Jump to content
The Political Lounge

IRS Abuses Power AGAIN


jvikings1

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

I'll give you the same response I've given in discord. I don't really see a personal attack here. Getting accused of being an apologist of progressivism is not an insult for me. It's not like someone would talk about an apologist of nazism, racism or left-wing terrorism. 

If someone tells me that I am an apologist of Trumpism, I'd very well think said person is wrong and I'd explain myself once more, but I wouldn't be offended.

Not sure if it's a personal attack, but it sure is condescending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Not sure if it's a personal attack, but it sure is condescending.

I think anything that is insulting or stated in a way designed to rouse the other person in anger or making them feel terrible is a kind of personal attack. I think calling someone that is proudly a conservative an "apologist" for progressives is certainly an attack.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Who's watching me?)
I don't know anymore
Are the neighbors watching me?
(Who's watching me?)
Well, is the mailman watching me?
(Tell me who's watching?)
And I don't feel safe anymore, oh, what a mess
I wonder who's watching me now (Who?!) - the IRS?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Hestia said:

The Transgender Law Center, importantly focuses on providing legal services and supporting transgender causes. They don't participate in party politics beyond supporting their own cause. Under that, the Pro Life Action League is also tax exempt. 

That is the point. This group does not participate in party politics either. They focus on key Christian issues within society. I am fine with that group being tax exempt as well. But, I expect conservative groups to get equal treatment (which has been a problem recently).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, vcczar said:

No personal attacks, please. 

I'll also defend @Dobs and say that he has, in no way, been an apologist for progressives. He's been consistently conservative since I've known him. He's also a self-declared Libertarian Republican just as you are, and just as @DakotaHale is. It's odd to see this civil war between the two of you. 

 

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think anything that is insulting or stated in a way designed to rouse the other person in anger or making them feel terrible is a kind of personal attack. I think calling someone that is proudly a conservative an "apologist" for progressives is certainly an attack.

It isn't a personal attack. More of an observation about his stances here and in the past. I refrain from petty insults that are outside the scope of the discussion.

There reason I don't see him as an ally is because he claims to be liberty and then does not back it up. Supporting someone like Joe Biden (and groups like the Lincoln Project) is completely contrary to liberty. Those who see an ally in the left hurt the liberty movement and make it difficult to get things done that we fight for. These people claim to be liberty but actually hurt the cause (thus my dislike of those people's claim to being pro-liberty). Sure they might disagree on most things, but they still help advance the "progressive" cause.

Take Justin Amash as an example. He mostly had a solid voting record in Congress. However his antics cost us that solid vote and also tainted people like Thomas Massie (helping the Establishment to recruit a primary opponent and wasting valuable resources making sure he was safe from that challenge). The media also was given a weapon to use, thus helping the left advance their agenda. Because he wanted to lead the Orange Man bad crusade, he turned from a liberty voice into a detriment to liberty.

  • Like 1
  • Disagree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

 

It isn't a personal attack. More of an observation about his stances here and in the past. I refrain from petty insults that are outside the scope of the discussion.

There reason I don't see him as an ally is because he claims to be liberty and then does not back it up. Supporting someone like Joe Biden (and groups like the Lincoln Project) is completely contrary to liberty. Those who see an ally in the left hurt the liberty movement and make it difficult to get things done that we fight for. These people claim to be liberty but actually hurt the cause (thus my dislike of those people's claim to being pro-liberty). Sure they might disagree on most things, but they still help advance the "progressive" cause.

Take Justin Amash as an example. He mostly had a solid voting record in Congress. However his antics cost us that solid vote and also tainted people like Thomas Massie (helping the Establishment to recruit a primary opponent and wasting valuable resources making sure he was safe from that challenge). The media also was given a weapon to use, thus helping the left advance their agenda. Because he wanted to lead the Orange Man bad crusade, he turned from a liberty voice into a detriment to liberty.

I certainly have my qualms with Joe Biden but what the hell did I just read? 

It's ironic how you claim to be a Rand Paul, "Libertarian" fan. 

It's a very dangerous thing to resent the other side whom you refer to as the "left" so badly to the point that in your own words in a previous topic, advocated absolute conservative, or *cough* "Libertarian" rule is infinitely better than a Democratically elected leftist. There's a lot of definitions that can define what you're advocating right there. Absolutism, autocracy, enlightened despotism perhaps???

