Replies

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.

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.

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?

Well there you go again. I see that your first three comments that you are still making up conclusionary statements with no supporting analysis, in total disregard for the evidence at hand. I more than substantially explained and presented evidence of the Libertarian Party context in the first six paragraphs of my reply #88. Your brushing past all that, with unsupported denials and childish insults, is quite sophomoric.

Now you propose that "the real subject here has become" my "libertarian bashing mania." Of course I have nothing against a new subject being brought in, especially since you so totally defaulted on the last one. The only problem here is that you bring in a new subject with a false claim about me, but no supporting evidence, no analysis, no argument, and not even an explanation. It really sounds just like another one of your unsupported childish statement with no evidence to back it up.

I find that when someone has something substantial to say, they do not rely on insults to make their point. They may use counter insults, but they never initiate them. But what has surprised me is how you initiated insults, and then cry foul when you get it thrown back in your face.