X number of posts per page --- I set mine for Y number of posts per page. In this thread for example I am on page 38. That is not going to correspond to the page you're on. What you linked above are the first several pages of this thread. That has no relevance -- I'm not even IN those pages. And I know how to navigate pages.

I'll say this for the fourth time................ if you want a comment on a particular post, you have to link or quote the post. Page numers tell us NOTHING.

Got it?

Whether the pages correspond or not is irrelevant. All you have to do is read the posts. Rikurzhen linked to the comment twice, conveniently you ignored it. Beat your head on the wall all you want, you got busted.

You're talking about two entirely different things. Your list of pages was to THIS THREAD. Those links are useless; all they do is bring up, again, this is the fifth time now, WHAT IS FOR ME page 2, 3, etc. Those pages are irrelevant to anything. Each of them shows 20 posts, not one. And none of those posts, on ANY of those pages, are mine. Unless Foxy was wrong about my first one being 118 but I don't think she is.

The other guy did the same thing. I clicked that link, it took me to a random page. There's no posts from me on it. I remember the post he refers to, but the link doesn't take me there. Both of y'all are flailing in the dark here. And looking pretty frickin' ridiculous.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

Wrong. I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.

If the text of your comment matches the text on the Nazi website, then maybe you wrote the text for the Nazi website. The text you claim is yours, by your writing, is word for word identical on the Nazi website and I'm not talking about the translated text, I'm talking about the commentary surrounding the translated text. Stolen. Plagiarized.

Yammer yammer yammer plagiarized yammer yammer Nazi yammer yammer...

This is what I said in the first place -- you're a troll.
Everything was and still is duly linked. Everybody here knows I link meticulously and deride those who fail to, the only exception being other message boards, which we can't, but in this case the books were, and remain, duly linked. I don't know what the fuck you think you found somewhere else that matches but it doesn't matter; the citations are linked; the citations are fully credited, and the links work. So suck it.

Lying by misdirection is still lying. All your commentary is plagiarized and not one link you supplied had the commentary text. Keep spinning your stories. I've given the link and people go there and read about your unmasking as it played out, comment by comment.

"Not one link supplied had the commentary text" -- NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's because I wrote it that night.
Troll.

So you posted a blog on a Nazi website? Is this what we are to derive from this post? Why then is it on a Nazi website? Can you explain why?

You've painted yourself into a corner.

I have never written a blog for anybody except myself. What this "Nazi website" the troll thinks he has is about, I really don't know. His link doesn't even work so I can't jump there, nor is it my problem. I'm not the one making a claim here -- burden of proof is on the accuser.

And no I can't explain where other people's websites get their stuff. I'm not fucking responsible for that. Are you?
DUMBASS.

Well, then why does your post match one on a Nazi website? You refuse to answer the question.

At any rate. The onus is on you, not the accuser. They provided evidence, you did not.

It's NOT MY CLAIM, TK. On what planet is an accusee required to prove a negative?? How in the wide world of fuck can I "provide evidence" of NOT HAVING DONE SOMETHING???

Are you asking why he tried to hijack that thread? That's a fair question -- I presume something in the post, which I thought was just a side note on semantics, was dangerous to his agenda. I never did figure that out. But then again he's trying to hijack this thread as well, so maybe he's just a damn troll. Which is what I said in the first place.

I like your graphic. It reminds us to ask, since the thread in question wasn't about Naziism, what's the significance of something being on a "Nazi website"? Does it somehow change the character of the information posted? What's the point there? Seems to me I put this question to the troll and he ignored it. Do these perfectly legitimate French books suddenly change their words and meanings because some Nazi website posted them? Howzat work?

And btw as I recall the three citations, which were a historical etymology, were from something like 1894, 1902 and 1906, all of which way preceded Naziism. They even precede WW1, let alone WW2. So what the fuck are we talking about besides trollism?

Your post matched the one on the Nazi website, your essay notwithstanding. You know, I have a different theory, you chose to quote that post and not link to it, since citing anything from a Nazi website would instantaneously discredit your argument. But, however, you still never answered my question, why is that post on a Nazi website?

