The non-interventionist, free-marketing Libertarian Party is spoiling for a fight.

Where/when did I say making wine was a crime?

You stated that people continued to operate backyard distilleries after prohibition was repealed. What other reason would you have to mention this unless you thought there was something sinister about it? Why bring it up? Was it your attempt to prove that the repeal of prohibition was a failure?

You claim drug problems arose as a result of WOD?

Not all drug problems. But, most. Did you think I was talking about all drug problems?

Why would there have been a WOD declared if the problem was non-existant?

The same reasons there's a War on Guns, War on Poverty, War on Illiteracy, War on Homelessness, War on Discrimination, War on Pollution, etc. People see danger and suffering and in their imagination they see a government program as a solution. Then there are the politicians who seize every opportunity afforded them to expand government.

Are you saying it is WOD and not the actual drugs that are causing the problem?

Yes.

I asked where YOUR statements/theory were implemented.Not talking free-market capitalism. Asking about your statements/theory on drugs.

There's nothing I can say now that I haven't said before. I asnwered this challenge several times already. I could repeat it again but you'd still reject it. I wasn't talking about free-market capitalism. I was making an analogy. And you know I was. You're being deliberately obtuse.

Alcohol causes lethary but drugs don't?

Did I say drugs don't cause lethargy? You asked me if I tried Everclear. You said it was like Moonshine. Is Moonshine not an alcoholic beverage?

Out of necessity-gas rationing. And a diseire to improve the product for personal consumption. As explained.

Not being obtuse. Not interested in analogies. Just an answer to a DIRECT Q. Obviously you are not going to answer it. Half-hearted attempts, but no answer.

Please note when I offerred the explanation of what "moonshine" was, I drew a line and explained it was for info only-not really related to discussion. You seem to have little knowledge of the process, the history, utilization of it in America's history. I have attempted to explain it. Guess it has fallen on deaf ears. Next time your in Arkansas, take a tour of some of the old stills, museums, etc. Moonshining was more than just a legend, hereabouts. And for many reasons.

I will at least thank you for answering directly, and simply with a YES, the Q. I asked about WOD being the cause of the problems and not drugs. Again, thank you for that answer. I of course disagree, but at least I know your position.

Curious, is that an LP position/believe? That is, that the WOD is causing all the problems and not the drugs themselves?

Now, if only you would answer my other Q...it has been like pulling chicken's teeth. But I think we are approx. 50% of the way!

Ray Charles can see the number of atheist libertarians around here. Not all libertarians are atheists, mind you. Not even close to all. But the most anti-God, anti-religion, anti-Christian posters are those atheistic libertarians.

The number of atheistic Libertarians was not the matter of disagreement. Neither was the possibility that some may have made anti-Christian posts. However, your initial statement was:

"...there are quite a number of libertarians on FR who never miss a chance to trash and denounce both Christians and Christianity."

If this is true then it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide a few examples to support your accusation. However, I should point out that disagreement with religious dogma, or opposition to government funding for its advancement, does not constitute denunciation or trashing.

Just an answer to a DIRECT Q. Obviously you are not going to answer it. Half-hearted attempts, but no answer.

I did answer your direct question. Several times. Freedom isn't something you implement. You don't get freedom by passing laws. Freedom isn't granted by government decree. It is there when government gets out of the way.

You wanted to know where my ideas the WOD comes from. From the US. The WOD hasn't succeeded. It never will. It has made worse the very thing politicians promised it would alleviate. It increased drug abuse, crime, law enforcement corruption, expanded the size of government, and created a criminal black-market.

The same things happened as a result of alcohol prohibition. I sited a study which showed that alcohol consumption increased during prohibition and then decreased after. You said the study was old. The next one will be too new. Or maybe you won't like the author of the study. You'll find some reason to dismiss it without consideration.

Why are you talking about backyard distilleries of backwoods hillbillies in Arkansas? Do you have a point to make?

Curious, is that an LP position/believe? That is, that the WOD is causing all the problems and not the drugs themselves?

You'd have to list the problems you're referring to. Neither the LP, or myself, has ever blamed the WOD for every case of drug abuse.

RE:"backyard distilleries." Your term. I find it amusing. Obviously a text book term. My point on that was simply to provide you with background info. Something you seem short of. In fact "Moonshining," or if you prefer to call it,"back yard distillery" existed before, during, and AFTER Prohibition. Sure there were peaks and valleys, as with any type of production.

I did not dismiss your dated source completely. It's just that you seem to be deriving much of your "facts" from it. I have already pointed those out to you, such as above. I too have read similar studies, so no, I do not discount them TOTALLY. I just question some of there conclusions.

Let me ask you, have you ever actually MET a Moonshiner? Ever seen a still?

Ever met a "meth cooker?" Ever seen his "lab?"

Ever dealt with an OD? At any level, in any capacity?

Again, you still have not answered my Q. Obviously you do not intend to. Not interested in theoretical discussions. No sense in wasting more space with superfluous gobbly-gook. I do appreciate you finally answering my other Q. Please note I have not belittled your opinion. I of course disgree, but if that is your view, fine.

:-/?

Anyway, I did not say "disagreement with religious dogma, or opposition to government funding for its advancement" equaled or "constitute[d] denunciation or trashing," did I?

Examples abound, Alan. Check out any creation/evolution thread (in which these atheistic libertarians say that the Bible was written by "sheepherders," a classic lie, or that the Creator "sucks," or that people of faith believe in "mysticism"). If that is not denunciation and/or trashing, I don't know what is.

