board77

sauronsfinger wrote:

Quote:

So you admit that Republicans do not act like libertarians on the few areas where you claim we agree in words.

"Few areas" ????

Is that suppose to be an attempt at a joke. I gave you some 18 areas on major issues. And the issue was having similar stances on the issues as reflected in their platforms. And there is plenty more where that came from.

No, SF.

You did not get them from the platforms. You say that to lend weight to your arguments, but like a typical conservative you say one thing and do another. You pulled those talking points out of your ass as usual.

And after I refuted several of them, quite thoroughly, you didn't read the refutation. You simply repeated the made up assertions.

That is why in the economic hard times thread when you kept demanding that I explain why people should buy gold I responded with "why bother? you don't discuss." That's because you don't. You don't discuss. You don't debate. You don't even argue. You make up your assertions, give them false support, refuse to read counter points, and then proceed to do what you always do - troll and flame.

You didn't read the platforms and you didn't read my refutations. You didn't even bother to look at them. I'm sure there's plenty more where those actually did come from, but none of those matter because none of those have any source other than your fevered imagination.

sauronsfinger wrote:

So their stance on the issues is the only thing we can compare with the Republicans stance on the issues. Any other standard of comparison is not fair to either one.

And the stands on the issues are different, as I have shown. Thank you very much have a nice day.

Lidless wrote:

Care to debate/refute the actual points Frank made, or just continue with the ad hominem sideshow?

Franks said, over and over again, "it just ain't so" to every critic of his pet programs. What he forgot is that people who actually disagree with him do not assign top level blame to his pet programs.

Moreover he liberally peppers his speech with strawmen. We don't accuse Fannie and Freddy of originating the loans. We do say that their practices encouraged those who did originate the loans, but he didn't defend F&F from that charge. He defended them from the charge of orginating the loans.

He failed to describe who we blame as the root of the problem, and he failed to defend what we actually accuse F&F of doing.

Edited, not because it was wrong or inappropriate, but because some things are just a complete waste of time.

CG
Before I go through the labor of actually quoiting parts of the party programs I liked to, will you give your word that if I can show that much of the list came from platform and issue statements, will you publicly apologize for attacking me and saying I pulled them from my ass?

Quote:

You pulled those talking points out of your ass as usual.

Do you have any honor?

With you, and a long history on many board shows this, it does not good at all to document anything since you either ignore it, say it just is not true, or attempt to reword it to use you favorite strawman technique.

Your latest reply to the post by Lidless with the Barney Frank speech is simply the latest example.

In addition to the party platforms and issue statements I also said it came from leading members of each party and their candidates. But I would be happy to show you the issue and platform statements for the relvant points IF you would have the courtesy to apologize for your rudeness and discourtesy.

And when you finally at this late point in the game read the platforms of the parties to vainly find what you seek and discover it isn't there, will you apologize and admit you pulled those points out of your ass?

Here, I'll help you find the line in the LP platform that agrees with your points, that way you only have to seek in the Republican platform.

Quote:

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

I already gave you the detailed link with all the Party issues. I said right up front that is the source of much of the information. You keep your information to yourself.

And I noticed you conveniently avoided the honor question. Silly question in the first place.

Here is what the Libertarian Party link says about their position on gun control

Quote:

Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles". They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them. Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent.

Personal Responsibility
Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today.

Do you deny that is the Party position?

Here's what the lp platform says about gun control.

Quote:

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

As for honor I do not have to worry about accusations of dishonor from the likes of you.

The Libertarian Party has a long history of being as short and as vague as possible in their official Party platfrom in an election year. I guess their philosophy is to try to keep the man behind the curtain as long as possible and show as little as possible to the unsuspecting masses. On their official Party website is a detailed section labeled as ISSUES. That is the link I provided in my original post where I obtained the various points.

http://www.lp.org/issues" target="_blank

Do you disavow this?

Does this not represent the official position of the Libertarian Party?

Compare this GOP platform position with either the Libertarian Issue statement that I provided from the official website or with the CG statement that he says is the platfrom position:

Quote:

Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller affirming that right, and we assert the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. We call on the next president to appoint judges who will similarly respect the Constitution. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend themselves, their property, and communities.

We call for education in constitutional rights in schools, and we support the option of firearms training in federal programs serving senior citizens and women. We urge immediate action to review the automatic denial of gun ownership to returning members of the Armed Forces who have suffered trauma during service to their country. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment. We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.

Any of the statements are very much the same thing with few, if any, significant differences.

You can now issues your formal statement of apology CG.

I do not disavow it. I'm glad you finally decided to read the platform as passed in convention in 2006. I'm sorry that it didn't satisfy your particular needs of finding something to misinterpret to your benefit, but short and direct does get the message out. I'm glad you found the issues page. It doesn't have an "omissions" clause the way the platform does so it won't really support your futile effort either.