You're no Libertarian outside of the clown world sir. Judging by your first paragraph you're calling Joe Biden, the Lincoln Project, contrary to Liberty, just, what?

At least none of these people weaponized a cult following into storming the Capitol on January 6th. And as much as you may buy into the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracies fed to you on the "Libertarian" cess pool known as 4chan, it's all a bunch of baloney. 

It's viewpoints such as these, that have such resent towards an opposing ideology, and the "establishment" that breeds the very movements that brought Trumpism to power, but throughout history, even worse movements bred from these kind of arguments. One happened in 1933. 

I'll admit, I hate socialism, I hate communism, I hate fascism. But above all, I hate extremism. 

However, I would never hate another person for believing this, there is a frequent poster on this forum who reads way too much R/Communism. I don't hate him, I feel bad for him. I want to bring meaningful debate so he can have his own, open mind on these topics. As that is the most important thing. 

A true aspect of Libertarianism, is fighting for the right for people to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter what it is. Even I who despise a lot of aspects of Libertarianism, find civic libertarianism respectable. 

With respect, I must say you have a very twisted version of Liberty, and "Libertarianism." It is not one I have ever seen until now, perhaps that is why I felt the need to confront it. 

I just had to make this observation. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

 

It isn't a personal attack. More of an observation about his stances here and in the past. I refrain from petty insults that are outside the scope of the discussion.

There reason I don't see him as an ally is because he claims to be liberty and then does not back it up. Supporting someone like Joe Biden (and groups like the Lincoln Project) is completely contrary to liberty. Those who see an ally in the left hurt the liberty movement and make it difficult to get things done that we fight for. These people claim to be liberty but actually hurt the cause (thus my dislike of those people's claim to being pro-liberty). Sure they might disagree on most things, but they still help advance the "progressive" cause.

Take Justin Amash as an example. He mostly had a solid voting record in Congress. However his antics cost us that solid vote and also tainted people like Thomas Massie (helping the Establishment to recruit a primary opponent and wasting valuable resources making sure he was safe from that challenge). The media also was given a weapon to use, thus helping the left advance their agenda. Because he wanted to lead the Orange Man bad crusade, he turned from a liberty voice into a detriment to liberty.

You claim to be a conservative, yet you do more purity testing than a hardline socialist.

🤔 Curious.

- Turning Point USA

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Supporting someone like Joe Biden (and groups like the Lincoln Project) is completely contrary to liberty.

 

12 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Judging by your first paragraph you're calling Joe Biden, the Lincoln Project, contrary to Liberty, just, what?

I agree with @Pringles.  I find @jvikings1's definition of what is liberty and what is not liberty very detached from the more popular, more democratic, and more 21st century definition of the term. Fortunately, such puritan Libertarian views are completely out of touch with both the times and the American people at large. Every president has had some liberty expanding, protecting, or restricting policies and opinions. A President Ron Paul or President Rand Paul would also restrict a lot of liberty in some ways, especially those that gain liberty, and life, and the pursuit of happiness, through things like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food safety laws, and Civil Rights protections, and high wage laws, etc. These are liberty-enhancing and affect more people than the liberty gained by removing things like Civil Rights protections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

I certainly have my qualms with Joe Biden but what the hell did I just read? 

It's ironic how you claim to be a Rand Paul, "Libertarian" fan. 

It's a very dangerous thing to resent the other side whom you refer to as the "left" so badly to the point that in your own words in a previous topic, advocated absolute conservative, or *cough* "Libertarian" rule is infinitely better than a Democratically elected leftist. There's a lot of definitions that can define what you're advocating right there. Absolutism, autocracy, enlightened despotism perhaps???

You're no Libertarian outside of the clown world sir. Judging by your first paragraph you're calling Joe Biden, the Lincoln Project, contrary to Liberty, just, what?

Well, this is certainly more of a personal attack than anything I have stated.

At least none of these people weaponized a cult following into storming the Capitol on January 6th. And as much as you may buy into the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracies fed to you on the "Libertarian" cess pool known as 4chan, it's all a bunch of baloney. 

Nope, they have just weaponized the entire virus narrative to hold the entire country hostage under a shroud of lies which are now being exposed (not that that will do any good).

It's viewpoints such as these, that have such resent towards an opposing ideology, and the "establishment" that breeds the very movements that brought Trumpism to power, but throughout history, even worse movements bred from these kind of arguments. One happened in 1933. 

