Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Shady

The Truth About Benghazi

Recommended Posts

You think because something is a wikipedia entry, it doesn't exist?

Okay. How about if the American Conservative website provided you with a summary of left libertarianism, including a detailed analysis of how it differs from right-wing libertarianism? Would you realize that you didn't learn all there was to know when you got that C in Intro to PoliSci?

Somehow I doubt it. laugh.png

http://www.theameric...bertarian-left/

Frigging radical leftist American Conservative magazine.

Or maybe the site, and the article you post, simply doesn't exist?

:)

(Thank you, btw, Bubber.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies in advance, I just cannot let you get away with the monumental stupidity and political ignorance from someone who puts on a facade of actually being familiar with basic political concepts. Most people grasp these terms before they even take their first "Introduction to Political Science" course (which you've obviously never done, not that that is essentially a bad thing...). But here you are, a patron of a political board, and you literally don't even know what the terms 'left' and 'right' mean in political discourse. I'm being completely sincere when I say I've never met anyone this political ignorant in such an environment. This is a new low (or high, from an entertainment perspective).

The monumental stupidity and political ignorance arises from the thought that there actually is a difference between the left and the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think because something is a wikipedia entry, it doesn't exist?

Those are your words, not mine. The original stupidity came in the form of a claim from our esteemed socialist bleeding heart, who claimed that libertarianism is a product of the left. Put another way, he claimed that libertarianism has its ideological roots in the left. Of course, one must not understand what the left is in order to say such a thing. Libertarianism is simply a modern rebranding of classical liberalism, which overlaps greatly with contemporary conservatism in the American and Canadian contexts. "Left-wing libertarianism" is a contradiction in terms, and one must not understand the left in order to believe that increasing/preserving social liberties (same-sex marriage doesn't belong in this category, by the way) is a leftist pursuit. It is not.

Okay. How about if the American Conservative website provided you with a summary of left libertarianism, including a detailed analysis of how it differs from right-wing libertarianism? Would you realize that you didn't learn all there was to know when you got that C in Intro to PoliSci?

Somehow I doubt it. laugh.png

http://www.theameric...bertarian-left/

So an op-ed filled with contradictions and false premises somehow changes anything I've said? I'm well aware of the limitations of the left/right paradigm, and I know that people are more complex than these simplistic labels and can have varying opinions on various issues; a conservative opinion on one issue and a leftist opinion on another. I know that Ron Paul and his devout followers subscribe to certain narratives that are associated with leftism. That doesn't means that libertarianism is left-wing, though. And it certainly doesn't mean that libertarianism is an offshoot of leftism.

Are you now going to provide me with an article outlining free market communism and tell me that it isn't a contradiction in terms because there's a published article out there on the internet somewhere trying to reconcile the irreconcilable?

Edited by kraychik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frigging radical leftist American Conservative magazine.

Or maybe the site, and the article you post, simply doesn't exist?

smile.png

(Thank you, btw, Bubber.)

You realise that BubberMiley is also a chew toy for me, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The monumental stupidity and political ignorance arises from the thought that there actually is a difference between the left and the right.

You're confusing parties with ideologies. While there is overlap between, say, the Republican party and conservatism, they are not one-in-the-same. You're an Alex Jones type of guy, right? You're perfect for this forum, fitting right in with bleeding heart and and BubberMiley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are your words, not mine. The original stupidity came in the form of a claim from our esteemed socialist bleeding heart, who claimed that libertarianism is a product of the left. Put another way, he claimed that libertarianism has its ideological roots in the left. Of course, one must not understand what the left is in order to say such a thing.

Yet again, kraychik: it's been proven.

You're behaving like a Creationist, for Godzilla's sake.

Are you now going to provide me with an article outlining free market communism and tell me that it isn't a contradiction in terms because there's a published article out there on the internet somewhere trying to reconcile the irreconcilable?

No one's mentiond "free market communism" except you...you apparently are under the impression that it's witty. Sorry to disabuse you of your error. (Most comedians are liberal, after all, so doubtless it's a form you find ideologically uncomfortable; though strawmen are clearly favourable enough.)

And we're not just talking about an article; we're talking about history.

You're going to have to face a difficult truth: the Left had the Right beat on the libertarian front, and by a good long while.

And yes, of course preserving liberties is a leftist pursuit, though of course not only leftist. Don't be silly.

Edited by bleeding heart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So an op-ed filled with contradictions and false premises somehow changes anything I've said?

You don't even know what an op-ed is? Good lord. Why do I bother?

Since you clearly weren't capable of wrapping your head around that article, I'll pull a small piece out for you to try to digest.

