I'm an Eagle Scout... Does this mean I got my own little platoon? Also as a gun owner would they take on their own? Will the NWO told me to go hunt my own fellow Americans I will start with them first.
Rahm Emanuel Feb. 9, 2009 "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Will G8/NATO chaos provide the "crisis" that Emanuel and Obama need to establish Obama's "civilian security force"? Has Chicago been offered up as the sacrificial lamb because Emanuel and Obama exert such control in Chicago? By the way, the NAZI SS was a volunteer civilian security force.
so were supposed to believe a video that for half the video has pictures of nazis and some random music and oh yeah the same quote by obama repeated 5 times . read the 18-25 part of that were does it say boy scouts also i'm in boy scouts and heard nowhere of this so
you just said (21 hours ago) 'page 58' then said 'excuse me 51 pages ago'.
but a few days/pages back, you claimed the quote was one one page, and it was three pages earlier. and since you and i are the only ones making statements, we're only talking a couple of hours.
fact is you lied. and the 'quote' was not a definition from epstein on libertarian.
you're lazy and you're a liar. those two simply dont go together.
now, if you are done diverting, give the page/weeks ago.
@neoconsnightmare3 You weren't talking about that one, you said I was 3 pages off. I asked you to point out where I was three pages off. I admitted that typo by the way. Point out to me where it was a few days/pages back that I made an error. And even if I did make such an error, you're now making the Logical Fallacy of the False Cause. You're assuming that it wasn't a mistake rather than a lie. Yet again, you prove yourself to lack logic.
@NRAdude you've proven nothing. but, again, let's say you have. make me a liar and :
1) post the verbatim quote allegedly made by epstein again (why you refuse to do this i have no idea)
2) give the LINK to this alleged quote (again, it took you six weeks so far in avoiding what should be VERY easy for you to do)
3) please don't give the same line, since it wasn't a definition (nor cited with a link) but merely what HE says libertarians and conservatives 'DID', not 'ARE'.
@NRAdude until you answer my questions, no SIX WEEKS OLD, i shan't begin to answer your questions.
oh yeah, before i even THINK about answering your questions (which, amazingly, will be answered when you answer mine) you have to also PROVE that i'm a 'liberal' when i NEVER said i was one.
i said, and you kindly posted it was that i was 'more libertarian than liberal'.
that's all. you can only tell me what you INFER, not what i IMPLIED. i gave definitions.
@neoconsnightmare3 I asked my questions before you did. I already proved you were a liberal. I can tell you what you implied through the inference rules of logic. Was this a lie of yours?
@NRAdude see how the game is working? you want that last word so desperately, but you'll never get it.
i take delight knowing you're playing the 'come on every day for a while, then take off a few days' game in some silly effort to 'confound' me. won't work. i use MAYBE ten minutes a day posting to you. in short, i can do this to you forever, no matter how often/little you respond.
you made SEVERAL lies, and you simply won't be allowed to have those lies as the last word.
@neoconsnightmare3 Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. I'm not trying to get the last word. I just want you to answer my questions. And no there is no game.
Anyone who believes this is insane, I am a Police Explorer and we are not being taught to take away peoples rights. Obama did not start the Explorer programs, they have been around since at least the 80's. They teach kids leadership skills and valuable life lessons as well as give them insight into careers in community service.
"Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose."
"Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose."
"Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas."
"Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas."
obama's speech and what this edited video didn't show:
"And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set."
again, it's about EXPANDING OUR DIPLOMATIC AND EDUCATIONAL AREAS."
"The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters. "
not OBAMA, its a boyscout affiliate group started 60 years ago. these are the FACTS.
@neoconsnightmare2 Again, show me where this article states that this is what Obama was talking about when he said "Civilian National Security Force." You can't. Try again.
"The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters. "
not OBAMA, its a boyscout affiliate group started 60 years ago. these are the FACTS.
"Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose."
i'll keep posting this no matter how many times it gets voted down. it's the truth, and we'll all have to live with it
"Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose."
i'll keep posting this no matter how many times it gets voted down. it's the truth, and we'll all have to live with it.
@neoconsnightmare2 Try again kid. You obviously don't even know how to analyze an article and now it bit you in the ass. It disproved your own argument.
@neoconsnightmare3 Not according to the New York Times. I just showed the part of the article you didn't post here. It's funny to see you try and post only the part that SEEMS to support your argument but when put in context of the article as a whole, it doesn't. Nice try kid.
"The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters. "
not OBAMA, its a boyscout affiliate group started 60 years ago. these are the FACTS.
@neoconsnightmare3 Did you even read my post? If you did then you just made another logical fallacy of the straw man. You didn't even bother to go to the WND did you. If you did, you'd know what he's referring to. He specifically says "Security National Security Force." He means exactly that. The Explorers program is not what this video is referring to and is a completely different program altogether. They aren't trained for anything. They simply accompany officers on patrol to observe.
@neoconsnightmare3 Logical Fallacy of the Ad Hominem. Calling people names only shows your argument's weakness. What did I say and not back up? You're the one making logical fallacies and I'm simply pointing them out. The fact that you've been making them does not in any way make me divergent for pointing them out. You're acting like a two year old. Can you not argue with reason and logic for one second? No, it's not a lie. The video above proves it.
@NRAdude you said i was liberal, yet you couldnt back it up. you agreed with the video's premise that obama created a 'nazi youth to fight terrorism', and you couldnt back it up.
you quoted that self hating half korean/half white white supremecist who said that 'libertarian' included 'states rights' when NO DEFINITION says this.
that's a good start.
all you 'logical fallacies' conversation means jack. try again.
wait, you're asking me NOT to argue with reason and logic? nope.
@neoconsnightmare3 First of all, I did back up the claim about Obama's Nazi influence. You apparently never read it or can't read it. Scroll back a few days and you'll see what I said. I'm not repeating myself for your laziness or lack of reading comprehension. His definition says this. Yes, good start. So are you saying that logic doesn't mean jack? That would explain your inability for comprehending it. Your argument is invalid as long as you use Logical Fallacies.
@NRAdude no, you did not 'back up' your baseless rants about obama's non existant nazi influence. you're a liar.
if so, cite your sources. you merely saying something means shit outside the insane asylum you obviously liv ein.
you're repeating your lies because you've been caught, and you lack the imagination to tell NEW lies.
back to the 'logical fallacies'? okay, we get it. you half assed learned the term two weeks ago in the 'short bus class'. you didn't divert from your lies.
@neoconsnightmare3 No, I'm not lying. Go look at it. Otherwise everyone will see you are not only a liar but lazy as well. Logical Fallacy of the Ad Hominem; I already said I took a class in logic two semesters ago. And second, I already have cited sources. You never looked at them. Simply citing sources and saying that your argument is correct because they say so is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority and thus your argument is invalid.
@NRAdude "The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters. "
not OBAMA, its a boyscout affiliate group started 60 years ago. these are the FACTS.
@neoconsnightmare3 These are two different articles. One is an NYT article on the Explorers program and the other is Obama's speech. Nowhere in his speech does he say he's referring to the Explorer's program. Logical Fallacy of the Red Herring.
@NRAdude i've already gone over this. repetition about the 'explorers club' from you wont divert from your lies.
speaking of which...are you EVER going to 1) prove i lied? (give the verbatim quote, the page it's on, and PROVE i lied), 2) that obama has 'nazi influence', with proof from a real source, not some right wing kook job cite, and 3) that your self hating half korean pal's definition of 'libertarianism' is held by anybody else when it comes to states rights?
@neoconsnightmare3 You still haven't shown where in Obama's speech he specifically refers to the "Explorers." You still haven't and I'm waiting until hell freezes over
@NRAdude repetition about the 'explorers club' has already been addressed. that doesnt cover up for your LIES about obama being a nazi influenced person, nor about 'libertarianism' including 'states rights', nor that i allegedly 'lied'.
until you give verbatim quotes, citations of your quotes (and they can't be nutjob kook right wing sites) and pages/days i allegedly lied, you're a liar.
@neoconsnightmare3 This has already been addressed. You're tangent about the Explorers, your Straw Man Fallacy of my Obama being a Nazi argument, and States' Rights definition. Again, Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Just because I don't give you the cite doesn't mean that they didn't state it or that I'm lying. I've already explained why
@neoconsnightmare3 And no, that's affirming the Consequent. Just because I don't answer doesn't mean I have given agreement. I'm waiting for you to answer my questions first.
@NRAdude i said 'tacit agreement', which you've given to the idiocy of a 'youth army'.
can you answer, 'yes' or 'no' in your beliefe of an 'obama youth army'?
if you can't, then you're trying to play games, and i won't allow that.
you'll have to understand...the game will be played MY way, not yours. i won't answer your questions, or even THINK about answering them, until you answer mine, since i asked first.
prove epstein said 'states rights'; prove he's relevant; answer above.
@neoconsnightmare3 I'm not trying to play games. I don't know the answer to your question until you answer mine. No, I asked you those questions way before you asked this one. No one is "playing" by your rules. You assumed that anyone was playing here to begin with. And I know what you said. It's still a Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. I'm not agreeing to anything by not answering.
@NRAdude it appears you ARE trying to play games...you're just doing a lousy job. i'll ask again:
do you agree with premise of the video that obama is creating a 'kiddie army to fight terrorism'?
yes or no will suffice.
any attempt to NOT answer with a 'yes' or 'no' will be seen as you game playing, specifically you AGREE. i shan't even think about answering YOUR questions until you answer mine.
THIS is how any game played here will be played. you are NOT allowed to set rules.