I wasn't even making an "argument"; I was examining the origins of a term (racism) via citations in some old books.

How the fuck do I know what's on a "Nazi website"? Am I somehow responsible for what everyone else puts on their websites? How?

You do realize how fucking silly this has devolved by now, right? Good, let's carry on. I just want this one other question addressed, to wit --- exactly how does citing from a "Nazi website" --- or any particular kind of website -- "discredit" the argument I wasn't making? The links, again, go to Google Books. They go to images of the pages cited. Not to a fucking "Nazi website".

So what the fuck are you talking about here? Are we trying to deflect from your failure to find ad hom in this thread?

Once again, why is that post on a Nazi website? Either the post was cited by the website, or you pulled it from there. I'll keep asking this question until you answer it, that or you choose to leave the thread. Either way, your argument is discredited when you have Neo-Nazis citing something you did. Unwittingly or otherwise.

That's about the cheapest cop-out I've ever heard.

So you think troll-boy was trying to discredit my sources by saying they're mirrored on a "Nazi website"?
Anyone who would take that kind of blatant fallacy seriously ain't worth my time. If they're worth yours, I pity you.

Cop out? If it were a cop out, which it isn't, it would be no better than the cop-outs you've been posting for hours on end.

You cannot deny the fact that post was on a Nazi website, you cannot deny that you cited a Nazi website, the very fact it was on a Nazi website destroys your argument. Sorry.

I have never linked to a "Nazi website";
I have never been to a "Nazi website";
I have never cited a "Nazi website".

That's what makes what you did plagiarism. If you had linked or cited to the NAZI website then you wouldn't have plagiarized. Instead you copied all of their commentary and declared that you wrote it. That's plagiarism.

 

[Pogo]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

Wrong. I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.

If the text of your comment matches the text on the Nazi website, then maybe you wrote the text for the Nazi website. The text you claim is yours, by your writing, is word for word identical on the Nazi website and I'm not talking about the translated text, I'm talking about the commentary surrounding the translated text. Stolen. Plagiarized.

Yammer yammer yammer plagiarized yammer yammer Nazi yammer yammer...

This is what I said in the first place -- you're a troll.
Everything was and still is duly linked. Everybody here knows I link meticulously and deride those who fail to, the only exception being other message boards, which we can't, but in this case the books were, and remain, duly linked. I don't know what the fuck you think you found somewhere else that matches but it doesn't matter; the citations are linked; the citations are fully credited, and the links work. So suck it.

Lying by misdirection is still lying. All your commentary is plagiarized and not one link you supplied had the commentary text. Keep spinning your stories. I've given the link and people go there and read about your unmasking as it played out, comment by comment.

"Not one link supplied had the commentary text" -- NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's because I wrote it that night.
Troll.

So you posted a blog on a Nazi website? Is this what we are to derive from this post? Why then is it on a Nazi website? Can you explain why?

You've painted yourself into a corner.

I have never written a blog for anybody except myself. What this "Nazi website" the troll thinks he has is about, I really don't know. His link doesn't even work so I can't jump there, nor is it my problem. I'm not the one making a claim here -- burden of proof is on the accuser.

And no I can't explain where other people's websites get their stuff. I'm not fucking responsible for that. Are you?
DUMBASS.

Well, then why does your post match one on a Nazi website? You refuse to answer the question.

At any rate. The onus is on you, not the accuser. They provided evidence, you did not.

It's NOT MY CLAIM, TK. On what planet is an accusee required to prove a negative?? How in the wide world of fuck can I "provide evidence" of NOT HAVING DONE SOMETHING???

Are you asking why he tried to hijack that thread? That's a fair question -- I presume something in the post, which I thought was just a side note on semantics, was dangerous to his agenda. I never did figure that out. But then again he's trying to hijack this thread as well, so maybe he's just a damn troll. Which is what I said in the first place.

