Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Mayhem]

I'm defending liberty, try and keep up. And, you'll notice that I was siding with Benjamin Prichards, the smaller distillery.

The one that got an exception, you're siding with the one that was not affected by the regulation. Brilliant argument.

[Machismo]

The one that got an exception, you're siding with the one that was not affected by the regulation. Brilliant argument.

So, if this is so important, why have exceptions?

I guess it wasn't an important regulation, after all...

I'm saying they should have never needed an exception in the first place.

[Ivanstone]

I sided with Benjamin Prichards, try and keep up. You brought up Diageo, not me.

You sided with Diageo. I don't know what's worse. You did it for money, you did it for free or you did it out of pure ignorance because you don't know fuck all about the Whiskey industry. In any event you'll still be DiageoMan.

Benjamin Prichards is the only entity in this mix that is actively creating harm by mis-labeling their products and having an unfair advantage over their competitors. At least they appear to meet US Congressional Whiskey Standards and possibly NAFTA standards as well. Two out of three ain't bad I guess.

[Machismo]

You sided with Diageo. I don't know what's worse. You did it for money, you did it for free or you did it out of pure ignorance because you don't know fuck all about the Whiskey industry. In any event you'll still be DiageoMan.

Benjamin Prichards is the only entity in this mix that is actively creating harm by mis-labeling their products and having an unfair advantage over their competitors. At least they appear to meet US Congressional Whiskey Standards and possibly NAFTA standards as well. Two out of three ain't bad I guess.

You brought up Diageo, not me. Does that mean I get to call you JDCuck? Edit: I think JDSimp is probably more timely.

I did it for liberty.

The same people who pushed this regulation say they are not mislabeling it... so you should really stop arguing against yourself.

[Mayhem]

So, if this is so important, why have exceptions?

I guess it wasn't an important regulation, after all...

I'm saying they should have never needed an exception in the first place.

So your argument just blew up in your face again and you retort with "So if the regulation didn't fuck over smaller distilleries why even have it?". Is that the hill you want to die on now? Ok cool, it has been explained to you why the regulation was beneficial for smaller distilleries and consumers, it has been shown that smaller distilleries profited after the regulation was put in place and that it was fought by an even larger corporation.

You don't side with the small ones, just admit it.

Must be a thing with libertarians, ignoring their own arguments. Just like PC2.

[Ivanstone]

You brought up Diageo, not me.

I did it for liberty.

The same people who pushed this regulation say they are not mislabeling it... so you should really stop arguing against yourself.

Ok. I guess its option #3 then: Ignorance. No one's suprised but you're still DiageoMan.

They got their special carve out after the legislation was drafted. Best thing is if you really, really wanted to criticize the legislation you should be screaming bloody murder at the Benjamin Prichards but yet you're treating them like the victim.

[Machismo]

So your argument just blew up in your face again and you retort with "So if the regulation didn't fuck over smaller distilleries why even have it?". Is that the hill you want to die on now? Ok cool, it has been explained to you why the regulation was beneficial for smaller distilleries and consumers, it has been shown that smaller distilleries profited after the regulation was put in place and that it was fought by an even larger corporation.

You don't side with the small ones, just admit it.

Must be a thing with libertarians, ignoring their own arguments. Just like PC2.

Nope, didn't say that. Oh, and this isn't marketing... no matter how much you want it to be.

We'll make sure to call all those abortion restrictions the same...

[Shadowferal]

Where did I say vaccines cause autism?

so much for your support of liberty and freedom of speech.

[Machismo]

Ok. I guess its option #3 then: Ignorance. No one's suprised but you're still DiageoMan.

They got their special carve out after the legislation was drafted. Best thing is if you really, really wanted to criticize the legislation you should be screaming bloody murder at the Benjamin Prichards but yet you're treating them like the victim.

So, you cannot say they are falsely advertising and lying, because the very entity you are defending for pushing implementing this legislation says so. So, now you want to go after the little guy, again? Damn, you really want Jack Daniels to control everything, don't you?

[Mayhem]

You brought up Diageo, not me.

That just means you didn't research it well enough. So now that you know on which side you're on and that the regulation didn't fuck over Benjamin Prichards are you still against this regulation?

And as you will say yes, why? Explain in detail, with facts.