The best part of the Trump movement was the attack on the Establishment. The fact that you defend this group from such attacks shows why you don't understand my approach and why you haven't heard this before. Those who support the system would not understand.

I'll admit, I hate socialism, I hate communism, I hate fascism. But above all, I hate extremism. 

However, I would never hate another person for believing this, there is a frequent poster on this forum who reads way too much R/Communism. I don't hate him, I feel bad for him. I want to bring meaningful debate so he can have his own, open mind on these topics. As that is the most important thing.  

I don't hate him as a person. I sharply disagree and dislike his claim to be pro-liberty considering his past stances that have done more to hurt the liberty movement than help.

A true aspect of Libertarianism, is fighting for the right for people to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter what it is. Even I who despise a lot of aspects of Libertarianism, find civic libertarianism respectable. 

False. It is about fighting for individual liberty. While allowing people to believe what they want it a part of that, that does not mean you are free from having someone disagree with you privately (without the use of government force).

With respect, I must say you have a very twisted version of Liberty, and "Libertarianism." It is not one I have ever seen until now, perhaps that is why I felt the need to confront it. 

For one, your response was not with respect. Don't try to make that claim when you don't mean it. For 2, you haven't seen it before because you haven't sought it out. I suggest you do more to broaden your horizons if you think that this line of thought is some random person's take on an issue.

I just had to make this observation. 

Correct, I am not a Libertarian (big L).

And yes, Biden and the Lincoln Project are not pro-liberty. Both are big government pawns who want more power for the system (not the individual). They seek to expand the surveillance state, expand the regulatory state, expand gun control, increase taxes/spending, crack down on religious liberty (in the name of equality). These are all things the liberty movement strongly opposes. And before you ask, Trump was no liberty hero. But at least he spoke out against the system (even if his rhetoric was different than his actions).

I don't see how it is ironic for me to be a fan of Rand Paul. He has all his interns (of which I was one of them) read The Law by Frédéric Bastiat. Something you would probably consider radical. This also shows me that you misunderstand the concept of libertarianism/the liberty movement (likely due to your lack of research/reading on the subject).

20 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

You claim to be a conservative, yet you do more purity testing than a hardline socialist.

🤔 Curious.

- Turning Point USA

Using one's previous actions (which are to the determinant of the movement one claims to support) to call into question their actual support of that movement is not a purity test. There is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement in the movement, but supporting people/groups inherently opposed to the movement (and which hurt it) is not reasonable within that movement. There is a line where you go from an ally with disagreement to being a force within that sabotages progress. Having been involved within the movement, I know how frustrating it is to have people like Dobs creating doubt (and even resentment) within the populations that we seek to reach (thus making it harder to pass things like constitutional carry, school choice, etc.).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 

I agree with @Pringles.  I find @jvikings1's definition of what is liberty and what is not liberty very detached from the more popular, more democratic, and more 21st century definition of the term. Fortunately, such puritan Libertarian views are completely out of touch with both the times and the American people at large. Every president has had some liberty expanding, protecting, or restricting policies and opinions. A President Ron Paul or President Rand Paul would also restrict a lot of liberty in some ways, especially those that gain liberty, and life, and the pursuit of happiness, through things like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food safety laws, and Civil Rights protections, and high wage laws, etc. These are liberty-enhancing and affect more people than the liberty gained by removing things like Civil Rights protections. 

If we want to go there, then your view of liberty is detached from history (which shows that people are left worse off from big government policies than better off). You don't get the liberty movement because you don't understand where it comes from (just like I don't completely understand where people like yourself come from). That's why I mostly avoid philosophical discussions amongst people with such broad differences and stick to policy/political positions. However, Dobs claims to be from my area of liberty, which is why the point is brought up. Thus, I must differentiate between people like him and people in the movements I am involved with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Correct, I am not a Libertarian (big L).

And yes, Biden and the Lincoln Project are not pro-liberty. Both are big government pawns who want more power for the system (not the individual). They seek to expand the surveillance state, expand the regulatory state, expand gun control, increase taxes/spending, crack down on religious liberty (in the name of equality). These are all things the liberty movement strongly opposes. And before you ask, Trump was no liberty hero. But at least he spoke out against the system (even if his rhetoric was different than his actions).