In his 1965 classic and sweeping essay “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty,” Rothbard identified “liberalism”—what is today called libertarianism—with the left as “the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity.” The other great ideology to emerge after the French revolution “was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order.”

I realize it has big words and all, and I really don't expect you to fully comprehend it. I just include it so that others who can understand it can clearly see how you have no idea what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again, kraychik: it's been proven.

You're behaving like a Creationist, for Godzilla's sake.

Actually, no. I make coherent arguments, and you point to political op-eds as "proof" that left-wing libertarianism isn't a contradiction in terms.

No one's mentiond "free market communism" except you...you apparently are under the impression that it's witty. Sorry to disabuse you of your error. (Most comedians are liberal, after all, so doubtless it's a form you find ideologically uncomfortable; though strawmen are clearly favourable enough.)

It's not a strawman, it's an illustration of your absurd premise that a Wikipedia article is somehow evidence of "left-wing libertarianism" not being a non-sequitur.

Here is it, again, for your enjoyment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

And we're not just talking about an article; we're talking about history.

No, you're manufactuing a political history that you know nothing about. Get back to me when you've read the Cliff's notes on Locke and Montesque. You're so out of your league and I think you know it. Leftism is contrary to the values of libertarianism, which I've already explained is simply a rebranding of classical liberalism. Sort of how communists renamed themselves to socialists, then to left-wingers, got away with actually naming themselves liberals (when they are entirely anti-liberty), and now are progressives. This is a history of rebranding with the left.

You're going to have to face a difficult truth: the Left had the Right beat on the libertarian front, and by a good long while.

So you're like bleeding heart, you also don't understand the values of the left and the right. Considering that the right is about the individual and the left is about the collective, libertarianism is by definition a right wing ideology. Classical liberalism is essentially the polar right end of the left/right spectrum. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And yes, of course preserving liberties is a leftist pursuit, though of course not only leftist. Don't be silly.

The left has never been about increasing the sovereignty of the individual, although you tell yourself that in order to perpetuate self-delusion. By definition the left opposes individual sovereignty in favour of greater governmental control. The left and the right directly translates to statism vs. individualism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA times has an article for those who have been called out several times for lying.

Right-wing lies about Obama are greeted by willing believers

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-right-wing-lies-20121018,0,1316436.story?

ALOT OF YOU ARE GUILTY OF THIS. I promise you, if you are voting on someone based on lies you are going to be disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't even know what an op-ed is? Good lord. Why do I bother?

Since you clearly weren't capable of wrapping your head around that article, I'll pull a small piece out for you to try to digest.

It's an op-ed. I think it's you who doesn't know what an op-ed is. I skimmed through it, it's nothing I don't already understand in much greater detail.

In his 1965 classic and sweeping essay “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty,” Rothbard identified “liberalism”—what is today called libertarianism—with the left as “the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity.” The other great ideology to emerge after the French revolution “was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order.”

Well, classical liberalism is a few centuries before Rothbard's time. More importantly, show me in your own words where he associated libertarianism with the left, and, more importantly, how this supports the false claim that libertarianism's roots are with the left? Again, only if one doesn't understand the left can one actually believe that these opposing ideologies are reconcilable, let alone one being the progenitor of the other.

Edited by kraychik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA times has an article for those who have been called out several times for lying.

http://www.latimes.c...,1316436.story?

ALOT OF YOU ARE GUILTY OF THIS. I promise you, if you are voting on someone based on lies you are going to be disappointed.

Why don't you try addressing any of the examples of appeasement from Obama I listed? Oh wait, that might be a bit difficult considering all you're ever able to contribute is copy-paste links to op-eds from the WaPo or LA Times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, no. I make coherent arguments, and you point to political op-eds as "proof" that left-wing libertarianism isn't a contradiction in terms.

The first part of this statement is a bold faced lie. Arguments need support.. You make assertions and, when pushed, you simply repeat them. Over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you try addressing any of the examples of appeasement from Obama I listed? Oh wait, that might be a bit difficult considering all you're ever able to contribute is copy-paste links to op-eds from the WaPo or LA Times.

Last time I checked. It is Obama with 4 Americans Blood on his hands, while the Republicans have 9/11, and the Iraq war so around 10,000 Americans. I will take those numbers anyday. Stop with the words lets talk about real numbers and real records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? And the "opinion" being expressed is that left-libertarianism has existed in the real world? laugh.png

You're right, calling it an op-ed is generous. It's nonsensical. I understand the point the author is trying to make, which is that certain components of contemporary libertarianism are often associated with the left, such as liberalising drug prohibition laws, but the false premise advanced in the op-ed is that increasing social liberties is a leftist value. The opposite is true, the left is all about growth of the state at the expense of the individual. He also makes the common mistake of associating same-sex with social freedom, although that's tangential. My point has always been consistent and accurate, that the values of the left are antithetical to classical liberalism, and that left-libertarianism is a non-sequitur, just like anarcho-communism/free market communism.