I'm not in the business of doing others' homework for them. You don't have to take me at my word. Frankly, I could care less if you did or didn't. But I don't have a reason to lie, and I take great strides not to misconstrue others' intentions or words.

You want examples? LOOK for them. You will find them.

But the most anti-God, anti-religion, anti-Christian posters are those atheistic libertarians.

In fairness, Alan, I certainly understand how rdb's impression could be inferred from some of the antics of libertarian Evolutionists on the Cr/Evo threads.

You may not agree with rdb3, but bear in mind, there's a certain question of perspective here. It kinda depends on where you are standing; one man's "humor" is another man's "Christian-bashing"... or for that matter, one man's "humor" is another man's "Libertarian-bashing".

Now, personally, I believe that the most anti-Christian posters on Free Republic are those few truly Leftist disruptors who hang around, such as the Marxist Stalin-apologist "MurryMom", and the schizophrenic "Who is George Salt" (a blithering neurotic who can't decide which he hates more, Christianity or Libertarianism).

BUT, once we discount those obvious examples of virulent anti-Christianity... then, as I said, the impression that rdb3 has of some libertarians' attitude towards Christianity is, to me at least, an understandable impression. (And I am as Libertarian as the summer day is long.)

best, OP

I did not say "disagreement with religious dogma, or opposition to government funding for its advancement" equaled or "constitute[d] denunciation or trashing," did I?

I didn't accuse you of saying that. I provided examples of what does not constitute denunciation or trashing so that we're both clear. That's all.

Examples abound...

Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide a couple examples.

Check out any creation/evolution thread (in which these atheistic libertarians say that the Bible was written by "sheepherders," a classic lie, or that the Creator "sucks," or that people of faith believe in "mysticism"). If that is not denunciation and/or trashing, I don't know what is.

Examples, please. Don't tell me to go look in threads as proof to support your accusations. You go look.

I'm not in the business of doing others' homework for them.

Ah yes, the classic, "I get to make a claim and you have to prove it wrong." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. This is known as 'argumentum ad ignorantium', or shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

You don't have to take me at my word. Frankly, I could care less if you did or didn't. But I don't have a reason to lie, and I take great strides not to misconstrue others' intentions or words.

Because of my opposition to the so-called "War on Terror" I've been called a Christian-hater and anti-American. Both lies. Both smears. Libertarians on FR are frequently called these things but no one can ever seem to produce examples.

Examples, please. Don't tell me to go look in threads as proof to support your accusations. You go look.

I already have looked. Therefore, I can claim that they are contained within those threads. Now you go find them. If you don't like that, tough.

It works however I say it works when it concerns me. The burden of proof is on me if I autonomously choose to pick up that burden. I'm under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do anything that you think I should do. OrthodoxPresbyterian has stepped up here, yet you have apparently ignored what he said about my stance. Again, if you don't like it, tough!

Because of my opposition to the so-called "War on Terror" I've been called a Christian-hater and anti-American.

I wouldn't say that you were either "anti-Christian" or "anti-American" for being against the War on Terrorism. But I would say that your stance, IMHO, disqualifies you from the protection of the nation. Pacifism is for weak-minded men in my book. I strongly believe in refusing to initiate any violence. But if you attack me, I will DESTROY you. I have that God given right to defend myself. If I've caused you no harm, yet you attack me, Heaven help you no matter who you are.

We lost over 3,000 Americans. So how you can take a stance against war against the aggressors escapes me. But that's your choice. I disagree, and will not associate myself with those who do take this stance.

I already have looked. Therefore, I can claim that they are contained within those threads. Now you go find them. If you don't like that, tough.

I hear this all the time from the UFO and black helicopter folks. I've seen 'em. They're there. You have to prove that I'm wrong.

Only problem is there's something called evidence.

Now, you stated that, "...there are quite a number of libertarians on FR who never miss a chance to trash and denounce both Christians and Christianity." In a follow-up post you implied that this happens often. If what you said is true then it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide some examples. If you're unwilling to so this then you're just blowing hot air.

Libertarians are often accused of supporting child porn. I see the same folks over and over make this erroenous claim. I've called them on it and so have others. But, when they think no one is looking they go into another thread and repeat it.

I wouldn't say that you were either "anti-Christian" or "anti-American" for being against the War on Terrorism. But I would say that your stance...disqualifies you from the protection of the nation.

Oh boy. You know, I believe this country should defend itself. But, the WOT is a sham in my opinion. It has nothing to do with protecting us from terrorists and everything to do with international interventionism, warmongering, and government expansion. But, that is really a debate for another time.

Pacifism is for weak-minded men in my book. I strongly believe in refusing to initiate any violence. But if you attack me, I will DESTROY you. I have that God given right to defend myself. If I've caused you no harm, yet you attack me, Heaven help you no matter who you are.

We're in agreement there. I think where we disagree on this matter is in application. But, like I said -- debate for another time.

Look, I didn't call you on our accusation to start a fight here. If you can provide me with one example of a Libertarian bashing Christians or Christianity I'd be happy to speak to the offending Libertarian about the matter.

The funniest things about this strategy is that the twenty-and-thirty-somethings that vote Libertarian in these elections they've targeted, are likely to be a natural constituency of the Democraps and not the Republicans. The GOP will be helped by this cockeyed strategy.

Not cockeyed. The article doesn't quite reflect LP member attitudes.

As someone who knows several LP officers, I can tell you that many of them don't care whether it's the Demopublicans or Republicrats who's races are spoiled. They want victory for liberty and the Constitution.

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.