I don't see how it is ironic for me to be a fan of Rand Paul. He has all his interns (of which I was one of them) read The Law by Frédéric Bastiat. Something you would probably consider radical. This also shows me that you misunderstand the concept of libertarianism/the liberty movement (likely due to your lack of research/reading on the subject).

Using one's previous actions (which are to the determinant of the movement one claims to support) to call into question their actual support of that movement is not a purity test. There is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement in the movement, but supporting people/groups inherently opposed to the movement (and which hurt it) is not reasonable within that movement. There is a line where you go from an ally with disagreement to being a force within that sabotages progress. Having been involved within the movement, I know how frustrating it is to have people like Dobs creating doubt (and even resentment) within the populations that we seek to reach (thus making it harder to pass things like constitutional carry, school choice, etc.).

Perhaps it’s not the moderate conservatives who don’t pass every little litmus test that are the ones sabotaging progress. Perhaps it is in reality the rabid ideologue, who drives moderates away by demanding total ideological purity. 

  • Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zenobiyl said:

Perhaps it’s not the moderate conservatives who don’t pass every little litmus test that are the ones sabotaging progress. Perhaps it is in reality the rabid ideologue, who drives moderates away by demanding total ideological purity. 

Dobs does not claim to be a moderate though. He claims to be a member of the liberty movement, despite his actions that act in contrary to the goals of the movement.

I recognize the need for a broader coalition (which is why I am a registered Republican and active within the party), but that doesn't mean those people are part of the liberty movement. However, it is people like Justin Amash and Dobs which hurt the progress towards creating those coalitions because they make those other movements/groups less willing to work with the liberty movement, even when agreement on the issues align.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Correct, I am not a Libertarian (big L).

And yes, Biden and the Lincoln Project are not pro-liberty. Both are big government pawns who want more power for the system (not the individual). They seek to expand the surveillance state, expand the regulatory state, expand gun control, increase taxes/spending, crack down on religious liberty (in the name of equality). These are all things the liberty movement strongly opposes. And before you ask, Trump was no liberty hero. But at least he spoke out against the system (even if his rhetoric was different than his actions).

I don't see how it is ironic for me to be a fan of Rand Paul. He has all his interns (of which I was one of them) read The Law by Frédéric Bastiat. Something you would probably consider radical. This also shows me that you misunderstand the concept of libertarianism/the liberty movement (likely due to your lack of research/reading on the subject).

Using one's previous actions (which are to the determinant of the movement one claims to support) to call into question their actual support of that movement is not a purity test. There is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement in the movement, but supporting people/groups inherently opposed to the movement (and which hurt it) is not reasonable within that movement. There is a line where you go from an ally with disagreement to being a force within that sabotages progress. Having been involved within the movement, I know how frustrating it is to have people like Dobs creating doubt (and even resentment) within the populations that we seek to reach (thus making it harder to pass things like constitutional carry, school choice, etc.).

I admire the true Libertarians that stand up to the increasingly authoritarian elements of this twisted, "Libertarianism" movement that has a cult following within this Republican Party. There are also big government pawns within your own movement. At least, given your definition of it, fit the label. Donald Trump, and Rand Paul are "big government pawns." Well, I won't consider Senator Paul a direct big government pawn, but he sure as hell was a Trump pawn. (After he had to get in line with the rest of the GOP when Trump won.) I've never read The Law but I have heard about it. And that it's writings are in line with the teachings of John Locke. Natural rights are something that I believe in, I think Civic Libertarianism as a rule of thumb is good for society. 

However, this "Liberty movement" and what you're advocating, to the broad majority of this forum, except one person who appears to be agreeing with you, (who is not affiliated with this movement to my knowledge.) Is contrary to the very basic definition of liberty. 

It is one I will never understand, and it is a reason that I'm glad Rand Paul, and this movement will always remain in the minority.

I am a Moderate Conservative. I will continue to vote for Joe Biden over the likes of Trump. Because I value Democracy. You are apparently willing to sacrifice Democracy for these issues you have mentioned, and while I may hate Biden cancelling the keystone pipeline, while I may hate a proposed gas tax, or any tax raise for that matter, he will always be better than this movement.

And while I denounce the surveillance state, does it really, genuinely, affect you? I frankly don't care what the government has on me. There's no subject matter for them on that front.

Your own concern with the surveillance state is contrary to a point you made in a previous thread about internet history or porn. That is highly hypocritical, to start, and while the government may have access to everyones browser history, I really think they have bigger fish to fry than some political forum posters on the internet. 

