>>90
Let's look at the points you have made without the name calling presumably motivated by your shock at the libertarian idea that socialism is being used to justify crony capitalist and state socialist policies.
1: I am calling you names because of your views.
Yes, you are. When you back them up with fact maybe your words will carry more weight.
2: You said "bush is a socialist" and your explanation that you are aware he is not completely socialist is crying.
So every time I provide an argument it is crying and means I am a retard, that's odd. Maybe you should disprove me first.
3: Bush doesn't have any socialist policies.
Well go back to
>>61 and instead of calling me names actually disprove me. Also answer the question posited in
>>77. Assuming it was you I was talking to you. You are not the first extremist I have happened across.
4: Having one socialist policy does not make Bush a socialist.
So how many socialist policies does one need? I guess you don't consider Bush a socialist and Bush is a socialist by my standards, but that's just semantics. Empirically we both agree he has some policies which correlate with socialist principles, it is merely my argument that such policies are problematic. Why is this a crime? Surely someone with such contempt for the W would approve of criticism of him.
5: You are being apologetic
I fail to see the relevance of whether I am apologetic or not?
Does it matter what my motivation is? What matters is whether my assertions can be proven in logical debate or not. You seem to care more about my motivation and emotional state than the arguments at hand. Perhaps you should study libertarian political philosophy now.