Edited by kraychik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked. It is Obama with 4 Americans Blood on his hands, while the Republicans have 9/11, and the Iraq war so around 10,000 Americans. I will take those numbers anyday. Stop with the words lets talk about real numbers and real records.

Like I said earlier, comparing those two incidents is absurd.

But if you want me to put on my stupid hat in order to get down to your level, more American have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since Obama took office than during Bush's tenure. And Bush oversaw these two wars for seven and five years, respectively, whereas Obama has overseen them both for just under four years. Although tangential, Obama's also spent more money on both conflicts than Bush did during his tenure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point has always been consistent and accurate, that the values of the left are antithetical to classical liberalism, and that left-libertarianism is a non-sequitur, just like anarcho-communism/free market communism.

It's consistent, but not accurate. You have a remedial understanding of the left-right dichotomy that doesn't reconcile the fact that many "leftists" distrust the very idea of "government" and many "rightists" promote government to advance their military-industrial-corporate agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said earlier, comparing those two incidents is absurd.

But if you want me to put on my stupid hat in order to get down to your level, more American have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since Obama took office than during Bush's tenure. And Bush oversaw these two wars for seven and five years, respectively, whereas Obama has overseen them both for just under four years. Although tangential, Obama's also spent more money on both conflicts than Bush did during his tenure.

Just so you know because I know you don't understand your talking points. REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT is that there are more American deaths in the Afghan war because when we include Iraq Bush's totals go way way up. You don't even know the spin so you look dumb as hell. Your statement is just a lie. It is easy to look up the numbers I suggest you do.

BTW why can't we compare the two? Again terrorist Attacks under Obama on American soil 0, American deaths 4, Bush American soil 3000. ACTIONS SPEAK TO ME NOT WORDS. FACTS COUNT! Your side is the one who wanted to bring up terrrorism. BTW Obama has the lowest number of American deaths to terrorism out of any president in 30 years. That is just a fact.

Edited by punked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible. Statesmanship is not lying to your citizenry.

What was the "spontaneous mob reaction" claim all about? If they didn't have the intelligence info why were they perpetrating this lie and apologizing for a you tube video?

It was clearly about confusion given that they had no one at the scene to give them accurate information. Duh.

And the apology thing is getting old. Condemning something and saying it shouldn't be done is not the same as apologising for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It ain't over yet. We're still heading for more fallout from Obama's policies of appeasement. Islamic extremists are single minded about destroying western civilization they are not to be appeased.

The problem with your viewpoint is that like Romney, you don't have any ideas for improving things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's consistent, but not accurate. You have a remedial understanding of the left-right dichotomy that doesn't reconcile the fact that many "leftists" distrust the very idea of "government" and many "rightists" promote government to advance their military-industrial-corporate agenda.

Nope. The left is all about greater governmental control at the expense of the individual's sovereignty. That is the left by definition in its purest sense. I understand that it makes you uncomfortable because it may cause you to revisit some fantasies you've been entertaining for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you know because I know you don't understand your talking points. REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT is that there are more American deaths in the Afghan war because when we include Iraq Bush's totals go way way up. You don't even know the spin so you look dumb as hell. Your statement is just a lie. It is easy to look up the numbers I suggest you do.

You're right, I was wrong about Iraq. Remember that I prefaced the statement with an acknowledgement that it was as stupid as your original comment to which I was replying. Comparing 9/11 and the attack on the consulate in Benghazi is beyond stupid.

BTW why can't we compare the two? Again terrorist Attacks under Obama on American soil 0, American deaths 4, Bush American soil 3000. ACTIONS SPEAK TO ME NOT WORDS. FACTS COUNT! Your side is the one who wanted to bring up terrrorism. BTW Obama has the lowest number of American deaths to terrorism out of any president in 30 years. That is just a fact.

You really think this was the first successful terrorist attack murdering Americans since Obama took office? Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with your viewpoint is that like Romney, you don't have any ideas for improving things.

Nice Democratic Party talking point from the faux conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly bleeding heart, you are low-hanging fruit for me and it's just me being a bully by using you as a chew toy.

Generally speaking, the people who actually are good at trashing other people's arguments don't brag and swagger about it. Normally it's the ones who only THINK they're good at it who have to preen and brag about their alleged accomplishments.

From where I sit, you suck at political discussion. You're too extreme, too crass, and come across like a blowhard.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...