In Rand Paul's world, does a private doctor get to refuse treatment to a black man?

"No it just proves you don't know what you are talking about."

Does it?

Funny...

Because I refuse to respond to your silly demands, that means I don't know what I am talking about...right?

Do you think your conclusion is right?

Do you think your conclusion could be wrong?

Do you see the logical error in your conclusion as "proof" that I don't know what I am talking about?

Yall make this entirely too easy for me...

Quote from PatternRec:

No it just proves you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know the law except in an anecdotal manner.

You haven't had to deal with it, obviously, so I wouldn't expect you to know the law. Had you, you would have quickly cited the relevant law and more importantly made a scenario that is unimpeachable.

I'm not going to "huff and puff" because I know how you roll. You can support anything you say and you love to go around in circles by dodging questions and giving what you think are clever non-answers.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"No it just proves you don't know what you are talking about."

Does it?

Funny...

Because I refuse to respond to your silly demands, that means I don't know what I am talking about...right?

Do you think your conclusion is right?

Do you think your conclusion could be wrong?

Do you see the logical error in your conclusion as "proof" that I don't know what I am talking about?

Yall make this entirely too easy for me...
More...

LOL. Uh huh.
 
"Uh huh."

No denial of the argument I just made...

Thanks for the admission of your illogically drawn conclusion...

Now move along to an argument that you could at least appear to be making on a logical basis...

Quote from PatternRec:

LOL. Uh huh.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"Uh huh."

No denial of the argument I just made...

Thanks for the admission of your illogically drawn conclusion...

Now move along to an argument that you could at least appear to be making on a logical basis...
More...

Your argument is laughable. Hence the "LOL." And "Uh huh" is obvious sarcasm.

What's even more laughable... well sad really, is your claim that:

Quote from OPTIONAL777:
...and I never lose, never have lost here at ET...and it pisses people off..
More...

Evidence of a psychosis.
 
Full on ad hominem...

Now that didn't take long, did it?

Oh, and I have never lost here at ET, never...

Figure out how that could be true, and then try rationally to examine your own self to see the game you are losing...



Quote from PatternRec:

Your argument is laughable. Hence the "LOL." And "Uh huh" is obvious sarcasm.

What's even more laughable... well sad really, is your claim that:



Evidence of a psychosis.
More...
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

Nah, the American and French revolutions are the birth of classical LIBERALISM.

Thanks again for playing.
More...
/

Classical liberalism is conservative and is what libertarians promote..

here is a definition from wikipedia...

as a note... remember Reagan used to say the party left him...


Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, and other economists.[2][3][4]

The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century. And, after 1970, the phrase began to be used by libertarians to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is sometimes difficult to tell which meaning is intended in a given source.
 
I note optional zzz started playing lawyer by saying his civil rights plantiff would win.

When you make that statement... if you have any integrity at all you would explain how your plaintiff might survive a demurrer -- and then perhaps a summary judgment motion.

and that would just get you to the trial.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Full on ad hominem...

Now that didn't take long, did it?

Oh, and I have never lost here at ET, never...

Figure out how that could be true, and then try rationally to examine your own self to see the game you are losing...
More...

No that's not ad hominem. I'm not debating your position. I asked you to substantiate your position but you refuse.

That behavior, along with others behavior patterns of yours is evidence of psychosis.

Additionally, you can't claim you won any argument unless there is a third party impartial judge or impartial panel of your peers that deems it as such.

But as is par for your course, you routinely make assertions and never bother to substantiate them.

That is psychotic behavior. Which is to say, you hold delusional beliefs of your own superiority over everyone else such that you have no need to prove or substantiate anything you assert. You're so great in your own mind that you believe that everyone should just take you word as stated.
 
Yep.....

Liberalism (the real kind) is what caused America's comically disproportionate economic development.

It's crazy to think about but, if the French Revolution hadn't ultimately lost to Tory, big government England, Europe would be ALOT different right now.

It would have stepped on America's developmental toes to some degree, but some cultural axioms wouldn't exist. Like, we wouldn't necessarily associate WASPhood with prosperity.

Quote from jem:

/

Classical liberalism is conservative and is what libertarians promote..

here is a definition from wikipedia...

as a note... remember Reagan used to say the party left him...


Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, and other economists.[2][3][4]

The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century. And, after 1970, the phrase began to be used by libertarians to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is sometimes difficult to tell which meaning is intended in a given source.
More...
 
Quote from achilles28:

It was the Government who legalized slavery, in the first place.

That sword cuts both ways. Careful what you wish for.

As for Rand, there is nothing violent about private business exercising their right to choose.

So get over it. You lefties are over-exaggerating.
More...

Over exaggerating? In what planet do you live on? Social change has never been done by the likes of you. It has always been the wheels of government that finally sees its social error, whatever that may be and turns it over. The rest of you then attempt to subvert that government, in the name of being "patriots":D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top