What are libertarians?

Kaz, face it, you are a...

  • ...conservative because only money matters and your fiscallly conservative

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ...liberal, you're against morality laws and for smaller, defense only military

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15
The FFs were liberals? Just because they didn't like George the Third?

Here ya go Mindful -- as you see the OP is an asshole who does nothing but pretend to post "open" questions and then attack anybody that doesn't mirror his or her POV.

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.[2][3][4][5][6]

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property[7] and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

The revolutionaries of the Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, segments of the French Revolution, and other liberal revolutionaries from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America.[8] In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of liberalism was classical conservatism. -- Wiki​


For a breakdown of the misuse of the term Liberal and what they pretend to call "classical liberal" (which is purely cowardice) please see this page.

Unfortunately there are those among us whose purpose is to prevent discussion, so we'll be better off dissecting this somewhere else. This thread is a troll magnet. Welcome to USMB, we look forward to your thoughts.
 
[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
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.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.
Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

In my opinion, there are two kinds of libertarians. The big L kind who are as authoritarian as the Democrats or Republicans. These are the people who would deny a village the ability to have a historic crèche on the courthouse lawn or the ability to refuse to have a titty bar or abortion clinic in their village or who oppose zoning laws etc. etc. etc. These may or may not be members of the party but they subscribe the Libertarian Party concepts of government enforcing their brand of liberty everywhere.

And then there are the little L libertarians, the classical liberals who want the central government to do no more than it absolutely has to in order to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and prevent the states from doing physical, economic, environmental, or cultural violence to each other. Then the central government will leave the people strictly alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have whether those societies are little theocracies or rigidly restrictive or wide open and unfettered by rules.

The Libertarian Party is made up of both groups, but mostly the big L group which is why I, a strong libertarian (little L) am not a member of the Libertarian Party. And of course there are folks who call themselves libertarians who embrace variations between the two groups described.

Which kind of libertarian are you? I have no idea, but just saying that you are an ideological libertarian doesn't cut it as a description because ALL libertarians are ideological just as everybody else is.
 
Apparently you are congenitally dense. What's the same about these two sentences:

1) " honest citizens having guns is dangerous"
2) "honest citizens shooting back at criminals is escalation."

Um...what is different about them?

What to they have in common? NEITHER OF THEM ARE MY POSTS. Dumbass. Those are your what you call "paraphrases" because you can't post originals they came from BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.

This is why you're just fun. Your statement was IN THE QUOTE. And you didn't get that was what I was referring to? You just pulled two of my statements out? You are seriously, let's go with, not bright...
 
[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
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.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.
Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.


I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age faggot".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.
 
Last edited:
Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.


I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

We don't have the collectivist leftist authoritarian need to agree with each other on every issue like you do, so don't plan on our agreeing...
 
[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
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.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.
Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.


I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I don't believe I said you have proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Pogo. And no, Kevin and I are not agreed as yet on how to use the term. Will he be as stubborn and irrational as you are re definitions? I dunno. We'll see. :)
 
I say ideological libertarian in the way you might say ideological conservative or ideological liberal. The only difference is that liberals are generally members of the Democratic Party, so you don't have to say "Big L" Liberals or "little l" liberals. Libertarians have the Libertarian Party so you have to make that differentiation.

We've had this discussion before, however. It's not authoritarian to say that a neighborhood doesn't have the right to violate the property rights of a strip club, any more than they do a grocery store. It's the exact opposite, in fact. To say that people who have no claim to a piece of property can decide how that property is used against the wishes of the actual property owner is authoritarian. What they can do is boycott the strip club and protest it so that it does no real business and is forced to relocate, but they don't have the right to use the force of government to shut them down. As far as a religious display on the courthouse lawn, the problem there is that the courthouse is public property. I myself couldn't care less if there's a giant cross on a courthouse lawn, or any other religious display, but it's hard to argue any libertarian principle there because we're not dealing with private property.

I would highly recommend reading some of the great libertarians on these type of subjects. "Defending the Undefendable" by Walter Block might be a good start, but anything by Murray Rothbard would also be good.

Walter Block Defending the Undefendable
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
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.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.
Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.


I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I don't believe I said you have proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Pogo. And no, Kevin and I are not agreed as yet on how to use the term. Will he be as stubborn and irrational as you are re definitions? I dunno. We'll see. :)

Well you were dissecting libertarian there, were you not?

Is it not then a bit premature to dismiss my definition as "silly" before I've even offered or settled on one?
 
[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
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.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.
Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.


I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age faggot".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.
The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.
 
Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.


I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

We don't have the collectivist leftist authoritarian need to agree with each other on every issue like you do, so don't plan on our agreeing...

And no. The true libertarian allows others their point of view and their own definitions of terms and concepts and will disagree at times. Going back to your OP, you provide the most simple and brief definition of what a libertarian (small L as I define it) is. Will you and I agree on every component of what I think is included in that brand of libertarianism i.e. classical liberalism? Probably not. But we're probably closer to agreement on most things than many will be.

And I would like to think that true libertarians are able to discuss a concept at face value, each making his/her case for a point of view even if they disagree on something. And most can do so without using any ad hominem or personal accusations or insults or resorting to the blame game. I am pretty sure that none of the leftists/statists/liberals/political class folks can do that. It's almost impossible to get them to understand what the concept is. :)
 
[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
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.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.
Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.


I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I don't believe I said you have proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Pogo. And no, Kevin and I are not agreed as yet on how to use the term. Will he be as stubborn and irrational as you are re definitions? I dunno. We'll see. :)
Definitely stubborn, but I'm going to reject the irrational label as I've studied libertarianism for many years now.
 