@neoconsnightmare3 How am I trying to play games? I'm simply pointing out logical fallacies in your statements and asking questions. And again, you're making the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Just because I don't answer doesn't mean I agree to anything. The rules of Logic have already been set. How can you set what has already been set?
@neoconsnightmare3 You're making the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent again. Just because I've had no one "backing me up" by posting doesn't mean they don't agree or see what I was saying. You have failed again. I'm waiting for my answer. You're argument is empty.
@NRAdude oh yeah, ron paul and rand paul aren't 'libertarians' , per the dailyron d*tt c*mm dated 5/30/2010:
rand paul - ""They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian,"
why? because rand, like ron, 'like Ron Paul' is FOR government actively reducing illegal immigration (thus reducing personal freedom). see ron pauls 'the immigration question', dated april 4 2006.
@neoconsnightmare3 This is Rand Paul dumbass. Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. I said Ron Paul not Rand Paul. Two different people. And who said illegally trespassing into a sovereign nation's territory without documentation was a right?
@NRAdude well, first i quoted rand, who said he's like his father, ron. his father, from what i've gathered, didn't say 'no no no...my son is wrong...i'm a libertarian', etc.
also, ron paul himself said a couple of things (don't worry...if you can't find the quotes i had for him, i'll bring them back). he said some pretty UN-libertarian things.
he wants government to spend MORE on keeping illegals out.
he wants those that come her to adhere to 'american values'. that aint libertarian
@neoconsnightmare3 Keeping illegals out protecting the individual freedoms of legal US citizens? I thought you were for protecting the individual? American values like individual freedom? You've just contradicted yourself.
@NRAdude spending TAX DOLLARS to EMPOWER the government to keep illegals out is against libertarian principles.
again, rand and ron paul said as such.
again, i said i was 'MORE of a libertarian than i am a liberal'. didn't say i was a 'libertarian'. that's your main problem. you can't see the gray, only the 'black' and 'white'. far from contradicting myself. i've been consisten all along.
YOU still haven't given the link and verbatim quote from epstein. i wonder why?
@neoconsnightmare3 No, you only quoted Rand saying that he wasn't a Libertarian. You have yet to cite anything by Ron saying that he is not a Libertarian. Well it seems you have a dull memory because I specifically said "or both." Even then, when you say you are more libertarian than liberal, are you not admitting that you are, at least in part, a libertarian? Notice that the question was not to what degree you are libertarian but if you are libertarian or liberal at all.
@NRAdude actually, i quoted RON in a couple of ads on a libertarian site, where HE SAID that the government needs to spend more money on fighting illegal aliens. shall i go back to tomorrow and get the quotes/citations again? lemme know.
unlike YOU i can tell you the page, and give you the dates and verbatim quotes.
the government spending MORE MONEY to deny 'individual freedoms' to people is NOT a 'libertarian' idea.
trying to force people to have the same ideals is not 'libertarian'.
@neoconsnightmare3 You quoted Ron talking about illegal immigration. So what? There is no liberty or right to illegally immigrate to this country especially when it infringes on the rights of legal Americans. So it seems that it would be a Libertarian idea when you refer to individual freedoms.
@NRAdude quoted rand who said he wasnt a libertarian because LIKE HIS DAD his stand on immigration, makes him NOT a libertarian.
ron pauls own words in op eds state he wants BIG GOVERNMENT to stop illegal immigration, and that for LEGAL IMMIGRANTS he wants them to adapt american culture. this is FORCING PEOPLE, from the governments pulpit, to act a certain way, which is against 'libertarian' principles.
@neoconsnightmare3 But you said Libertarian principles was for "individual freedom." By allowing illegals into the country the government is allowing them to take your individual freedom at your expense. Therefore, if you are against the enforcement of the immigration laws, you are against individual freedom and thus you have contradicted yourself again. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. You have yet to get a quote from Ron saying he isn't a libertarian
@NRAdude it wasnt just I who said 'libertarianism' is about individual freedoms/rights. i gave at least SEVEN definitions, including two from libertarian groups.
rand paul said he wasn't a libertarian because of his stance on illegals...LIKE HIS FATHER. his father said in TWO op eds on some conservative site that he wanted the government to spend MORE MONEY on fighting illegals, and that he wanted LEGAL ALIENS (keep up, boy) to adopt american values. forcing values aint libertarian.
@neoconsnightmare3 I was referring to your belief. It matters not whether they also state that or not. It's the same statement. You never gave a quote where Rand said that his stance on illegals made him not a libertarian. Even if he did, what authority would he have to dictate what is Libertarian or not? Also, are you implying that one could be Libertarian or not based on one issue? That would make you not a libertarian at all. Another contradiction.
@NRAdude again, it all started because you tried to tell me i was liberal. you dont know me. you can only give your baseless opinion. once i say i'm more libertarian than liberal, that's all you got. you can KEEP saying im allegedly liberal, and i'll come back with what i said. it'll keep going until i get the last word. you want the last word, but you're not gonna get it.
this is how the game is played, and you're powerless to stop it.
@NRAdude you keep asking me 'if you're saying this' or 'are you saying that'. is said what i said, and your childish attempts to throw in rhetorical questions to support your idiocy will be exposed as such.
libertarian groups are a good source of what 'libertarian' is...as well as dictioinaries. NONE add 'states rights'.
we can do this forever if you choose...it can only end one way...on my word. i can do this to you for years.
@neoconsnightmare3 It's not a rhetorical question. I'm simply trying to understand what you're saying. Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. So Rand Paul is a Libertarian group to you? That's a contradiction in aand of itself.
@NRAdude you can say you've proven me wrong as often as you like...i'll simply come back and say:
prove it.
see, you can't.
now, when are you going to answer the questions posed to you? like how i'm allegedly 'liberal'? or how epstein's alleged definition of 'libertarian' 1) is THE definition, and 2) should be accepted by me?
also, where did epstein state 'states rights' is part of that definition? cite something online so i can find it. you don't do that, you're STILL a liar.
@neoconsnightmare3 I did, and I showed you in the last post. Are you going to answer the questions I posed to you first? First of all you said you're "more libertarian" meaning that you are, at least in part, liberal. You also stated that Obama was referring to expanding Americorps in this video. If you were a true Libertarian, you would be against that kind of government expansion anyway and either wouldn't have cited that in your argument implying it's good or would have denounced it after
@NRAdude yoiu gave the website and verbatim quote recently (according to you 'in the last post'? ). really? i don't see it. you're a liar, and a bad one at that. on this very page, going back more than a week, with MULTIPLE responses from you, i see NO website address, no quote from him...nothing.
try again.
i never said i was a 'true libertarian'. you're wrong again.i said i was 'more libertarian' than 'liberal'. bwahahahahahahahaha.
@neoconsnightmare3 You don't see a lot of things. That doesn't mean it's not there especially if you don't even look. Another Logical Fallacy of the Red Herring. Assuming you're not stupid enough to actually come to that conclusion, you are the liar and in that case a hypocrit. Notice how I said "if you were." Bwahahahaha I can catch you in so many logical fallacies can't I?
@NRAdude LOL...back at te 'nradude merely says something and it'll magically become true' idiocy? won't work.
i've seen it all, and you NEVER...EVER gave a verbatim quote from epstein saying that libertarianism includes 'states rights'. you're a liar. period. you didnt even use quotation marks. you referred to him in the third person (unless he refers to himself in the third person, in which case, he's crazy and not worth quoting).
now, prove me wrong and GIVE THE QUOTE AND CITE THE WEBPAGE
@neoconsnightmare3 What do we have here but another Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. I never said that I can say something and make it magically appear. No I did. You still haven't looked. Just because you're too lazy to actually look doesn't mean it isn't there.
@neoconsnightmare3 What is diversionary about pointing out the flaws in your argument? The fact that you keep using these fallacies even after I've told you over and over is indicative that you don't know what a fallacy is. Yet again you prove yourself to be a hypocrite. Ole Neoconsnightmare can't do anything about it because Neoconsnightmare can't go against the laws of logic. I gave you the website and put in quotes. The fact that you keep asking me to do this is a diversion
@NRAdude no, i can't go back and look. i don't know when you said it. i've maintained that from the beginning. YOU, however, shoudl know where it's at.
if you don't, why the aversion to RE - STATING the website? is it because you're a liar and you never said it?
of course that's the reason.
the longer you avoid giving the website, the more you're proving you're a liar.
@neoconsnightmare3 I said specifically how long ago I said like two days ago. Go back and look. Even if you didn't know how long ago it was, just go back to the beginning and work your way forward. Don't be lazy. Yes you can. Again, Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Just because I don't give you the website again doesn't mean I didn't ever cite it.
@NRAdude yes, your questions are quite rhetorical. your answers are not 'answers', they're responses given in a vain attempt to divert from your failings.
where, online, can i find epsteins alleged definition of 'libertarian' which includes 'states rights'?
why avoid answering the question? the longer you avoid answering, the more you're proving you're a liar and that he never said that. i can do this to you for months or even years. you want the last word, but you aint gonna ever get it.
@neoconsnightmare3 What failings? And no they are not rhetorical questions only showing that you don't know what a rhetorical question is. A rhetorical question is a question that I don't intend for you to answer. I've intended for you to answer all of the questions that I've posed to you. You haven't and I'm still waiting. Answer my questions first and I'll answer yours.
1) your failing at proving that the standard definition of 'libertarian' includes 'states rights when every group and dictionary only has 'individual freedoms' and individual rights;
2) you failing to show the page number where epstein allegedly said 'states rights';
3) your failing to PROVE he said it at all via verbatim quote AND website;
4) your failing to PROVE i'm a liberal when i never said i was, must 'more libertarian than liberal'.