I like your graphic. It reminds us to ask, since the thread in question wasn't about Naziism, what's the significance of something being on a "Nazi website"? Does it somehow change the character of the information posted? What's the point there? Seems to me I put this question to the troll and he ignored it. Do these perfectly legitimate French books suddenly change their words and meanings because some Nazi website posted them? Howzat work?

And btw as I recall the three citations, which were a historical etymology, were from something like 1894, 1902 and 1906, all of which way preceded Naziism. They even precede WW1, let alone WW2. So what the fuck are we talking about besides trollism?

Your post matched the one on the Nazi website, your essay notwithstanding. You know, I have a different theory, you chose to quote that post and not link to it, since citing anything from a Nazi website would instantaneously discredit your argument. But, however, you still never answered my question, why is that post on a Nazi website?

I wasn't even making an "argument"; I was examining the origins of a term (racism) via citations in some old books.

How the fuck do I know what's on a "Nazi website"? Am I somehow responsible for what everyone else puts on their websites? How?

You do realize how fucking silly this has devolved by now, right? Good, let's carry on. I just want this one other question addressed, to wit --- exactly how does citing from a "Nazi website" --- or any particular kind of website -- "discredit" the argument I wasn't making? The links, again, go to Google Books. They go to images of the pages cited. Not to a fucking "Nazi website".

So what the fuck are you talking about here? Are we trying to deflect from your failure to find ad hom in this thread?

Once again, why is that post on a Nazi website? Either the post was cited by the website, or you pulled it from there. I'll keep asking this question until you answer it, that or you choose to leave the thread. Either way, your argument is discredited when you have Neo-Nazis citing something you did. Unwittingly or otherwise.

That's about the cheapest cop-out I've ever heard.

So you think troll-boy was trying to discredit my sources by saying they're mirrored on a "Nazi website"?
Anyone who would take that kind of blatant fallacy seriously ain't worth my time. If they're worth yours, I pity you.

Not your sources you old battle-axe, your commentary. You keep purposely distorting the charge. I never said one word about your SOURCES, your plagiarism is all of the commentary that you claimed you wrote. Not the translations.

There is no such thing as commentary I claimed to write, but didn't. Anywhere.
You've already been busted lying elsewhere. Shall we quote that too?

 

[Pogo]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

Wrong. I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.

If the text of your comment matches the text on the Nazi website, then maybe you wrote the text for the Nazi website. The text you claim is yours, by your writing, is word for word identical on the Nazi website and I'm not talking about the translated text, I'm talking about the commentary surrounding the translated text. Stolen. Plagiarized.

Yammer yammer yammer plagiarized yammer yammer Nazi yammer yammer...

This is what I said in the first place -- you're a troll.
Everything was and still is duly linked. Everybody here knows I link meticulously and deride those who fail to, the only exception being other message boards, which we can't, but in this case the books were, and remain, duly linked. I don't know what the fuck you think you found somewhere else that matches but it doesn't matter; the citations are linked; the citations are fully credited, and the links work. So suck it.

Lying by misdirection is still lying. All your commentary is plagiarized and not one link you supplied had the commentary text. Keep spinning your stories. I've given the link and people go there and read about your unmasking as it played out, comment by comment.

"Not one link supplied had the commentary text" -- NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's because I wrote it that night.
Troll.

So you posted a blog on a Nazi website? Is this what we are to derive from this post? Why then is it on a Nazi website? Can you explain why?

You've painted yourself into a corner.

I have never written a blog for anybody except myself. What this "Nazi website" the troll thinks he has is about, I really don't know. His link doesn't even work so I can't jump there, nor is it my problem. I'm not the one making a claim here -- burden of proof is on the accuser.

And no I can't explain where other people's websites get their stuff. I'm not fucking responsible for that. Are you?
DUMBASS.

Well, then why does your post match one on a Nazi website? You refuse to answer the question.

At any rate. The onus is on you, not the accuser. They provided evidence, you did not.

It's NOT MY CLAIM, TK. On what planet is an accusee required to prove a negative?? How in the wide world of fuck can I "provide evidence" of NOT HAVING DONE SOMETHING???

