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 ...
Again, classical liberal is a better label for him, not libertarian.
________________________
States have decided that they do have that jurisdiction. I understand you think differently from the states, I am commenting on current procedure.
That’s not the point. The point is that in Sowell’s mind “libertarian” and “liberal” are not the same thing. He would probably entertain quibbling over classical liberal versus libertarian, but if you tried to tell him a liberal and a libertarian are the same thing he’d flunk your silly ass out of his class in a heartbeat.
“...there was little awareness of killing a person, the media talked in terms of nonviable tissue mass, growths, just tissue, the public did not see that abortion was actually killing a person, like they do today.”
Don’t project your own lack of understanding onto everyone else. Abortion was illegal for a reason. People were immediately mad about Roe, and it had nothing to do with suddenly realizing that babies died during abortions. Why would it have been illegal if people didn’t know what it was?
I don’t fight with social conservatives, I fight with you. It doesn’t have anything to do with social conservatism, it’s your lack of logic and incorrect factual assertions. You are not the embodiment of social conservatism. Check that ego, ansel12. I sometimes clash with (L)libertarians, too, and leftists all the time. You aren’t special, unfortunately. I actually agree with you on most of the issues, but your reasoning is just awful, your factual information is lacking, and you are a most unpleasant person as a result. The lying is the worst part. If somebody posted that reading John Wesley turned people into Zoroastrians, I would put that person in the same file as you. At least I know you probably won’t vote for a Democrat, so there’s that.
If we go down this path we’ll just wind up at your libertarian = Libertarian fallacy for the eleven millionth time, and I don’t feel like going there.
Actually, JCBreckenridge, to the chagrin of both of us, neither I nor the Constitution is the authority. Nine mostly Ivy League elitists are the authority.
Were I the authority, you and I would both be happily, forcefully, and pretty successfully agitating for abortion bans in our state government(s). That’s assuming I don’t have the authority to implement whatever I want at the federal level, the Constitution be damned. If that’s the case, all sorts of wild stuff would happen. It would be pretty awesome if I had that power. Amendments 16 through 19 are goners, as is #26. The War on Terror would be over, after killing a whole bunch of mostly innocent people as a warning (they only understand force, but they get that), the federal government would shrink to a small fraction of its current size, the fence along the border would make the Berlin Wall look like a joke, and .... anything further might get me kicked off of Free Republic, and on some kind of federal watch list (assuming I’m not already on it).
Whuf. You’d KO the 19th? I’d sooner disenfranchise based on property. Property you’d need to own is 10k to qualify for the old franchise, which was based on owning 40 pounds back in 1750.
I get it, abortion is also not one of your concerns or at least stopping it isn’t.
As far as remembering the abortion discussions and coverage, pre-Roe, I remember them pretty well. I don’t know whether you do or not.
People also suckered for “health of the mother” back then because of the public’s nativity and innocence.
Today, rather than a distasteful medical procedure, we know that it is killing a baby.
As on all the social conservatism, you have made your attitude perfectly clear, although you stay veiled.
Well, I was a little drunk on the momentary power, and the thrill of undoing the progressive movement. I probably wouldn’t repeal the 19th, but I would throw it out there just to upset the feminists. If I’m in power, I have to have a little fun, and my golf game is terrible.
You “get” very little.
Your memories are probably as sloppy as your current thinking. Though pretty young, I remember the shock that accompanied the ruling. I remember my parents being stunned. My mother explained it to me. She said it meant that a pregnant woman who didn’t want her baby could have it killed before it came out. I asked why someone would do that, and she said it was because Satan tempts people in the worst of ways. I remember the room were we sitting in, and the television was tuned to ABC. I think Harry Reasoner was the anchor, but I wouldn’t swear to it. It was quite the talk for a while.
Naivete. Nativity is something else. I’ll assume that was a typo, but I can’t be certain with you.
People always knew that. “Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant...” That’s a couple of thousand years old. Abortion was illegal for a reason. Or are you going to now argue that is wasn’t illegal, or that people outlawed things back then for no reason? Choose.
You are not social conservatism. My attitude toward you is pretty clear. If further clarity is needed, I will provide it.