@neoconsnightmare3 It's definitely not on a porn website and there is nothing "XXX" about it. He did say so and I did cite it.
2) I did cite it. See response 1.
3)I did prove and show. See eye doctor.
4) I did prove it already. Saying your more libertarian than liberal means that you're, at least in part, liberal which makes my original ascertian correct.
I can do this all day and your childish liberal games are nothing but amusement. You're a true liberal's nightmare
@neoconsnightmare3 I say I did cite it. Where's the proof that I'm wrong? I did cite it. Go back and look. I did prove it. Again, you asking these same questions when I've given you an answer is a diversion.
@NRAdude go back? that's all you got? 'go back'? 'go back' where? what page?
you're a liar. the longer you lie, the longer i'll point it out. in all these weeks, you could have easily just said 'the quote is at wwwdotthequoteisheredott*co*
but we both know you never cited the verbatim quote, nor gave a quote.
poor you...once again you've been exposed as the fool you are. maybe you like that, huh? maybe you love the abuse?
@neoconsnightmare3 I told you how long ago it was. Go back until it reads how long ago I said it was under each comment. Do you not know how to use your browser? You have yet to point out any lie at all much less substantiate one. I have pointed out and substantiated the presence of your lies. Once again, typical hypocritical liberal.
@NRAdude you're a liar. if you REALLY had given proof, you'd not have repeated 'i done tole' ya'. you'd just give the website again, because you'd be quick to prove me wrong.
you're liar. until you prove what you say with verbatim quotes and websites, or you admit you're a liar, i'll simply call you out as such.
@neoconsnightmare3 Why would I give you the website again when I already gave it? Does that alone not already prove you wrong? Again prove I'm a liar. If I was lying, you would give a quote of what I said. I never said "i done tole' ya." Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. The problem with your logic is that you already have assumed that I didn't give it which is false as my past post already shows. Thus, you are either a liar or purposefully not looking for the previous post which is playing
@NRAdude why would you give the website again? because i politely asked for it. my claim is i never saw either the verbatim quote OR the website.
why would you be opposed to providing thepage you did all that on or give the site again unless you're lying. i mean, would that NOT be the PERFECT way to make a fool out of me?
of course you never said 'i dont tole you'. if you think i was trying to quote you, oopps. however, that's EFFECTIVELY what you're saying.
@neoconsnightmare3 So I told you how long ago I posted it which is on this same website. All you have to do is go back until you see how long ago it was under the comments on the page. Again, you're assuming that I didn't already give it to you. I specifically already said that I wasn't going to support your laziness so to restate it now would be inconsistent of me. So, again, go back a few pages to see where I said how long ago I posted it and go back on this thread that far to see it.
@NRAdude you GAVE no website, you dolt. i didnt want to have to go back to page 37 , 40 , etc. did you see a quote anywhere giving the DEFINITION of 'libertaian' in that? no.
did you list a website? no, you just gave his name. try again, you lying sack of feces.
to sum up you NEVER gave :
1) a website where that quote was;
2) a quote from epstein DEFINING what a 'libertarian' is.
you and i didn't interact before page 40, so once again, you're a liar. try something new.
@neoconsnightmare3 Yes, I did give a website. Look again. It was soon after I posted his quote in quotes which you denied and claimed I was lying about. Once again, you're either lazy or lying.
@neoconsnightmare3 Wow you didn't heed my advice at all did you? It was after the post that you claimed I lied about and then you went back and found it. Go fish.
@NRAdude i went back and you said NOTHING about a website. you're a liar.
but hey, prove ME wrong...tell me what page your alleged website and direct quote from him defining 'libertarian' is at?
you can lie, divert, dodge and blither all you want...you've been proven a liar. you can lay off for 4, 5, 10 days , but if youcome back with lies, i'll merely come back with the truth.
you want to get the last word, but i'm NEVER going to allow that. sooner or later, you'll learn to behave.
@neoconsnightmare3 Logical Fallacy of Appeal To Ignorance. Just because YOU didn't see it doesn't mean it's not there. And it's not my responsibility to aid your stupidity or laziness.
@neoconsnightmare3 Cretin? Haha that's hilarious. And how is it that you would "know" this? And how is it that I'm using it incorrectly? Regardless of whether I show you again doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Another Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.
@NRAdude you can no longer say i'm 'lazy' since i provided the page number of the quote (which was not a definition and not cited). you have to give up that particular lie of yours.
and, yes, if you claim i'm 'stupid', a 'liar', 'lazy', etc., and also claim you gave a definition and website, it IS your responsibility.
but you got caught in a series of lies. no biggie. you'll never get the last word you want, and i can do this to you forever.
@neoconsnightmare3 Yes I can. Not only did it take you a good ten pages of encouragement to do so but you're now denying that I gave any website. Look again. Go fish. Last word.
@NRAdude no, you can't. i PURPOSELY let you believe i wouldnt go back. i don't blame you. who'd want to go back (at that time) 40 pages? i did, because i'm petty as hell.
1) you gave a quote, allegedly from epstein, that said on page 37 (at that time, about a week ago) that conservatives and libertarians DID support states rights for more than just racist reasons....;
2) that was 'PAST TENSE', it wasn't what libertarians are NOW;
@neoconsnightmare3 Yes I was well aware you were. I knew you were playing games with it the entire time. So give evidence as to the difference between libertarians in the past and libertarians now. I did give a site and no I'm not giving it again. You just confirmed my suspicion that you're playing games so no I'm not reposting it again when you can go back and look and stop screwing around.
@NRAdude you weren't, otherwise you'd not have introduced what you admitted (by sayihg 'even if it was a tangent..."
gotcha again.
if you gave a site, and i went back (so not 'lazy' as you lied) why not just GIVE THE SITE AGAIN.
see, you never did give the site. in fact, you said it was from some paper at first, and you didnt want to quote the whole paper (thought i forgot, didnt you?).
i said dont quote the whole paper, just give the site. as of today, you haven't. why? because you LIED.
@neoconsnightmare3 No that's not admitting anything. Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. I never said that I admitted to anything. I said even if you were to assume that it was a tangent you are still wrong which makes your original claim that it was a tangent wrong by the Law of Reductio Ad Absurdum. I already said I wouldn't give it again so if I did that would be contradictory. It's also not my place to aid your laziness. No you lied my friend.
EVEN if you did (and here's how i led you down another path), so what? epstein is a fat nobody that wound up serving ass sandwiches in jail for assaulting a black woman (until her husband beat the shit out of him).
he says he's not a white supremacist, but he is a fan of all things european and white, even though he's half korean (which makes him self hating).
all other definitions of 'libertarian' ONLY mention individual rights.
@neoconsnightmare3 Logical Fallacy of the Ad Hominem. You're attacking the man and not his argument. And no I didn't lie; you did multiple times. How is he self-hating if he likes things European? And again, you're telling me what some dictionaries say the word generally means in English. I want to know what it is in and of itself. For which you haven't yet provided an argument.
@neoconsnightmare3 Even if it did only include "individual rights," is it not you're right to not have your Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Education benefits taken from you by an illegal immigrant?
@NRAdude said: "Even if it did only include "individual rights,"
not, 'if'...the definition of 'libertarian', by ANY respected source, ONLY includes 'individual rights and freedoms'.
illegals pay into social security, medicare, medicaid and the irony is THEY DONT GET TO USE IT. hell, if anything you should welcome that.
some STATES allow them to take advantage of education benefits...but then that's a 'state right', not fed, that isn't included in the definition of 'libertarian', is it?
@neoconsnightmare3 No, "if" is what I said. And again, I don't want to hear what someone else said it is, I want to know what it is pure and simple. You can do that by providing a sound argument for why it is so. You have yet to do that. Otherwise you're making a fool out of yourself. And again, Epstein's definition contradicts yours. No they don't pay into social security, medicaid, or medicare. The vast majority of them don't even pay taxes. Yet they have false SS numbers.
@NRAdude and again, what you claim you 'want' to hear is meaningless, particularly when you're claiming epstein said something he didnt.
if he did, MONTHS ago you'd have given the link to his definition. you've done neither. anyone can go back to about page 40-42 to your first statements. you NEVER gave a link nor a definition from epstein.
you want that last word, don't you? you can TASTE it. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...i'll never allow you to get it.
@neoconsnightmare3 No that's not a State's right when federal immigration law says they are to be deported. Immigration law is not a right of the states to contradict. So tell me, is it the right of another individual to come into your house and steel your money, kill you, harm you, or your family?
@neoconsnightmare3 which are both what you've previously accused me of. Thus you are being hypocritical once again. You might need to change your name to "logical-nightmare"
@NRAdude yeah, you've been posting up a STORM the last week or so. with all that energy, you could have easily told me the page your alleged quote/link is on OR given the link again.
so, it's not because you're lazy; it can ONLY be because you're a liar and never gave the quote/link.
fine with me. you want to keep lying (which you do each time you AVOID providing the information) ,i'll keep saying you're a liar and challenging you to post it.
@neoconsnightmare3 When did I say I was lazy? Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. Oh and what else? Affirming the Consequent. Again! You're setting a record here mate. I already posted it so you can keep making false hypocritical claims.
@NRAdude did i say you said you were lazy? just throwing shit up now. i don't blame you. i proved you to be a liar, and it's killing you. all you've got left is saying non sequitors.
your 'affirmations' and 'logical fallacies' are laughable, given you don't know how to use the terms. all that and it won't cover up two basic facts:
1) you NEVER gave the website you quoted epstein on;
2) your quote that i DID offer did NOT define 'libertarian'.
@neoconsnightmare3 Did I ever say you said I was lazy? Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. I did give the website. How does it not define what libertarian is? Please explain.