[Muzjhath]

You brought up Diageo, not me. Does that mean I get to call you JDCuck? Edit: I think JDSimp is probably more timely.

I did it for liberty.

The same people who pushed this regulation say they are not mislabeling it... so you should really stop arguing against yourself.

So, you're saying it should be okay for me to produce sparkling white wine in my backyard, put "champagne" on the bottle and sell it as that? Claiming it was grown in the region with the right type of grapes and soil?
Because, right now that is your argument.

[Machismo]

I guess you don't support of liberty and freedom of speech.

Glad to now this was just one of your many lies.

It's weird how you Trumpsters have decided this is your best tactic.

- - - Updated - - -

So, you're saying it should be okay for me to produce sparkling white wine in my backyard, put "champagne" on the bottle and sell it as that? Claiming it was grown in the region with the right type of grapes and soil?
Because, right now that is your argument.

So, you're saying it should be okay for a clinic to not follow the abortion regulations being implemented?

Because, right now... that is your argument.

[Shadowferal]

Glad to now this was just one of your many lies. It's weird how you Trumpsters have decided this is your best tactic.

You're the one that claims to desire unchecked freedom of speech. But then like all your posts it was all so much bullshit anyway.

[Mayhem]

Nope, didn't say that.

Well yes, you did, if we follow your arguments that was exactly what you just said.

Oh, and this isn't marketing... no matter how much you want it to be.

Right, it's well who knows, but obviously not marketing, because Machismo

[Machismo]

That just means you didn't research it well enough. So now that you know on which side you're on and that the regulation didn't fuck over Benjamin Prichards are you still against this regulation?

And as you will say yes, why? Explain in detail, with facts.

Nope, I pointed to the smaller distilleries opposing it.

Try and keep up.

Oh, and it's not marketing.

- - - Updated - - -

You're the one that claims to desire unchecked freedom of speech. But then like all your posts it was all so much bullshit anyway.

Sorry, you Trumpsters just cannot stop lying. Don't get me wrong, I believe you Trumpsters are free to lie, just as I'm free to call it out.

- - - Updated - - -

Well yes, you did, if we follow your arguments that was exactly what you just said.



Right, it's well who knows, but obviously not marketing, because Machismo

Don't blame me, because you called it marketing.

[Mayhem]

So, you're saying it should be okay for a clinic to not follow the abortion regulations being implemented?

Because, right now... that is your argument.

No, that is not his argument. He never said anything about not following regulations, because what you argue for is the absence of regulations, as in nothing to follow. Damn it, why are you so bad at thinking?

[Machismo]

No, that is not his argument. He never said anything about not following regulations, because what you argue for is the absence of regulations, as in nothing to follow. Damn it, why are you so bad at thinking?

Great, then he'll be happy when all those new abortion regulations are finalized!!!

Err, I mean marketing.

[Shadowferal]

Sorry, you Trumpsters just cannot stop lying..

O...look at you...first everyone is nazi niw we're all Trumpsters. You're so cute I could put that in my pocket!
But we know now you're against freedom of speech...

[Machismo]

O...look at you...first everyone is nazi niw we're all Trumpsters. You're so cute I could put that in my pocket!
But we know now you're against freedom of speech...

Nah, just pointing to the lovely horseshoe in the room.

[Muzjhath]

So, you're saying it should be okay for a clinic to not follow the abortion regulations being implemented?

Because, right now... that is your argument.

I'm saying that the reason behind a regulation matters. Not who's pushing it, or their arguments for pushing it.
In your example that's dominated this thread for ten pages big corportations were on both sides. Small independents on both sides. One independent got an exception that I personally think they probably shouldn't have gained. Could have branded themselves as something new instead.

You pushing abortion regulations here is just crazy and stupid. All of the type of regulation here are made to make abortions harder to impossible to get. A thing that does cause harm, pushed by dishonest argumentation and claims they "care for the children".
Meanwhile, a regulation that puts specificity behind a label is good for the market.
Which is why I keep bringing up Champagne. Without the protected nature of that label most champagne would be far cheaper than it is.
Your actions are absolutely in a position where you thought you were on to an easy win, and missfired. But feel to entrenched to admit that fact. Since you are only throwing stones inside of your glass house instead of actually engaging with any substantial rebuttals.