Replies

You know you can repeat the same thing over and over and over again, but it won't make it true. I very clearly set out in reply #88 how you take quotes out of context, read into them meanings that were not even implied, and then answer those meanings with revelations that are not germane to the topic at hand.

You did however manage to say something new in this last reply. You said:

Wrong. I made no specification as to the party.

Hey! Wake up. The party was the context.

That's your imaginary take on what I wrote. The context is evident in my post, just above.

and

How daft. My position is not 'authoritarian' at all. Anyone can read my post above to verify that fact. As you well know, but ignore. Thats whats really weird about this post of yours. Do you have a point to all this? Or are you just playing wordgames?

and

Context is all, my boy. My words stand as written.

Such statements of conclusion as a reply to explanations are vague at best, and do not qualify as argument. Since they are made without specificity and lacking in any supportive explanation, you reduce discourse to nothing more than insults.

Whatever. I see now you're intent on flamebaiting..

But that is what you have doing in every reply since you first entered the discussion back in reply #81. And now you whimper about one small word describing your conduct. This is most telling.

I notice that you did not disagree with my statement that the RLC is an anti-Libertarian Party authoritarian organization. You only complained that I brought it up. Hmmmm.

The context of your statement "not at all," was a denial that Libertarianism, as presented by the Libertarian Party, "stands independent of, and expands the zone of freedom beyond, the federal constitution."

Wrong. I made no specification as to the 'party'.

Your commentary to support this denial, that "rational libertarians are honor bound to our Constitutions principles, as we all are.." was a clear attempt by you to limit Libertarian philosophy, as presented by the Libertarian Party, to only the "Constitutions principles."

That's your imaginary take on what I wrote. The context is evident in my post, just above.

You did however manage to say something new in this last reply. You said:
Wrong. I made no specification as to the party.
Hey! Wake up. The party was the context.

Wake up yourself. You want "the party" to be the subject. It's not. The real subject here has become your libertarian bashing mania.

If maybe you weren't so busy cutting and pasting, just maybe, you might be able to write an explanation or argument supporting of your position, instead of devolving into unsupported statements. For example: That's your imaginary take on what I wrote. The context is evident in my post, just above. and How daft. My position is not 'authoritarian' at all. Anyone can read my post above to verify that fact. As you well know, but ignore. Thats whats really weird about this post of yours. Do you have a point to all this? Or are you just playing wordgames? and Context is all, my boy. My words stand as written.

Nice cut & paste job, bobbyjack, but what did you prove? -- Nothing.

Whatever. I see now you're intent on flamebaiting..

But that is what you have doing in every reply since you first entered the discussion back in reply #81. And now you whimper about one small word describing your conduct. This is most telling.

Whatever.

I notice that you did not disagree with my statement that the RLC is an anti-Libertarian Party authoritarian organization. You only complained that I brought it up. Hmmmm.

How silly. "Notice" whatever you imagine.. Now, -- why don't you run along and find someone else to bug?