I don't know. I find more and more these days that self-described libertarians are usually nothing more than disaffected conservatives who have realized that the modern conservative movement has absolutely no traction.

So I'm not sure how 'libertarian thinking' would piss anyone off. Give me a reasoned argument, I don't care what you call it.

(With apologies to Vonnegut), doesn't everything socialist just make you want to throw up? Like public schools, health care for all, policemen, fire departments, public parks, Social Security, and unemployment benefits?

Every time I hear this argument, I'm always amazed. Astounded, really. Don't you people realize that socialism is all around you?

Don't you realize that socialism does not lead to dead grandmas and Jesus crying crocodile tears and puppies being run through meat grinders?

Do you even know what socialism is? I pay taxes that support public schools, yet have no children and have been out of public school for over 10 years. Is there a better example of socialism? I should be outraged, right?

Okay. I'm wrong about, say, 15 of those people. The obvious ones, I admit it. But your argument was 500. You got time to give me the other 485?

And I'm sorry, but (admittedly, by my own judgement), I've been respectful to you. We're here to go back and forth. No need to throw up your hands, take the ball and go home because things aren't going exactly the way you want them to.

And come on, I didn't take you out of context. That was a pillar of your argument.

And if I was correct, why'd you downvote the argument???

--------------------

That your arguments so far - whether or not that which you intend to argue is right or wrong - are logically flawed (aside from the last one, which is more of a list than an argument supporting something I never even challenged, but at least they're firsthand accounts).

Your "law of noncontradiction" must necessarily begin with a presupposition that you yourself state: "If the Bible is true...". If it requires further explanation: It is pointless in argument to begin with the notion that you eventually intend to prove. To argue that Christianity is true because the Bible says so is akin to stating that water is wet because it is wet.

You go on to say that

"(You) find it hard that over 500 people would lie in a book that is surrounded by over 140 confirmed historical facts",

which, aside from being wholly based on an appeal to authority (formal logical fallacy), ignores the fact that none of those 500+ people authored any part of the Bible - it's essentially only a story about 500 people.

Believe me, I'm not here to argue theology. You guys have at it. But those arguments are seriously, seriously flawed.

But you do not have the testimony of 500 people, only Paul's testimony that 500 people witnessed it. To wit, my scenario did not start out "suppose 517 people told you...."

So...if I told you that 517 people saw me out on a date with Heidi Klum, and nobody else was able to reproduce the story, what would you think exactly?

Detestable? Arguably, yes.

But "acceptable"? Certainly. Free speech is free speech. It matters not if one disagrees with the idea(s) being expressed.

Absolutely?

---------------------------------------------------

I'd say both. It's good when you're looking for intelligent discussion about hot-button issues, but I'll be damned if I click on ONE MORE LINK about Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, or Rush Limbaugh.