@NRAdude so, that's the quote. HE SAID that " Conservatives and libertarians supported States Rights for many reasons other than a defense of Jim Crow...."
that is not a DEFINITION, either. he's merely stating what he FELT 'conservatives and libertarians' supported, amongst which allegedly was 'states rights'.
@NRAdude again, you got caught in lies, got caught trying to divert from those lies.
it won't work with me. i can do this to you forever, little boy. and there's NOTHING you can do about it. NOTHING.
so, do repeat your lies all day. you've got nothing else. and i'm not amusement to you...oh no...i represent life. life doesn't give you your way. and you want the last word. you'll not get it.
your mind is not right...i have to make your mind right. bwahahahahahahahaa
@neoconsnightmare3 Well according to your logic, you just lied because you are amusement to me. You represent liberals not life. Life gives the right way. I actually follow it. So are you trying to infringe on my individual freedom to believe what I choose? That's counter libertarian ideology according to your definition. More evidence that not only are you not libertarian but your actually a liberal like I contended? Therefore, you were also lying about that?
@NRAdude no, you can't divert from your lack of originality and lies. you're not bright enough.
prove i 'represent liberals'? see, i told you LONG ago i was 'more libertarian than liberal'. didn't tell you what i was, and don't have to tell you.
all your baseless guessing won't do any good, will it?
how am i 'infringing' upon any of your rights? c'mon, simp, prove it. you can't. just more of your lies. fine. the more you lie, the more i'll call you out. quite the libertarian mindset.
@neoconsnightmare3 I'm not diverting from anything. You have yet to prove that I lied and I don't know why you're referring to originality but that had nothing to do with my argument. Are you assuming that everything you say is true? You did tell me. You don't know it because you have failed to use reason and logic. I called you out on it and you don't like it. You specifically said "your mind is not right...i have to make your mind right" which means that you're forcing your "values" on me
"@neoconsnightmare3 I don't know which dictionary you're looking at. "Conservatives and libertarians supported States Rights for many reasons other than a defense of Jim Crow. They used it to argue against the New Deal, the federal highway system, farm subsidies, housing projects, and a host of other government programs. They even used it as a means to fight Communism."
@neoconsnightmare3 So you were lying about me not putting it in quotes the entire time? Wow, you have just made the biggest fool out of yourself spending an entire month claiming I didn't put quotes around it when all you had to do was look. You even claimed that I lied. Ironic when it turns out you're the one who was lying. Now to clarify this, you were either lying about it or being lazy. And by the way, I also quoted a description of him from a website that I cited.
@NRAdude 'quotations' , if you remember earlier, i stopped caring about weeks ago. i said you MAY have put quotes around it but (here's the key), you never gave a WEBSITE where i can find that quote.
you mumbled something about a 'paper' that you didnt want to quote in its entirety.
also, i asked for epstein's alleded DEFINITION. that wasn't a definition of 'libertarian'. just what they allegedly 'supported' back in the day.
thus, you never gave a verbatim quote of him DEFINING libs.
@neoconsnightmare3 Now you're are lying again. You specifically said that I was lying about the fact that I put quotes around it. Now you've been proven wrong once again and now it's apparent to the kind of illogic and games you are playing. Unless your claiming that the form of libertarianism has not always been libertarianism, it is irrelevant when it was that they supported it is it not? I never said I gave a quoted definition of liberals. Fallacy of the Straw Man.
@NRAdude "• @neoconsnightmare3 His definition of Libertarian says "state's rights." Wikipedia is not a WM graduate. You just made the Logical Fallacy of Equivocation. If you want to keep using emotion and wikipedia in your argument, then you've already lost mate.
NRAdude 3 weeks ago "
from page 33. this was your next (and last) reference to his alleged (now disproven) 'definition' of 'libertarian'.
no definition, no citation for what he said...yeah, you got nothing. bwahahahahahaha
@NRAdude that wasn't your last 'reference' to him (as witnessed by us going back and forth).
it was proof you never gave a definition of libertarian by him, in the form of:
1) verbatim quote with him DEFINING what a libertarian IS;
2) website
see, even after all that, what makes HIS alleged definition (alleged until you give PROOF he defined it to include states rights) is better than all others that say 'individual rights and freedoms'?
@neoconsnightmare3 Irresepective of us going back and forth, that wasn't my last reference to him 3 weeks ago. Logical Fallacy of the Red Herring. Again.
i've gone back, and proven you lied about giving a verbatim quote of epstein giving his definition of 'libertarian', nor have you given the site it's on.
you're a liar and have been proven as such. if you've given a site (you haven't) and a definition, it should be easy , now, for you to show it. the longer you wait, the more you're showing you're a liar.
@neoconsnightmare3 No it wasn't. Go back and look again. Are you pulling this out of your ass just like you did the other day when you claimed I lied about posting it? That's a lie. Therefore you're not only hypocritical but you're lying again. Everyone on this board will see that.
@NRAdude you're a liar, and not even a good one. i went back 40 pages (at that point) and got your first words to me/my first words to you.
page 37 (at least 4-5 days ago) had you give a quote from epstein that was NOT a definition. he only said 'libertarians and conservatives' were against something for more than just racial reasons.
operative word..."WERE". that was not a definition of 'libertarian' (unless you're saying they're racists).
you also did not i give a link. if you did show it
@neoconsnightmare3 Well the evidence shows that it is in fact you who is the liar. You even tried claiming that i never posted that quote and yet you call me a liar? True liberal right here. I said it once and I said it again, it's after I gave the quote from Epstein. Second, he said that both Conservatives and Libertarians were for States' rights. You said they weren't. Therefore, you're wrong and lying. I gave you the name of the website not too much later after that.
@neoconsnightmare3 How is it not Libertarian when you defined libertarianism as about individual liberty? Being a slave to an illegal foreign mass is liberty to you?
I'm an Eagle Scout... Does this mean I got my own little platoon? Also as a gun owner would they take on their own? Will the NWO told me to go hunt my own fellow Americans I will start with them first.
Jaket2000 4 days ago
Obama's Hitler Youth. Don't we ever learn from history.
gunrunner1776 1 week ago
Rahm Emanuel Feb. 9, 2009 "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Will G8/NATO chaos provide the "crisis" that Emanuel and Obama need to establish Obama's "civilian security force"? Has Chicago been offered up as the sacrificial lamb because Emanuel and Obama exert such control in Chicago? By the way, the NAZI SS was a volunteer civilian security force.
krusaderrabid 1 week ago
so were supposed to believe a video that for half the video has pictures of nazis and some random music and oh yeah the same quote by obama repeated 5 times . read the 18-25 part of that were does it say boy scouts also i'm in boy scouts and heard nowhere of this so
blamegovermentfilms 4 months ago
Obummer is a uncle tom
locovassau 6 months ago
@locovassau really?
you DO know 'uncle tom' was a hero,don't you?
no, you don't because you NEVER READ THE BOOK.
he didn't whip escaped slaves when ordered to do so,and thus was killed himself.
try again.
neoconsnightmare3 6 months ago
come and get us we have a little something for you
locovassau 6 months ago
death to the NWO
locovassau 6 months ago
kiss our ass
locovassau 6 months ago
you just said (21 hours ago) 'page 58' then said 'excuse me 51 pages ago'.
but a few days/pages back, you claimed the quote was one one page, and it was three pages earlier. and since you and i are the only ones making statements, we're only talking a couple of hours.
fact is you lied. and the 'quote' was not a definition from epstein on libertarian.
you're lazy and you're a liar. those two simply dont go together.
now, if you are done diverting, give the page/weeks ago.
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 You weren't talking about that one, you said I was 3 pages off. I asked you to point out where I was three pages off. I admitted that typo by the way. Point out to me where it was a few days/pages back that I made an error. And even if I did make such an error, you're now making the Logical Fallacy of the False Cause. You're assuming that it wasn't a mistake rather than a lie. Yet again, you prove yourself to lack logic.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude you're playing games again, and i've allowed you to run far afield. i knew you'd blither your way into another failed diversioni.
now, time to get you back to what you've NEVER proven:
1) PROVE via verbatim quotes that i'm a 'liberal', when i never said i was;
2) PROVE, via verbatim quotes and page, where epstein included 'states rights' in his definition for 'libertarian', and THEN;
3) PROVE why anyone should take that as a definition, when all other definitions don't include it.
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 I proved 1 2 and 3. Answer my question.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude you've proven nothing. but, again, let's say you have. make me a liar and :
1) post the verbatim quote allegedly made by epstein again (why you refuse to do this i have no idea)
2) give the LINK to this alleged quote (again, it took you six weeks so far in avoiding what should be VERY easy for you to do)
3) please don't give the same line, since it wasn't a definition (nor cited with a link) but merely what HE says libertarians and conservatives 'DID', not 'ARE'.
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@NRAdude until you answer my questions, no SIX WEEKS OLD, i shan't begin to answer your questions.
oh yeah, before i even THINK about answering your questions (which, amazingly, will be answered when you answer mine) you have to also PROVE that i'm a 'liberal' when i NEVER said i was one.
i said, and you kindly posted it was that i was 'more libertarian than liberal'.
that's all. you can only tell me what you INFER, not what i IMPLIED. i gave definitions.
you lose again.
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 I asked my questions before you did. I already proved you were a liberal. I can tell you what you implied through the inference rules of logic. Was this a lie of yours?