The point is, first we're concerned about porn and wanting to restrict/ban it? Then we're denouncing the surveillance state? 

A true "Libertarian" says that this is a decision not for the government. It is for the people themselves. You don't want your family exposed to nasty videos, then you have plenty of means available to block it. 

It's not something that requires a police state to crack down on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Dobs does not claim to be a moderate though. He claims to be a member of the liberty movement, despite his actions that act in contrary to the goals of the movement.

I recognize the need for a broader coalition (which is why I am a registered Republican and active within the party), but that doesn't mean those people are part of the liberty movement. However, it is people like Justin Amash and Dobs which hurt the progress towards creating those coalitions because they make those other movements/groups less willing to work with the liberty movement, even when agreement on the issues align.

Libertarianism is a smokescreen for fascist belief. There is nothing “moderate” about it. 
 

I can at least appreciate that you are up front about your extremism, unlike the other conservatives on this forum.

 

  • Haha 4
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mishfox said:

Libertarianism is a smokescreen for fascist belief. There is nothing “moderate” about it. 
 

I can at least appreciate that you are up front about your extremism, unlike the other conservatives on this forum.

 

sigh

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pringles said:

I admire the true Libertarians that stand up to the increasingly authoritarian elements of this twisted, "Libertarianism" movement that has a cult following within this Republican Party. There are also big government pawns within your own movement. At least, given your definition of it, fit the label. Donald Trump, and Rand Paul are "big government pawns." Well, I won't consider Senator Paul a direct big government pawn, but he sure as hell was a Trump pawn. (After he had to get in line with the rest of the GOP when Trump won.) I've never read The Law but I have heard about it. And that it's writings are in line with the teachings of John Locke. Natural rights are something that I believe in, I think Civic Libertarianism as a rule of thumb is good for society. 

No Senator voted against Trump more than Rand Paul. Trump tried to boot Thomas Massie from the party when he opposed the bailout package. You clearly did not pay close enough attention if you think they were pawns.

However, this "Liberty movement" and what you're advocating, to the broad majority of this forum, except one person who appears to be agreeing with you, (who is not affiliated with this movement to my knowledge.) Is contrary to the very basic definition of liberty. 

I couldn't care less what the majority thinks about it, that isn't the point of taking such a position. And falling back to that is a bad argument (majority fallacy).

It is one I will never understand, and it is a reason that I'm glad Rand Paul, and this movement will always remain in the minority.

I am a Moderate Conservative. I will continue to vote for Joe Biden over the likes of Trump. Because I value Democracy. You are apparently willing to sacrifice Democracy for these issues you have mentioned, and while I may hate Biden cancelling the keystone pipeline, while I may hate a proposed gas tax, or any tax raise for that matter, he will always be better than this movement.

And while I denounce the surveillance state, does it really, genuinely, affect you? I frankly don't care what the government has on me. There's no subject matter for them on that front.

Your own concern with the surveillance state is contrary to a point you made in a previous thread about internet history or porn. That is highly hypocritical, to start, and while the government may have access to everyones browser history, I really think they have bigger fish to fry than some political forum posters on the internet. 

The point is, first we're concerned about porn and wanting to restrict/ban it? Then we're denouncing the surveillance state? 

A true "Libertarian" says that this is a decision not for the government. It is for the people themselves. You don't want your family exposed to nasty videos, then you have plenty of means available to block it. 

It's not something that requires a police state to crack down on. 

I never said that I want the government to ban such media. As a Christian, I am absolutely against consuming such videos, but that is a personal matter. Just because I am for allowing people to do something does not mean I want them to do it. I don't smoke, but I am not for forcing that belief on others. Once again, you show a misunderstanding of where I come from (and actually misquote my position on a matter).

Before you start to claim to know enough to call someone a real libertarian, it might be a good idea to educate yourself on the movement and its history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mishfox said:

Libertarianism is a smokescreen for fascist belief. There is nothing “moderate” about it. 
 

I can at least appreciate that you are up front about your extremism, unlike the other conservatives on this forum.