Are you asking why he tried to hijack that thread? That's a fair question -- I presume something in the post, which I thought was just a side note on semantics, was dangerous to his agenda. I never did figure that out. But then again he's trying to hijack this thread as well, so maybe he's just a damn troll. Which is what I said in the first place.

I like your graphic. It reminds us to ask, since the thread in question wasn't about Naziism, what's the significance of something being on a "Nazi website"? Does it somehow change the character of the information posted? What's the point there? Seems to me I put this question to the troll and he ignored it. Do these perfectly legitimate French books suddenly change their words and meanings because some Nazi website posted them? Howzat work?

And btw as I recall the three citations, which were a historical etymology, were from something like 1894, 1902 and 1906, all of which way preceded Naziism. They even precede WW1, let alone WW2. So what the fuck are we talking about besides trollism?

Your post matched the one on the Nazi website, your essay notwithstanding. You know, I have a different theory, you chose to quote that post and not link to it, since citing anything from a Nazi website would instantaneously discredit your argument. But, however, you still never answered my question, why is that post on a Nazi website?

I wasn't even making an "argument"; I was examining the origins of a term (racism) via citations in some old books.

How the fuck do I know what's on a "Nazi website"? Am I somehow responsible for what everyone else puts on their websites? How?

You do realize how fucking silly this has devolved by now, right? Good, let's carry on. I just want this one other question addressed, to wit --- exactly how does citing from a "Nazi website" --- or any particular kind of website -- "discredit" the argument I wasn't making? The links, again, go to Google Books. They go to images of the pages cited. Not to a fucking "Nazi website".

So what the fuck are you talking about here? Are we trying to deflect from your failure to find ad hom in this thread?

Once again, why is that post on a Nazi website? Either the post was cited by the website, or you pulled it from there. I'll keep asking this question until you answer it, that or you choose to leave the thread. Either way, your argument is discredited when you have Neo-Nazis citing something you did. Unwittingly or otherwise.

That's about the cheapest cop-out I've ever heard.

So you think troll-boy was trying to discredit my sources by saying they're mirrored on a "Nazi website"?
Anyone who would take that kind of blatant fallacy seriously ain't worth my time. If they're worth yours, I pity you.

Cop out? If it were a cop out, which it isn't, it would be no better than the cop-outs you've been posting for hours on end.

You cannot deny the fact that post was on a Nazi website, you cannot deny that you cited a Nazi website, the very fact it was on a Nazi website destroys your argument. Sorry.

I have never linked to a "Nazi website";
I have never been to a "Nazi website";
I have never cited a "Nazi website".

That's what makes what you did plagiarism. If you had linked or cited to the NAZI website then you wouldn't have plagiarized. Instead you copied all of their commentary and declared that you wrote it. That's plagiarism.

Bullshit.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Bullshit.

It's all there in post #761 in this thread. You didn't write what you claim to have written.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

The problem with those who condemn the likes of Bachmann, Levin, Palin, Beck et al are that they buy into the idea that such people are extreme and a bit looney tunes--that certainly IS the drum beat mantra of the Left--but in fact, they have a difficult time coming up with any specifics to make that case. I don't know of any social or political views that any of those people hold that would disqualify them from being libertarian (little "L") Now do some have a different perspective of history or interpret things differently than other people do or have some ideas that might be considered fringe? Yes some do, but then pretty much everybody does. Sometimes I agree with them on the sociopolitical stuff and sometimes I don't. I have a tougher time catching Levin in a factual error though--in fact I'm not sure I ever have. And trust, me I try with everybody. But all of them qualify in every way as libertarian (little "L")

Ron Paul or Gary Johnson--Libertarians with a capital "L"? I am quite fond of both individuals--know Gary personally in fact--but I have a lot more problem with their point of view about several sociopolitical stances than I do Bachmann, Levin, Palin, or Beck. But all of them are good people.

But getting back to the point Kaz made in the OP, libertarians (little "L") are not opposed to government. Every single one, including those I've named here, know that some government is necessary to hold the 50 states together as one nation and that some laws and regulation are necessary to secure the unalienable rights of the individual and to prevent those in the 50 states from doing physical, economic, environmental, or cultural violence to each other.