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude see how the game is working? you want that last word so desperately, but you'll never get it.
i take delight knowing you're playing the 'come on every day for a while, then take off a few days' game in some silly effort to 'confound' me. won't work. i use MAYBE ten minutes a day posting to you. in short, i can do this to you forever, no matter how often/little you respond.
you made SEVERAL lies, and you simply won't be allowed to have those lies as the last word.
bwahahaha
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Logical Fallacy of the Red Herring. There is no game. Answer the question.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude yes there is a game...you want the last word and you're not getting it.
i'll answer the question when you answer mine, and mine came first. try again.
you claimed that five weeks ago you answered my question...this alone means my question came first, not yours.
alas, you didnt answer it...you provided NO website, no citations, and no DEFINTION.
until you answer that question (and then, the other was PROVE his definition should be taken over all others), i won't answer yours. LOL
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare3 Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. I'm not trying to get the last word. I just want you to answer my questions. And no there is no game.
NRAdude 7 months ago
Anyone who believes this is insane, I am a Police Explorer and we are not being taught to take away peoples rights. Obama did not start the Explorer programs, they have been around since at least the 80's. They teach kids leadership skills and valuable life lessons as well as give them insight into careers in community service.
bandofbians1992 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OBAMA NEVER PROPOSED A 'NAZI YOUTH':
from factcheck *ot *om :
"Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose."
there you go, nrasimp.
neoconsnightmare2 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare2 from factcheck *ot *om :
"Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose."
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
from factcheck d** *ommon:
"Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas."
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
from factcheck d** *ommon:
"Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas."
neoconsnightmare2 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
obama's speech and what this edited video didn't show:
"And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set."
again, it's about EXPANDING OUR DIPLOMATIC AND EDUCATIONAL AREAS."
neoconsnightmare2 8 months ago 2
"The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters. "
not OBAMA, its a boyscout affiliate group started 60 years ago. these are the FACTS.
video implies a LIE.
neoconsnightmare2 8 months ago 3
@neoconsnightmare2 Again, show me where this article states that this is what Obama was talking about when he said "Civilian National Security Force." You can't. Try again.
NRAdude 8 months ago
from the ny times:
"The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters. "
not OBAMA, its a boyscout affiliate group started 60 years ago. these are the FACTS.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 3
from factcheck *ot *om :
"Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose."
i'll keep posting this no matter how many times it gets voted down. it's the truth, and we'll all have to live with it
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 3
from factcheck *ot *om :
"Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose."
i'll keep posting this no matter how many times it gets voted down. it's the truth, and we'll all have to live with it.
neoconsnightmare2 8 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare2 That part of his speech has nothing to do with the part where he refers to a "Civilian Homeland Security Force."
NRAdude 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare2 Try again kid. You obviously don't even know how to analyze an article and now it bit you in the ass. It disproved your own argument.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude nothing 'bit me in the ass'. i quoted the article verbatim. this video edited out parts of what he said.
you and anyone else that would argue one iota from what i said/quoted are dolts.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 3
@neoconsnightmare3 Not according to the New York Times. I just showed the part of the article you didn't post here. It's funny to see you try and post only the part that SEEMS to support your argument but when put in context of the article as a whole, it doesn't. Nice try kid.
NRAdude 8 months ago
from the ny times:
"The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters. "
not OBAMA, its a boyscout affiliate group started 60 years ago. these are the FACTS.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare3 Did you even read my post? If you did then you just made another logical fallacy of the straw man. You didn't even bother to go to the WND did you. If you did, you'd know what he's referring to. He specifically says "Security National Security Force." He means exactly that. The Explorers program is not what this video is referring to and is a completely different program altogether. They aren't trained for anything. They simply accompany officers on patrol to observe.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude i read your multiple posts, and you're an idiot.
what 'straw man argument' did i give. quote me. i didn't.
you're the one with 'strawman arguments'. you say stuff, can't back it up, and then come up with something else to divert from your initial failures.
what were they? oh yeah, the fact that you nor anyone else can prove that obama is making kids fight terrorism. that's a LIE. it's been proven.
deal with it, numbskull. lol
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare3 Logical Fallacy of the Ad Hominem. Calling people names only shows your argument's weakness. What did I say and not back up? You're the one making logical fallacies and I'm simply pointing them out. The fact that you've been making them does not in any way make me divergent for pointing them out. You're acting like a two year old. Can you not argue with reason and logic for one second? No, it's not a lie. The video above proves it.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude you said i was liberal, yet you couldnt back it up. you agreed with the video's premise that obama created a 'nazi youth to fight terrorism', and you couldnt back it up.
you quoted that self hating half korean/half white white supremecist who said that 'libertarian' included 'states rights' when NO DEFINITION says this.
that's a good start.
all you 'logical fallacies' conversation means jack. try again.
wait, you're asking me NOT to argue with reason and logic? nope.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 2
@neoconsnightmare3 First of all, I did back up the claim about Obama's Nazi influence. You apparently never read it or can't read it. Scroll back a few days and you'll see what I said. I'm not repeating myself for your laziness or lack of reading comprehension. His definition says this. Yes, good start. So are you saying that logic doesn't mean jack? That would explain your inability for comprehending it. Your argument is invalid as long as you use Logical Fallacies.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude no, you did not 'back up' your baseless rants about obama's non existant nazi influence. you're a liar.
if so, cite your sources. you merely saying something means shit outside the insane asylum you obviously liv ein.
you're repeating your lies because you've been caught, and you lack the imagination to tell NEW lies.
back to the 'logical fallacies'? okay, we get it. you half assed learned the term two weeks ago in the 'short bus class'. you didn't divert from your lies.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 3
@neoconsnightmare3 No, I'm not lying. Go look at it. Otherwise everyone will see you are not only a liar but lazy as well. Logical Fallacy of the Ad Hominem; I already said I took a class in logic two semesters ago. And second, I already have cited sources. You never looked at them. Simply citing sources and saying that your argument is correct because they say so is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority and thus your argument is invalid.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude "The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters. "
not OBAMA, its a boyscout affiliate group started 60 years ago. these are the FACTS.
ny times.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 3
@neoconsnightmare3 These are two different articles. One is an NYT article on the Explorers program and the other is Obama's speech. Nowhere in his speech does he say he's referring to the Explorer's program. Logical Fallacy of the Red Herring.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude yes, thats why i put 'ny times' at the end of the article...and 'factcheck' for the info about his speech.
you have a profound grasp of the obvious...wait, that was another attempt to divert from the facts again.
LOL...it'll NEVER work.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 2
@neoconsnightmare3 I don't know what you're talking about but you still have not shown where in his speech he mentions "The Explorers."
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude i've already gone over this. repetition about the 'explorers club' from you wont divert from your lies.
speaking of which...are you EVER going to 1) prove i lied? (give the verbatim quote, the page it's on, and PROVE i lied), 2) that obama has 'nazi influence', with proof from a real source, not some right wing kook job cite, and 3) that your self hating half korean pal's definition of 'libertarianism' is held by anybody else when it comes to states rights?
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 3
@neoconsnightmare3 You still haven't shown where in Obama's speech he specifically refers to the "Explorers." You still haven't and I'm waiting until hell freezes over
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude repetition about the 'explorers club' has already been addressed. that doesnt cover up for your LIES about obama being a nazi influenced person, nor about 'libertarianism' including 'states rights', nor that i allegedly 'lied'.
until you give verbatim quotes, citations of your quotes (and they can't be nutjob kook right wing sites) and pages/days i allegedly lied, you're a liar.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare3 This has already been addressed. You're tangent about the Explorers, your Straw Man Fallacy of my Obama being a Nazi argument, and States' Rights definition. Again, Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Just because I don't give you the cite doesn't mean that they didn't state it or that I'm lying. I've already explained why
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude you can repeat your 'explorer's idiocy' and repeat: the video implies strongly that obama is 'arming kids to fight terrorism'.
the title alone does that: Camp FEMA Obama Youth Army
now, if you dont say 'that title is misleading' AND say 'the video edits out what obama really says', and you post, you're giving tacit agreement.
so, i ask you now: do you ADMIT the video edits out what obama really said, and that there is no 'youth army' being built by him?
yes or no will do
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare3 I'm not going to answer this until you answer my questions.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 And no, that's affirming the Consequent. Just because I don't answer doesn't mean I have given agreement. I'm waiting for you to answer my questions first.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude i said 'tacit agreement', which you've given to the idiocy of a 'youth army'.
can you answer, 'yes' or 'no' in your beliefe of an 'obama youth army'?
if you can't, then you're trying to play games, and i won't allow that.
you'll have to understand...the game will be played MY way, not yours. i won't answer your questions, or even THINK about answering them, until you answer mine, since i asked first.
prove epstein said 'states rights'; prove he's relevant; answer above.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 I'm not trying to play games. I don't know the answer to your question until you answer mine. No, I asked you those questions way before you asked this one. No one is "playing" by your rules. You assumed that anyone was playing here to begin with. And I know what you said. It's still a Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. I'm not agreeing to anything by not answering.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude it appears you ARE trying to play games...you're just doing a lousy job. i'll ask again:
do you agree with premise of the video that obama is creating a 'kiddie army to fight terrorism'?
yes or no will suffice.
any attempt to NOT answer with a 'yes' or 'no' will be seen as you game playing, specifically you AGREE. i shan't even think about answering YOUR questions until you answer mine.
THIS is how any game played here will be played. you are NOT allowed to set rules.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare3 How am I trying to play games? I'm simply pointing out logical fallacies in your statements and asking questions. And again, you're making the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Just because I don't answer doesn't mean I agree to anything. The rules of Logic have already been set. How can you set what has already been set?