Here, here. I think that these arguments are terribly dishonest.
I have been here since the late 90s (though I can't remember my old screen name) because I am a conservative.. I detest abortion, attend church, send my kids to a very conservative christian school that folks in town might think of as "fundie factory". Yet these threads devolve into some of the most ridiculous arguments by people so hard-headed that we are all liberals? Good lord people, we are further right than you statists.
Ansel I'll tell you what happened. I woke up to what the Republican party has become. Aren't you in the exact same boat as me, and ticked at the GOP? Haven't you suggested as much? First off, what would be so hard about acknowledging that common ground? All of us here are likely disgruntled.
Here is the difference between you and I.
I consider people as passionate as you are about this stuff as being on my side, you just have a couple of issues that you find more important to focus upon. You on the other hand think those of us who are sick of endless wars, the police state, the TSA, the NSA, domestic drones, prism. etc. as being liberals.
Also, how hard is it for you to stop comparing any of us to the Libertarian party? You can't even do that for the sake of discussion? You've been asked repeatedly, and you refuse, are you afraid of something?
I don't despise Evangelicals. You invent stuff about my beliefs, the beliefs of other posters and the beliefs of libertarians because you're a blustering internet blowhard who likes to piss and moan.
For the record, I'm a conservative Christian who believes in limited government. My only "libertarian" streak is that I don't believe anyone should go to prison for possession of marijuana. Sorry if I don't pass your conservative litmus test.
You were what, about five years old, possibly 4 in January of 1973?
I was a very political, very well read young soldier with a young pregnant wife a $6.00 Army abortion available immediately after the ruling, and had not only been reading the 1960s abortion news articles and consuming the media of that time, but had seen and dealt with my age group and personal life during those years of teen pregnancy, girls visiting different states for mysterious vacations, illegal abortions, adoptions, all the pre Roe life, and had been in California when Reagan signed his bill, and moved to California in 1968 for a period time and local media.
You are one arrogant little smug pie the way you oily slip around, I've been looking at some of your posting history going back for years, you are a massager troll on social issues.
This thread is a lot like another I got into a few months back. A guy (I assume) was arguing for a strict, Genesis-based creation of the universe. BUT, he claimed that Adam was created before anything else. I called him out on it, and we spent the next several hours going round and round. He doubled down on his error, then repeatedly denied having said it, then evaded the question by calling me an evolutionist, materialist, atheist, etc... He wouldn’t admit to what he had plainly typed earlier in the same thread. I wonder if ansel12 has a twin or two usernames.
You just post like you do.
Is it because you are a "conservative Christian" and have something against the conservative Christians that we know as Evangelical Christians, who are social conservatives and the best voters in America?
Incredible dishonesty, you won't find anything in my entire posting history that relates in anyway to that silly claim.
Here is your thought on social conservatism, on a thread where you were taking a stand that protects gay marriage and insures it's becoming nationwide, "I understand for many of you, Social Conservatism trumps all, and it doesn’t bother me as long as you don’t go all Police State on me.
How generous of you.
Give it a rest man! You go about picking fights like this is the internet circa 2001....
If nobody knew abortion involved killing a baby, why was it illegal?
You are the one who presumes to know what I believe and what I want, and even what I enjoy, so the arrogance is all yours. You presume a lot, based on nothing. You don’t like to have your thinking challenged, and I can see why. It’s weak. At least you will probably not cast harmful votes, so I’m thankful for that.
Identify the social issues I have massaged in an oily manner? Never mind. You can’t back up your mouth. I’ve given you several opportunities, but always just more mouth.
On a conservative site, anyone who so dishonestly goes after Evangelicals like you do, is going to have someone correct you.
You haven’t explained that yet.
“I’ve been looking at some of your posting history going back for years...”
Trolling for that leftist social issue I have been promoting as part of my libertarian plot to undermine social conservatism? It seems like I had another username back in the 90s, but I’m not sure. If I can find it, I’ll Freepmail it to you so you can search that one as well. There’s no telling what kind of crazy stuff I was saying back in the Clinton years.
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.