Posted on 08/03/2013 6:35:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
The very first bit of anti-libertarian humor I ever posted was this clever video about the anarcho-capitalist paradise of Somalia.
I then shared two cartoons, one on libertarian ice fishing and the other showinglibertarian lifeguards.
That was followed by a very funny list of the 24 types of libertarians.
But I haven’t shared anything making fun of people like me since this “think I do” montage last year.
Thanks to Buzzfeed, however, we now have something new for our collection. They came up with “23 Libertarian Problems” and here are two of my favorites from the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
Oh, I looked at the earlier part of the thread, you were doing the usual libertarian song and dance routine and arguing against social conservatism and supporting Rand Paul.
Rand Paul: “”I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.””
Now I recall your routine, argue against the social conservatives, push libertarianism, and pretend that you are not pushing the social liberalism of libertarianism. That is why you never responded to post 129.
To: cdcdawg
*””I haven’t heard any libertarians saying anything other than that they would have to pay for their own dope and condoms.””*
Yes you have, that they also would have to pay for their own partial birth abortions, for their own gay marriages, for their own gay adoptions and bus rides to the military enlistment depot, and to take a taxi across the border when the Border Patrol and INS have been shut down.
129 posted on 8/3/2013 9:47:42 AM by ansel12
Find me some libertarians who think the dope and condoms should be given to them for free. That would be an intellectually inconsistent position on their part. Many or even most libertarians would say that they should be allowed to purchase those things, should they want them, but a claim that they should be provided for “free” seems to be outside of libertarian philosophy, at least so far as it it generally understood. Within the context of my discussion with the other poster, your comment #129 made no sense at all.
You have once again evaded the question. More of your words.
“you are at freerepublic trying to persuade conservatives to move left, and embrace social liberalism.”
Proof, please. Give one example where I argued against social conservatism, or embraced social liberalism. Just one of either. I don’t argue against social conservatism, I argue with you.
So name one of these socially liberal positions I support. Come on, ansel12, just name one.
You are just starting it all over again, pretending that the argument is about who pays for the drugs, and ignoring post 129 and Rand Paul on social issues.
You are saying now that you oppose the libertarian position on social issues and support the conservatives?
I’m not starting anything all over. I’m continuing to point out your dishonesty.
“You are saying now that you oppose the libertarian position on social issues and support the conservatives?”
That is a fundamentally dishonest question. I’m not saying that “now”. I have always disagreed with the Libertarian Party on abortion, gay marriage, and immigration (I don’t know if that really qualifies as a social issue or not), among others. Please, dazzle me by revealing the liberatarian plot behind those views.
“You are just starting it all over again, pretending that the argument is about who pays for the drugs”
That was the discussion I was having with the other poster. As usual, you had no idea what was going on. His point was that young libertarians only wanted free pot and condoms. My point was that they should be saying they would pay for them, if they were being consistent. #129 wasn’t related to any of that. I gave an accurate rendering of the dominant libertarian position on those issues, and you thought it meant I supported partial birth abortion, all sorts of gay stuff, and open borders.
“... Rand Paul on social issues”
What does this have to do with me? Libertarians hate Rand Paul for being pro life, and not wanting open borders, though he has been wishy-washy on it. I am glad Senator Paul is pro life, I wish he was much stronger on the border. Those are my basic thoughts on Rand Paul and the social issues. Is that what you thought? What were you getting at?
Name one, ansel12, just one. There’s a reason you can’t do it. You keep accusing me, and you cannot provide any proof. That should tell you something. Prove me wrong. Give one example of a leftwing social position I have supported, or a social conservative position I have attacked. I’m still waiting. You are still evading.
What a bunch of wandering gibberish.
So you oppose libertarians and Rand Paul on social issues now, and agree with conservatives?
I’m sorry you couldn’t follow it.
Name one:
1) A single leftwing social position I am promoting.
2) A single social conservative position I am attacking.
3) Anything that backs up your assertion that the public didn’t know abortion meant the baby dies prior to Roe.
You cannot back up any of those things. Your dishonestly is appalling.
So you aren’t a supporter of libertarianism and oppose them on social issues, and support the conservative positions,if that is the case then you sure weren’t giving that impression over this 500 post thread.
So you are not a libertarian, yet you went through this whole thread arguing as a libertarian, and against social conservatives.
You guys are really something, it might be why you keep posting the claim that Paul is pro-life, when that seems to a position that he has dropped.
If I wasn’t giving that impression, then name one:
1) A single leftwing social position I am promoting.
2) A single social conservative position I am attacking.
3) Anything that backs up your assertion that the public didn’t know abortion meant the baby dies prior to Roe.
Come on, ansel12, why won’t you do it?
Your entire participation on this thread had been to argue against social conservatives, for libertarianism while avoiding the hatchet, just as you are doing now.
I hope that after these couple of weeks of revelations about Paul, you will stop defending him to conservatives, for instance, on abortion, and gay marriage, as it is, he has clearly been revealing his libertarianism, which you are trying so desperately to give the impression, that you don’t support.
So Paul is out for you.
If what you just said is true, you would be able to name:
1) A single leftwing social position I am promoting.
2) A single social conservative position I am attacking.
3) Anything that backs up your assertion that the public didn’t know abortion meant the baby dies prior to Roe.
Just one. If you can’t back any of that up, that makes you a ......... What does that make you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.