Certainly the central government should do what has to be done and that the various states CANNOT do without assuming improper authority over each other.

But the central government should do nothing that the states, local communities, and/or private sector CAN do whether they do it or not.

Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Why do you ask loaded questions? Did you think that would pass off as an argument? A Plurium Interrogationum fallacy, not to mention an ad baculum position with the elderly. She knows it, you know it.

I ask a logical questions. HOW would this 'charity only' society work?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Why do you ask loaded questions? Did you think that would pass off as an argument? A Plurium Interrogationum fallacy, not to mention an ad baculum position with the elderly. She knows it, you know it.

I ask a logical questions. HOW would this 'charity only' society work?

 

[Bfgrn]

The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.

Your mea culpa doesn't make sense. You're arguing, in essence, that people who thought Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur given to him by God are not creationists because they recognize that cultures evolve over time.

You're a creationist because you reject the science of evolution, so your embrace of cultural change has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic mutation, selection effects as a response to environment and genetic drift.

I don't deny evolution. I reject that evolution should be the basis of a civil society.

Then why not pop back into the education thread, retract your statements and we can proceed afresh?

There is nothing to retract. When you examine education, race is not the determining factor. Poverty is.

 

[Mac1958]

[I have to ask what in the heck gives you the idea that Palin/Bachman/Beck are libertarians? That is the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.

That is precisely my point, they're not! - The Tea Party had my attention for literally two or three weeks, when they were respectfully questioning too much government, but then the Palin/Bachmann/Beck brigade immediately sniffed opportunity and essentially took it over, becoming the silly face of it. That's when the two parties began to meld together. How many nationally-known Democrats have you seen arm in arm with Sarah Palin at a Tea Party rally?

Whether you like it or not, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck are all associated nationally with the Tea Party, and they're all religious pro-lifers, they're all pro-America As Policeman Of The World, and they damn sure vote Republican. That's just a fact, and that's where the two parties have been crammed together, each making the other look bad.

Regarding absolutism, when a large chunk of a national political party says Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and the IRS and any number of institutions should be shit-canned; when a large chunk of a party effectively shuts down the legislative process, they are shooting themselves in the foot, regardless of how many times they chant platitudes like "freedom" and "liberty". Holy crap, "liberty" has become as diluted and trivialized and worthless for the Right as "racism" has for the Left. And they're both goddamn important words.

I have no doubt that shouting that stuff along with the guy on the radio (especially Levin, holy crap) or at a local meeting gets everyone fired up and all, but on a national level they sound downright goofy. They are just not - going - to - happen. If you want to save America from becoming France or Greece, great, I'm with you (although I do think it's too late). But this method will not work, I absolutely guarantee you.

I'm sorry, but the breathtaking "Keep Government Out Of My Medicare" sign that was photographed at the Tea Party rally is the perfect illustration of the borderline madness that has resulted from the mashup of the two parties.

My two cents, worth every penny.

.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.

Your mea culpa doesn't make sense. You're arguing, in essence, that people who thought Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur given to him by God are not creationists because they recognize that cultures evolve over time.

You're a creationist because you reject the science of evolution, so your embrace of cultural change has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic mutation, selection effects as a response to environment and genetic drift.

I don't deny evolution. I reject that evolution should be the basis of a civil society.

Then why not pop back into the education thread, retract your statements and we can proceed afresh?

There is nothing to retract. When you examine education, race is not the determining factor. Poverty is.

That's already been dealt with in that thread. Look, the entire basis of Fisher vs. The University of Texas affirmative action case was that UT had to give preference to the children of upper class blacks and Hispanics over the BETTER QUALIFIED white children from more modest families. The University of Texas went to court to defend giving preferences to rich black kids. Race is the big factor that you don't want to acknowledge and I'm going to keep swatting away your feeble attempts to ignore it.

The Washington Post:

Texas needed to provide a preference to wealthy minority students such as “the African American or Hispanic child of successful professionals in Dallas” who would defy stereotypes.

​