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude LOL...you are too funny. you seemingly thing repeating 'logical fallacy' will somehow make your point. it doesn't.
get the quote, cite it. then we'll discuss how all other definitions of 'libertarian' talk of 'individual rights and freedoms'.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 It does and everyone but yourself sees that. And had you not been lazy to go back and look, you'll see that I already did.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude 'everyone' sees it but me? 'everyone'? why isn't 'everyone' (even everyone that posts) backing you up?
in fact, why is NO ONE backing you up?
you failed again.
1) give the link where epstein allegedly said 'states rights' are included in the definition of 'libertarian';
2) quote him verbatim, and use quotation marks;
3) explain why he says something libertertarians themselves don't say?
if you can't do all of the above, your'e full of shit.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare3 You're making the Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent again. Just because I've had no one "backing me up" by posting doesn't mean they don't agree or see what I was saying. You have failed again. I'm waiting for my answer. You're argument is empty.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude oh yeah, ron paul and rand paul aren't 'libertarians' , per the dailyron d*tt c*mm dated 5/30/2010:
rand paul - ""They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian,"
why? because rand, like ron, 'like Ron Paul' is FOR government actively reducing illegal immigration (thus reducing personal freedom). see ron pauls 'the immigration question', dated april 4 2006.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago 4
@neoconsnightmare3 This is Rand Paul dumbass. Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. I said Ron Paul not Rand Paul. Two different people. And who said illegally trespassing into a sovereign nation's territory without documentation was a right?
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude well, first i quoted rand, who said he's like his father, ron. his father, from what i've gathered, didn't say 'no no no...my son is wrong...i'm a libertarian', etc.
also, ron paul himself said a couple of things (don't worry...if you can't find the quotes i had for him, i'll bring them back). he said some pretty UN-libertarian things.
he wants government to spend MORE on keeping illegals out.
he wants those that come her to adhere to 'american values'. that aint libertarian
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Keeping illegals out protecting the individual freedoms of legal US citizens? I thought you were for protecting the individual? American values like individual freedom? You've just contradicted yourself.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude spending TAX DOLLARS to EMPOWER the government to keep illegals out is against libertarian principles.
again, rand and ron paul said as such.
again, i said i was 'MORE of a libertarian than i am a liberal'. didn't say i was a 'libertarian'. that's your main problem. you can't see the gray, only the 'black' and 'white'. far from contradicting myself. i've been consisten all along.
YOU still haven't given the link and verbatim quote from epstein. i wonder why?
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 No, you only quoted Rand saying that he wasn't a Libertarian. You have yet to cite anything by Ron saying that he is not a Libertarian. Well it seems you have a dull memory because I specifically said "or both." Even then, when you say you are more libertarian than liberal, are you not admitting that you are, at least in part, a libertarian? Notice that the question was not to what degree you are libertarian but if you are libertarian or liberal at all.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude actually, i quoted RON in a couple of ads on a libertarian site, where HE SAID that the government needs to spend more money on fighting illegal aliens. shall i go back to tomorrow and get the quotes/citations again? lemme know.
unlike YOU i can tell you the page, and give you the dates and verbatim quotes.
the government spending MORE MONEY to deny 'individual freedoms' to people is NOT a 'libertarian' idea.
trying to force people to have the same ideals is not 'libertarian'.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 You quoted Ron talking about illegal immigration. So what? There is no liberty or right to illegally immigrate to this country especially when it infringes on the rights of legal Americans. So it seems that it would be a Libertarian idea when you refer to individual freedoms.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude quoted rand who said he wasnt a libertarian because LIKE HIS DAD his stand on immigration, makes him NOT a libertarian.
ron pauls own words in op eds state he wants BIG GOVERNMENT to stop illegal immigration, and that for LEGAL IMMIGRANTS he wants them to adapt american culture. this is FORCING PEOPLE, from the governments pulpit, to act a certain way, which is against 'libertarian' principles.
try again.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 But you said Libertarian principles was for "individual freedom." By allowing illegals into the country the government is allowing them to take your individual freedom at your expense. Therefore, if you are against the enforcement of the immigration laws, you are against individual freedom and thus you have contradicted yourself again. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. You have yet to get a quote from Ron saying he isn't a libertarian
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude it wasnt just I who said 'libertarianism' is about individual freedoms/rights. i gave at least SEVEN definitions, including two from libertarian groups.
rand paul said he wasn't a libertarian because of his stance on illegals...LIKE HIS FATHER. his father said in TWO op eds on some conservative site that he wanted the government to spend MORE MONEY on fighting illegals, and that he wanted LEGAL ALIENS (keep up, boy) to adopt american values. forcing values aint libertarian.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 I was referring to your belief. It matters not whether they also state that or not. It's the same statement. You never gave a quote where Rand said that his stance on illegals made him not a libertarian. Even if he did, what authority would he have to dictate what is Libertarian or not? Also, are you implying that one could be Libertarian or not based on one issue? That would make you not a libertarian at all. Another contradiction.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude again, it all started because you tried to tell me i was liberal. you dont know me. you can only give your baseless opinion. once i say i'm more libertarian than liberal, that's all you got. you can KEEP saying im allegedly liberal, and i'll come back with what i said. it'll keep going until i get the last word. you want the last word, but you're not gonna get it.
this is how the game is played, and you're powerless to stop it.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Well you didn't completely deny it so you must be, in part, a liberal. I'm not playing a game here mate.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude you keep asking me 'if you're saying this' or 'are you saying that'. is said what i said, and your childish attempts to throw in rhetorical questions to support your idiocy will be exposed as such.
libertarian groups are a good source of what 'libertarian' is...as well as dictioinaries. NONE add 'states rights'.
we can do this forever if you choose...it can only end one way...on my word. i can do this to you for years.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 It's not a rhetorical question. I'm simply trying to understand what you're saying. Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. So Rand Paul is a Libertarian group to you? That's a contradiction in aand of itself.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude Not to mention showing all of your arguments wrong by virtue of their logical fallacies. I've shown them on EVERY page of our discussion.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude you can say you've proven me wrong as often as you like...i'll simply come back and say:
prove it.
see, you can't.
now, when are you going to answer the questions posed to you? like how i'm allegedly 'liberal'? or how epstein's alleged definition of 'libertarian' 1) is THE definition, and 2) should be accepted by me?
also, where did epstein state 'states rights' is part of that definition? cite something online so i can find it. you don't do that, you're STILL a liar.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 I did, and I showed you in the last post. Are you going to answer the questions I posed to you first? First of all you said you're "more libertarian" meaning that you are, at least in part, liberal. You also stated that Obama was referring to expanding Americorps in this video. If you were a true Libertarian, you would be against that kind of government expansion anyway and either wouldn't have cited that in your argument implying it's good or would have denounced it after
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude yoiu gave the website and verbatim quote recently (according to you 'in the last post'? ). really? i don't see it. you're a liar, and a bad one at that. on this very page, going back more than a week, with MULTIPLE responses from you, i see NO website address, no quote from him...nothing.
try again.
i never said i was a 'true libertarian'. you're wrong again.i said i was 'more libertarian' than 'liberal'. bwahahahahahahahaha.
i can catch you in SO many lies, can't i?
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 You don't see a lot of things. That doesn't mean it's not there especially if you don't even look. Another Logical Fallacy of the Red Herring. Assuming you're not stupid enough to actually come to that conclusion, you are the liar and in that case a hypocrit. Notice how I said "if you were." Bwahahahaha I can catch you in so many logical fallacies can't I?
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude LOL...back at te 'nradude merely says something and it'll magically become true' idiocy? won't work.
i've seen it all, and you NEVER...EVER gave a verbatim quote from epstein saying that libertarianism includes 'states rights'. you're a liar. period. you didnt even use quotation marks. you referred to him in the third person (unless he refers to himself in the third person, in which case, he's crazy and not worth quoting).
now, prove me wrong and GIVE THE QUOTE AND CITE THE WEBPAGE
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 What do we have here but another Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. I never said that I can say something and make it magically appear. No I did. You still haven't looked. Just because you're too lazy to actually look doesn't mean it isn't there.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude yeah...keep on with that 'logical fallacy' line. hilarious thing is, you don't know what it is, beyond it's potential diversionary benefits.
but ole neoconsnightmare ain't gonna let you take advantage of that. LOL.
you can either:
1) cite on this video the page where you gave epstein's verbatim quote and website where it's at, OR;
2) give me the website right now.
until you do that, your diversions will be called out for what they are...a joke.
i can do this forever.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 What is diversionary about pointing out the flaws in your argument? The fact that you keep using these fallacies even after I've told you over and over is indicative that you don't know what a fallacy is. Yet again you prove yourself to be a hypocrite. Ole Neoconsnightmare can't do anything about it because Neoconsnightmare can't go against the laws of logic. I gave you the website and put in quotes. The fact that you keep asking me to do this is a diversion
NRAdude 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 As for Epstein's statement, I gave you the website's name back right after I posted it. You can go back and look.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude no, i can't go back and look. i don't know when you said it. i've maintained that from the beginning. YOU, however, shoudl know where it's at.
if you don't, why the aversion to RE - STATING the website? is it because you're a liar and you never said it?
of course that's the reason.
the longer you avoid giving the website, the more you're proving you're a liar.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 I said specifically how long ago I said like two days ago. Go back and look. Even if you didn't know how long ago it was, just go back to the beginning and work your way forward. Don't be lazy. Yes you can. Again, Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Just because I don't give you the website again doesn't mean I didn't ever cite it.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude yes, your questions are quite rhetorical. your answers are not 'answers', they're responses given in a vain attempt to divert from your failings.
where, online, can i find epsteins alleged definition of 'libertarian' which includes 'states rights'?
why avoid answering the question? the longer you avoid answering, the more you're proving you're a liar and that he never said that. i can do this to you for months or even years. you want the last word, but you aint gonna ever get it.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 What failings? And no they are not rhetorical questions only showing that you don't know what a rhetorical question is. A rhetorical question is a question that I don't intend for you to answer. I've intended for you to answer all of the questions that I've posed to you. You haven't and I'm still waiting. Answer my questions first and I'll answer yours.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude what failings?