But you have yet to prove I owe you any sort of apology. You have yet to prove the Republican platform is identical on this issue and yet to prove anything on the 17 other points you are finally now trying to support.

Yes, not identical. "All laws at any level" versus "federal" for a start, and look at who the Republicans want to give the training.

All I need is one CG. All I need is one. You said in your post that the only thing Libertarians and Republicans agreed upon was calling what I wrote about them tripe. You said there was no issues of agreement.

[quote]People who disagree with each other entirely and whose only point of agreement is that they also disagree with people who write tripe like that quote are clearly not the same.[/quote]
Or do you now retract that also?

I retract nothing. You failed on your first attempt. Good thing for you that you have 17 other issues to try to prove that we are the same.

What you have proven is that there is a spectrum on this issue, with Democrats on one end, Libertarians on the other, and Republicans in the middle. Good for you, you are abandoning binary thinking. You will no longer think "you are either with us or with the terrorists". Oops, that was a different conservative binary thinker.

this is from the language YOU cited as Libertarian platform position

Quote:

We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

this is from the GOP platform position

Quote:

We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment.

Twin brothers of different mothers.

Now, for that apology......

sauronsfinger wrote:

Now, for that apology......

I accept your apology, the one you owe since you finally did prove that you did pull that out of your ass.

Can you not read? I gave you language from both parties that agree on the issue I cited.

You are purposely and intentionally engaging in intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

You do seem preoccupied with things of an anal nature. Well, to each their own I guess.

You just hate to see the actual evidence that you are simply another rabid right winger when it comes to most important issues before the American people. It injures your own self image of a very special boy with very special views who belongs to a very special party.

You seem to lose sight of the big picture here CG - I could not care less what you think, what you write, what you direct my way. Every post I make is intended for eyes other than yours. They can see the list of 18, they can look at the links for support, and they can see the fraud you are attempting to engage in.

By the way, since you have adopted your proseltyzing on various Tolkien based message boards, just how many True Believers have you converted?

I can read, and we dicovered that if you snip away enough language from each you can eventually get to the point where they look the same.

Democratic Party Platform wrote:

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment Right to own and use firearms.

Now about that intellectual fraud accusation ... I accept your apology again.

And I know that the purpose of your posts isn't to discuss, debate, or even argue. I just wrote that a few posts ago. Yes, the purpose is to spread disinformation. I already know that. Your 18 points are proof of that.

Where in that Democratic Party language does it say they oppose registration or licensing for guns as the Libertarian and Republicans do?

This is your problem CG. Unless anyone can show identical language down to the punctuation used, you are going to insist they are different. And when almost exact sentences are reproduced like I did in the above post, you then claim that I snipped away language.

You are dishonest in the extreme. But I do not think you can help it and I do not think you look at it as intellectual fraud or dishonesty. You could probably take a lie detector test and pass it on that question.

Anyone with any common sense, a sense of objectivity and a basic understanding of political issues would have no problem with the list of 18 issues I gave you. But you have demonstrated over and over and over again that you have no sense of objectivity when it comes to your beliefs. That is sad.

Almost anyone else could take those items, compare them to each other, compare them to the source material and conclude that they are very similar. But you refuse to even accept the premise because it causes a huge rift in your basic convictions that you are special, that your idealogy is special, and that it is that special quality that sets you apart from everyone else. It permits you to embrace an idealogy that is shared by less than one-half of one percent of the population as reflected in the last several national election results without feeling like a total oddball or marginalized person.

You should really read the excellent book by Eric Hoffer THE TRUE BELIEVER. It describes not only you and how you cling to libertariansim, but describes many of the techniques you employ to justify your version of Truth in the face of fact after fact that proves you and your idealogy wrong. It is fascinating reading if you dare.

After you read Hoffer, go to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance" target="_blank" target="_blank

It discusses the problem of cognitive dissonance. It is something you probably experience a great deal of when your beliefs come into contact with reality that disproves them. The first step towards coming back to the world of reality may be realizing your behaviors.

Again?

Maybe this is how they get their jollies.

The trouble with Frank's statements, Lidless, is not that he is wrong, but that it is so much easier to point hte finger at those who can't defend themselves, like the poor. Remember back in the Clinto era when there was all that talk from the GOP about balancing the budget and the reason the budget was out of whack was because of all those single mothers on welfare, making more babies so they could get more welfare? I can't remember what % of the budget that actually added up to, I just remember it was really small. Far less than, say, farm subsidies. But agribusiness has lobbyists. Poor single mothers don't. And it's the same pattern again.

Rangers hat/

Once again after being asked then told repeatedly both of you decend from discussing your respective political views to discussing the character of the other. How many times are you both told that you are skating on thin ice. You know that as soon as someone decides to make something out of your ill-conducted squabbles we will be at the stage of doing something about it.
Now I presume you both wish for a forum in which to speak. Then treat it with respect and treat your opponent with respect too. That's both of you, not just the other guy. Or you may find your forum disappears from under your feet.