[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
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.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.
Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.


I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I don't believe I said you have proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Pogo. And no, Kevin and I are not agreed as yet on how to use the term. Will he be as stubborn and irrational as you are re definitions? I dunno. We'll see. :)

Well you were dissecting libertarian there, were you not?

Is it not then a bit premature to dismiss my definition as "silly" before I've even offered or settled on one?

It is that kind of disconnect that makes me reluctant to even engage you in debate, Pogo. You seem to lack the capacity to understand that one thing is not necessarily the same as another within an argument. And you so far have been one of those statists/leftists/liberals/political class that seems incapable of understanding what the concept even is. You will invariably drag the discussion away from the concept or point being made to argue against something that was never argued in the first place. And when there is that degree of reading incomprehension, it is simply too frustrating and too much a waste of time to even get into it.
 
[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
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.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.
Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.


I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I don't believe I said you have proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Pogo. And no, Kevin and I are not agreed as yet on how to use the term. Will he be as stubborn and irrational as you are re definitions? I dunno. We'll see. :)
Definitely stubborn, but I'm going to reject the irrational label as I've studied libertarianism for many years now.

As have I. Which is why I know that libertarianism includes a great many different philosophies, ideologies, and variations. I choose to differentiate between the authoritarian libertarians and the small government libertarians by using upper and lower case "L's". The one thing that all the libertarians have in common, however, is that each pushes an ideology of liberty as he/she understands what liberty is.
 
[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
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.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.
Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.


I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I don't believe I said you have proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Pogo. And no, Kevin and I are not agreed as yet on how to use the term. Will he be as stubborn and irrational as you are re definitions? I dunno. We'll see. :)

Well you were dissecting libertarian there, were you not?

Is it not then a bit premature to dismiss my definition as "silly" before I've even offered or settled on one?

It is that kind of disconnect that makes me reluctant to even engage you in debate, Pogo. You seem to lack the capacity to understand that one thing is not necessarily the same as another within an argument. And you so far have been one of those statists/leftists/liberals/political class that seems incapable of understanding what the concept even is. You will invariably drag the discussion away from the concept or point being made to argue against something that was never argued in the first place. And when there is that degree of reading incomprehension, it is simply too frustrating and too much a waste of time to even get into it.

You're welcome to demonstrate that, madam; since you are intent on hanging labels you must have some basis for that conclusion somewhere, right? I've asked for this basis over and over (for instance Fingerboy declared I support Obamacare) --- yet every time I ask for this basis, nobody can come up with one. Fingerboy ran away rather than back that one up.

Could that be because it's a strawman fantasy? Is it because it's easier to just demonize views one can't answer? To paint them with a broad brush that they may then be dismissed?

I guess it really boils down to this:
Are you even listening, or just talking past me in a vast echo chamber?
 
(for instance Fingerboy declared I support Obamacare) --- yet every time I ask for this basis, nobody can come up with one. Fingerboy ran away rather than back that one up.
Given your history, he probably showed you your quote saying you support Obamacare a half dozen times and got tired of giving it to you every time you said it didn't exist and asked for it again.
 
(for instance Fingerboy declared I support Obamacare) --- yet every time I ask for this basis, nobody can come up with one. Fingerboy ran away rather than back that one up.
Given your history, he probably showed you your quote saying you support Obamacare a half dozen times and got tired of giving it to you every time you said it didn't exist and asked for it again.

No actually he declared he "didn't give a shit", which is consistent with past history on his part. Which in a way makes him less dishonest than you, since he doesn't pretend to have posted some backup of his point that he didn't. He just walks away and takes the liar label and wears it.

Hey, you're welcome to help him out and do your own search.... :dunno:

Basically I think what you run here (in your threads in general) is a big wank echo chamber pot. You pretend to pose an open question, but any answers you don't like get shouted down. It's a dead end. You don't want dialogue, but monologue. What you want is a blog, not a discussion board.
 
(for instance Fingerboy declared I support Obamacare) --- yet every time I ask for this basis, nobody can come up with one. Fingerboy ran away rather than back that one up.
Given your history, he probably showed you your quote saying you support Obamacare a half dozen times and got tired of giving it to you every time you said it didn't exist and asked for it again.

No actually he declared he "didn't give a shit", which is consistent with past history on his part. Which in a way makes him less dishonest than you, since he doesn't pretend to have posted some backup of his point that he didn't.

LOL, that I keep showing you the quotes doesn't dissuade you at all. So we have:

1) I'm a liar who keeps backing up my claims by showing you your quotes. The worst kind of liar, I'm right and I back it up. Damn you kaz!

2) Bripat doesn't give a shit what you ask him for

3) You're butt stupid and can't even read your own posts.

Yep, sounds like we have our roles down.
 
You pretend to pose an open question, but any answers you don't like get shouted down.

I see, so when I ask questions, I wasn't supposed to disagree with the opinions I got. No one informed me of that. Basically you're too limp dicked to back up your Marxist drivel and resent being asked.

Bad news, I'm still not going to let you go without your ridiculous shit being challenged. It's tough being you. Having to use the mens room and yet pee sitting down, isn't it kiddie poo?
 
The FFs were liberals? Just because they didn't like George the Third?
No, not just because of that. Google Classic Liberal and educate yourself before posting on a subject you know nothing about and insist on proving.

Thanks for the advice. I was asking about the Founding Fathers.

OK, another bit of advice, questions are more effective when they don't come with strawmen.
 

Forum List

Back
Top