 

While I do agree that there is a real pipeline between many right-wing "libertarians" and fascist belief, and though I am not aligned with right-wing libertarianism, at its core libertarianism is opposed to the tyrannical, racist, authoritarian, and dividing nature of fascist thinking, as many disagreements you may have with the belief system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Blood said:

While I do agree that there is a real pipeline between many right-wing "libertarians" and fascist belief, and though I am not aligned with right-wing libertarianism, at its core libertarianism is opposed to the tyrannical, racist, authoritarian, and dividing nature of fascist thinking, as many disagreements you may have with the belief system.

1. Libertarians are racist

libertarian want to tear down the government and let the free market do everything. This is a euphemism for handing control of the country and its wealth to rich white men, who coincidentally are the largest demographic of libertarians. They also oppose affirmative action and in the early days opposed the civil rights act.

2. Libertarians vote for republicans, who are fascists.

it’s simple really. If you vote for fascists, you are a fascist. I don’t care what they say about “liberty” and “freedom” because they will vote for people who want to kill black peoplein the streets every. Single. Time.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mishfox
  • Disagree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mishfox said:

This is a euphemism for handing control of the country and its wealth to rich white men

Look, I don't want the unrestrained invisible hand of the market to have reign over society, but come on. You always treat libertarians like they're souless ghouls going about with inherently nefarious conduct. When, yeah, maybe Charles Koch isn't the most good-faith political actor, but in the end most libertarians are just looking to have a fair and free society, even if you have your disagreements with their proposed way of getting there. You always treat anyone who disagrees with you as nefarious, uninformed, fascist, or as any other buzz word, when perhaps libertarians genuinely believe in their system as the path to a better society, instead of being destructive entities working towards fascism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I never said that I want the government to ban such media. As a Christian, I am absolutely against consuming such videos, but that is a personal matter. Just because I am for allowing people to do something does not mean I want them to do it. I don't smoke, but I am not for forcing that belief on others. Once again, you show a misunderstanding of where I come from (and actually misquote my position on a matter).

Before you start to claim to know enough to call someone a real libertarian, it might be a good idea to educate yourself on the movement and its history.

I don't claim to know everything but I sure as hell know that you, nor Rand Paul, are not Libertarians. (based on YOUR definition.) Regardless of how much rhetoric you may use to assert yourself as a subscriber to that ideology. 

With that said, I'll wait for other Libertarians to comment because if you feel that I am uneducated on the matter, perhaps you need to hear it from one of your "own." But, to be fair, you already have. There's no changing your mind.

I also wasn't trying to make an argument by using the "majority," but I think it is constructive to hear from other Libertarians and opposing view points as it gives all of us an idea of we're discussing here. 

Your statement on Paul being the Senator that opposes Trump the most is false, especially according to 538 which tracks their positions, with Trumps on bills of that Congressional session. 

Since we seem to be using selective facts, I just wanted to point that out. If you consider that a decent indicator... (which I think 538 does a great job of.)

Edited by Pringles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Look, I don't want the unrestrained invisible hand of the market to have reign over society, but come on. You always treat libertarians like they're souless ghouls going about with inherently nefarious conduct. When, yeah, maybe Charles Koch isn't the most good-faith political actor, but in the end most libertarians are just looking to have a fair and free society, even if you have your disagreements with their proposed way of getting there. You always treat anyone who disagrees with you as nefarious, uninformed, fascist, or as any other buzz word, when perhaps libertarians genuinely believe in their system as the path to a better society, instead of being destructive entities working towards fascism. 

I bet lots of people said this about Hitler before the Holocaust too 🙄

  • Confused 1
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mishfox said:

I bet lots of people said this about Hitler before the Holocaust too 🙄

Are you comparing libertarians to Adolf Hitler?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mishfox said:

I bet lots of people said this about Hitler before the Holocaust too 🙄

Won't mention Stalin though will we? 😐

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Look, I don't want the unrestrained invisible hand of the market to have reign over society, but come on. You always treat libertarians like they're souless ghouls going about with inherently nefarious conduct. When, yeah, maybe Charles Koch isn't the most good-faith political actor, but in the end most libertarians are just looking to have a fair and free society, even if you have your disagreements with their proposed way of getting there. You always treat anyone who disagrees with you as nefarious, uninformed, fascist, or as any other buzz word, when perhaps libertarians genuinely believe in their system as the path to a better society, instead of being destructive entities working towards fascism. 

Don't even bother with him. All he knows how to do is spout nonsense without anything to back it up. I disagree with most here, but a large chunk of them can actually an intelligent conversation.

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...