1) your failing at proving that the standard definition of 'libertarian' includes 'states rights when every group and dictionary only has 'individual freedoms' and individual rights;
2) you failing to show the page number where epstein allegedly said 'states rights';
3) your failing to PROVE he said it at all via verbatim quote AND website;
4) your failing to PROVE i'm a liberal when i never said i was, must 'more libertarian than liberal'.
that's a start.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3
1) I did show. You didn't look
2) I did show. You didn't look
3) I did show and tell. You didn't look.
4) I did prove it. The fact that you said "more libertarian" rather than deny it means that you are, in part, a liberal
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude 1) i don't know where to look...but YOU can say 'its on page XXX', OR, simply give the quote again and the webpage.
you cant because A) he never said it so , B) you cant ever cite where YOU quoted him or where he said it
2) you never showed, see response 1;
3) you didnt prove or show anything, see response 1;
4) you showed nothing...you agree i said 'MORE libertarian than liberal'. i have nothing to deny. if you think so PROVE IT.
wait, you're lying so you can't. bwahahahahahaha
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 It's definitely not on a porn website and there is nothing "XXX" about it. He did say so and I did cite it.
2) I did cite it. See response 1.
3)I did prove and show. See eye doctor.
4) I did prove it already. Saying your more libertarian than liberal means that you're, at least in part, liberal which makes my original ascertian correct.
I can do this all day and your childish liberal games are nothing but amusement. You're a true liberal's nightmare
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude don't know what 'porn sites' have to do with the topic, so i'll just call it another failed diversion on your part.
1) i say you didnt cite it. prove me wrong;
2) nope, you didn't cite it. prove me wrong. give the page it's on NOW;
3) you proved nothing. see a shrink, because you're crazy enough to think i'm not your mental superior;
4) no, you've proven nothing except that:
a) you try and fail to divert;
b) you think repetition of silliness is proof. it's not.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 I say I did cite it. Where's the proof that I'm wrong? I did cite it. Go back and look. I did prove it. Again, you asking these same questions when I've given you an answer is a diversion.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude go back? that's all you got? 'go back'? 'go back' where? what page?
you're a liar. the longer you lie, the longer i'll point it out. in all these weeks, you could have easily just said 'the quote is at wwwdotthequoteisheredott*co*
but we both know you never cited the verbatim quote, nor gave a quote.
poor you...once again you've been exposed as the fool you are. maybe you like that, huh? maybe you love the abuse?
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 I told you how long ago it was. Go back until it reads how long ago I said it was under each comment. Do you not know how to use your browser? You have yet to point out any lie at all much less substantiate one. I have pointed out and substantiated the presence of your lies. Once again, typical hypocritical liberal.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude you're a liar. if you REALLY had given proof, you'd not have repeated 'i done tole' ya'. you'd just give the website again, because you'd be quick to prove me wrong.
you're liar. until you prove what you say with verbatim quotes and websites, or you admit you're a liar, i'll simply call you out as such.
and there's NOTHING you can do about it. LOL
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Why would I give you the website again when I already gave it? Does that alone not already prove you wrong? Again prove I'm a liar. If I was lying, you would give a quote of what I said. I never said "i done tole' ya." Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. The problem with your logic is that you already have assumed that I didn't give it which is false as my past post already shows. Thus, you are either a liar or purposefully not looking for the previous post which is playing
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude why would you give the website again? because i politely asked for it. my claim is i never saw either the verbatim quote OR the website.
why would you be opposed to providing thepage you did all that on or give the site again unless you're lying. i mean, would that NOT be the PERFECT way to make a fool out of me?
of course you never said 'i dont tole you'. if you think i was trying to quote you, oopps. however, that's EFFECTIVELY what you're saying.
give the link, or u lie.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 So I told you how long ago I posted it which is on this same website. All you have to do is go back until you see how long ago it was under the comments on the page. Again, you're assuming that I didn't already give it to you. I specifically already said that I wasn't going to support your laziness so to restate it now would be inconsistent of me. So, again, go back a few pages to see where I said how long ago I posted it and go back on this thread that far to see it.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude you GAVE no website, you dolt. i didnt want to have to go back to page 37 , 40 , etc. did you see a quote anywhere giving the DEFINITION of 'libertaian' in that? no.
did you list a website? no, you just gave his name. try again, you lying sack of feces.
to sum up you NEVER gave :
1) a website where that quote was;
2) a quote from epstein DEFINING what a 'libertarian' is.
you and i didn't interact before page 40, so once again, you're a liar. try something new.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Yes, I did give a website. Look again. It was soon after I posted his quote in quotes which you denied and claimed I was lying about. Once again, you're either lazy or lying.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude not gonna look again. i went back 40 pages, where there was no conversation between us before, and you gave NO site, no definition.
now, prove me wrong and tell the page your alleged site is on. you can't. you've been caught. period.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Wow you didn't heed my advice at all did you? It was after the post that you claimed I lied about and then you went back and found it. Go fish.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude i went back and you said NOTHING about a website. you're a liar.
but hey, prove ME wrong...tell me what page your alleged website and direct quote from him defining 'libertarian' is at?
you can lie, divert, dodge and blither all you want...you've been proven a liar. you can lay off for 4, 5, 10 days , but if youcome back with lies, i'll merely come back with the truth.
you want to get the last word, but i'm NEVER going to allow that. sooner or later, you'll learn to behave.
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Logical Fallacy of Appeal To Ignorance. Just because YOU didn't see it doesn't mean it's not there. And it's not my responsibility to aid your stupidity or laziness.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude yeah, we all know you recently learned of the term, but since you're using it incorrectly, you just show what a cretin you are.
either you CAN or CAN NOT prove you gave epsteins direct definition of 'libertarian' AND gave the site where it allegedly was, or you can't.
you can't. i went back 40 pages, found the quote and it was neither a definition nor was it cited.
you can dodge all you want, until you prove me wrong (page # or website) you're a liar. this is how it'll go.
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Cretin? Haha that's hilarious. And how is it that you would "know" this? And how is it that I'm using it incorrectly? Regardless of whether I show you again doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Another Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude you can no longer say i'm 'lazy' since i provided the page number of the quote (which was not a definition and not cited). you have to give up that particular lie of yours.
and, yes, if you claim i'm 'stupid', a 'liar', 'lazy', etc., and also claim you gave a definition and website, it IS your responsibility.
but you got caught in a series of lies. no biggie. you'll never get the last word you want, and i can do this to you forever.
last word for you: DENIED! LOL
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Yes I can. Not only did it take you a good ten pages of encouragement to do so but you're now denying that I gave any website. Look again. Go fish. Last word.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude no, you can't. i PURPOSELY let you believe i wouldnt go back. i don't blame you. who'd want to go back (at that time) 40 pages? i did, because i'm petty as hell.
1) you gave a quote, allegedly from epstein, that said on page 37 (at that time, about a week ago) that conservatives and libertarians DID support states rights for more than just racist reasons....;
2) that was 'PAST TENSE', it wasn't what libertarians are NOW;
3) you did not give a site.
if so, give it again.
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Yes I was well aware you were. I knew you were playing games with it the entire time. So give evidence as to the difference between libertarians in the past and libertarians now. I did give a site and no I'm not giving it again. You just confirmed my suspicion that you're playing games so no I'm not reposting it again when you can go back and look and stop screwing around.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude you weren't, otherwise you'd not have introduced what you admitted (by sayihg 'even if it was a tangent..."
gotcha again.
if you gave a site, and i went back (so not 'lazy' as you lied) why not just GIVE THE SITE AGAIN.
see, you never did give the site. in fact, you said it was from some paper at first, and you didnt want to quote the whole paper (thought i forgot, didnt you?).
i said dont quote the whole paper, just give the site. as of today, you haven't. why? because you LIED.
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 No that's not admitting anything. Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. I never said that I admitted to anything. I said even if you were to assume that it was a tangent you are still wrong which makes your original claim that it was a tangent wrong by the Law of Reductio Ad Absurdum. I already said I wouldn't give it again so if I did that would be contradictory. It's also not my place to aid your laziness. No you lied my friend.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude (cont)....you can't, because you lied.
EVEN if you did (and here's how i led you down another path), so what? epstein is a fat nobody that wound up serving ass sandwiches in jail for assaulting a black woman (until her husband beat the shit out of him).
he says he's not a white supremacist, but he is a fan of all things european and white, even though he's half korean (which makes him self hating).
all other definitions of 'libertarian' ONLY mention individual rights.
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare3 Logical Fallacy of the Ad Hominem. You're attacking the man and not his argument. And no I didn't lie; you did multiple times. How is he self-hating if he likes things European? And again, you're telling me what some dictionaries say the word generally means in English. I want to know what it is in and of itself. For which you haven't yet provided an argument.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Even if it did only include "individual rights," is it not you're right to not have your Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Education benefits taken from you by an illegal immigrant?
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude said: "Even if it did only include "individual rights,"
not, 'if'...the definition of 'libertarian', by ANY respected source, ONLY includes 'individual rights and freedoms'.
illegals pay into social security, medicare, medicaid and the irony is THEY DONT GET TO USE IT. hell, if anything you should welcome that.
some STATES allow them to take advantage of education benefits...but then that's a 'state right', not fed, that isn't included in the definition of 'libertarian', is it?
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 No, "if" is what I said. And again, I don't want to hear what someone else said it is, I want to know what it is pure and simple. You can do that by providing a sound argument for why it is so. You have yet to do that. Otherwise you're making a fool out of yourself. And again, Epstein's definition contradicts yours. No they don't pay into social security, medicaid, or medicare. The vast majority of them don't even pay taxes. Yet they have false SS numbers.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude and again, what you claim you 'want' to hear is meaningless, particularly when you're claiming epstein said something he didnt.
if he did, MONTHS ago you'd have given the link to his definition. you've done neither. anyone can go back to about page 40-42 to your first statements. you NEVER gave a link nor a definition from epstein.
you want that last word, don't you? you can TASTE it. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...i'll never allow you to get it.
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 No that's not a State's right when federal immigration law says they are to be deported. Immigration law is not a right of the states to contradict. So tell me, is it the right of another individual to come into your house and steel your money, kill you, harm you, or your family?
NRAdude 7 months ago
Comment removed
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 which are both what you've previously accused me of. Thus you are being hypocritical once again. You might need to change your name to "logical-nightmare"
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude yeah, you've been posting up a STORM the last week or so. with all that energy, you could have easily told me the page your alleged quote/link is on OR given the link again.
so, it's not because you're lazy; it can ONLY be because you're a liar and never gave the quote/link.
fine with me. you want to keep lying (which you do each time you AVOID providing the information) ,i'll keep saying you're a liar and challenging you to post it.
and this will go on FOREVER. LOL
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 When did I say I was lazy? Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. Oh and what else? Affirming the Consequent. Again! You're setting a record here mate. I already posted it so you can keep making false hypocritical claims.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude did i say you said you were lazy? just throwing shit up now. i don't blame you. i proved you to be a liar, and it's killing you. all you've got left is saying non sequitors.
your 'affirmations' and 'logical fallacies' are laughable, given you don't know how to use the terms. all that and it won't cover up two basic facts:
1) you NEVER gave the website you quoted epstein on;
2) your quote that i DID offer did NOT define 'libertarian'.
hurts you, doesn't it? LOL
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Did I ever say you said I was lazy? Logical Fallacy of the Straw Man. I did give the website. How does it not define what libertarian is? Please explain.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude so, that's the quote. HE SAID that " Conservatives and libertarians supported States Rights for many reasons other than a defense of Jim Crow...."
that is not a DEFINITION, either. he's merely stating what he FELT 'conservatives and libertarians' supported, amongst which allegedly was 'states rights'.
so, here we go:
1) that ain't a definition of 'libertarian;
2) you didn't cite anything;
3) later you claimed it was in some 'paper';
you lose again. now, prove me wrong. LOL
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 So how is that not a what libertarianism is when Libertarians support States' rights?
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude again, you got caught in lies, got caught trying to divert from those lies.
it won't work with me. i can do this to you forever, little boy. and there's NOTHING you can do about it. NOTHING.
so, do repeat your lies all day. you've got nothing else. and i'm not amusement to you...oh no...i represent life. life doesn't give you your way. and you want the last word. you'll not get it.
your mind is not right...i have to make your mind right. bwahahahahahahahaa
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Well according to your logic, you just lied because you are amusement to me. You represent liberals not life. Life gives the right way. I actually follow it. So are you trying to infringe on my individual freedom to believe what I choose? That's counter libertarian ideology according to your definition. More evidence that not only are you not libertarian but your actually a liberal like I contended? Therefore, you were also lying about that?
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude no, you can't divert from your lack of originality and lies. you're not bright enough.
prove i 'represent liberals'? see, i told you LONG ago i was 'more libertarian than liberal'. didn't tell you what i was, and don't have to tell you.
all your baseless guessing won't do any good, will it?
how am i 'infringing' upon any of your rights? c'mon, simp, prove it. you can't. just more of your lies. fine. the more you lie, the more i'll call you out. quite the libertarian mindset.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoconsnightmare3 I'm not diverting from anything. You have yet to prove that I lied and I don't know why you're referring to originality but that had nothing to do with my argument. Are you assuming that everything you say is true? You did tell me. You don't know it because you have failed to use reason and logic. I called you out on it and you don't like it. You specifically said "your mind is not right...i have to make your mind right" which means that you're forcing your "values" on me
NRAdude 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Under your logic and definition of what libertarianism is not.
NRAdude 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NRAdude said:
"Under your logic and definition of what libertarianism is not."
what? complete sentences would be welcomed.
now, that didn't divert me either. please provide:
1) the page on this video where you gave epsteins verbatim quote on 'states rights' being in the definition of 'libertarian', OR;
2) give the link to that statement.
if you delay and try to divert, that means you're lying. i'll shall always mention you're lying.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@NRAdude page 37, 3 weeks ago, you said:
"@neoconsnightmare3 I don't know which dictionary you're looking at. "Conservatives and libertarians supported States Rights for many reasons other than a defense of Jim Crow. They used it to argue against the New Deal, the federal highway system, farm subsidies, housing projects, and a host of other government programs. They even used it as a means to fight Communism."
-Marcus Epstein
NRAdude 3 weeks ago "
NO CITIATION WHERE THIS QUOTE CAME FROM.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Finally you went back and saw it. Did you see the nice quotes I put around it?
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude 'it' that i saw was NOT a definition of 'libertarian' by epstein. here's what he allegedly said:
""Conservatives and libertarians supported States Rights for many reasons other than a defense of Jim Crow. "
that is what libertarians and conservatives DID. doesn't say what they ARE. thus NOT a definition.
and no citation of a website, just 'marcus epstein'.
it's good that you AGREE with the quote i found, which means you NEVER gave a site or definition.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 So you were lying about me not putting it in quotes the entire time? Wow, you have just made the biggest fool out of yourself spending an entire month claiming I didn't put quotes around it when all you had to do was look. You even claimed that I lied. Ironic when it turns out you're the one who was lying. Now to clarify this, you were either lying about it or being lazy. And by the way, I also quoted a description of him from a website that I cited.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude 'quotations' , if you remember earlier, i stopped caring about weeks ago. i said you MAY have put quotes around it but (here's the key), you never gave a WEBSITE where i can find that quote.
you mumbled something about a 'paper' that you didnt want to quote in its entirety.
also, i asked for epstein's alleded DEFINITION. that wasn't a definition of 'libertarian'. just what they allegedly 'supported' back in the day.
thus, you never gave a verbatim quote of him DEFINING libs.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Now you're are lying again. You specifically said that I was lying about the fact that I put quotes around it. Now you've been proven wrong once again and now it's apparent to the kind of illogic and games you are playing. Unless your claiming that the form of libertarianism has not always been libertarianism, it is irrelevant when it was that they supported it is it not? I never said I gave a quoted definition of liberals. Fallacy of the Straw Man.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Did you ever think of looking at that website?
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude "• @neoconsnightmare3 His definition of Libertarian says "state's rights." Wikipedia is not a WM graduate. You just made the Logical Fallacy of Equivocation. If you want to keep using emotion and wikipedia in your argument, then you've already lost mate.
NRAdude 3 weeks ago "
from page 33. this was your next (and last) reference to his alleged (now disproven) 'definition' of 'libertarian'.
no definition, no citation for what he said...yeah, you got nothing. bwahahahahahaha
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 No that wasn't my last reference to him. Look again, I gave you a quoted description with a website beneath it. Go fish.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude that wasn't your last 'reference' to him (as witnessed by us going back and forth).
it was proof you never gave a definition of libertarian by him, in the form of:
1) verbatim quote with him DEFINING what a libertarian IS;
2) website
see, even after all that, what makes HIS alleged definition (alleged until you give PROOF he defined it to include states rights) is better than all others that say 'individual rights and freedoms'?
you can't win this one...bwahahahahaha
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Irresepective of us going back and forth, that wasn't my last reference to him 3 weeks ago. Logical Fallacy of the Red Herring. Again.
NRAdude 8 months ago
@NRAdude quite 'respective' since:
1) YOU claimed it wasn't and;
2) it WAS.
i've gone back, and proven you lied about giving a verbatim quote of epstein giving his definition of 'libertarian', nor have you given the site it's on.
you're a liar and have been proven as such. if you've given a site (you haven't) and a definition, it should be easy , now, for you to show it. the longer you wait, the more you're showing you're a liar.
neoconsnightmare3 8 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 No it wasn't. Go back and look again. Are you pulling this out of your ass just like you did the other day when you claimed I lied about posting it? That's a lie. Therefore you're not only hypocritical but you're lying again. Everyone on this board will see that.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@NRAdude you're a liar, and not even a good one. i went back 40 pages (at that point) and got your first words to me/my first words to you.
page 37 (at least 4-5 days ago) had you give a quote from epstein that was NOT a definition. he only said 'libertarians and conservatives' were against something for more than just racial reasons.
operative word..."WERE". that was not a definition of 'libertarian' (unless you're saying they're racists).
you also did not i give a link. if you did show it
neoconsnightmare3 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 Well the evidence shows that it is in fact you who is the liar. You even tried claiming that i never posted that quote and yet you call me a liar? True liberal right here. I said it once and I said it again, it's after I gave the quote from Epstein. Second, he said that both Conservatives and Libertarians were for States' rights. You said they weren't. Therefore, you're wrong and lying. I gave you the name of the website not too much later after that.
NRAdude 7 months ago
@neoconsnightmare3 How is it not Libertarian when you defined libertarianism as about individual liberty? Being a slave to an illegal foreign mass is liberty to you?
NRAdude 8 months ago