From:
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:10:14 GMT

Hm. Those 'liberals' attacked Max Clelland of Georgia and questioned
his patriotism AFTER HE LOST THREE LIMBS IN VIETNAM.

Because he was drinking the Democrat Kool Aid.

Are you referring to Ann Coulter's implication that he lost his limbs
in a beer drinking accident? Or the ads the Republicans ran comparing
him to Osama bin Laden?

Or did the marketplace simply disagree with his political positions
after being offered complete information and making an informed
decision?

Then the 'liberals' questioned the military record of a decorated war
veteran 30 years after the fact and 'reinterpreted' his officer
evaluations.

You mean the former candidate for president, Herman Munster?
There seem to have been legitimate questions raised about his credibilty.

Hm. OK, so the military and his entire chain of command covered things
up so that they could suddenly attack him (coincidentally) during a
presidential election. There was no connection that (coincidentally) a
lawyer from the Bush campaign was on the board at the Swift Boats
group.

Whatever. That's over, but this does show much about your powers of
seeing things clearly.

Get your facts straight. Then you'll stop being a doorknob. If your
arguments had any merit whatsoever, more than 2% (and that percentage
has actually shrunk) of the marketplace of voters would agree with your
ideas. That it doesn't hoists you on your own petard.

Again irrelevant. Poularity of an idea is not what legitmizes it.

Not at all what I meant. I do not really care whether your ideas are
perceived as legitimate or not. You argue that the marketplace will
cure all woes, and that all good things come from the marketplace. We
don't need any kind of laws protecting classes of people historically
discriminated against, for example, because the marketplace will sense
what is best for them and will not allow things like that to occur. The
marketplace, according to your arguments, is basically a
self-correcting system.

If I accept that position, it follows that the same marketplace in
which you place so much faith will sense what is best for it and
naturally head in that direction. Percentages in elections would
therefore be on an upward trend. Since the percentage of the
marketplace that believes that libertarianism is best for it appears to
be actually shrinking, based on vote tallies, and has never exceeded a
negligible percentage anyway, one can therefore conclude, using your
own arguments, that the marketplace has rejected that set of ideas as
not best for it. Hence you are 'hoisted on your own petard.' So it is
very relevent indeed.

While your ideas may or may not indeed be legitimate, it would seem the
marketplace has decided they are not, for whatever reasons. i have
decided that way because it appears to me that your position is racism
lite.

Of course, if you are claiming to know more than everybody else, and
that your ideas are legitimate and correct in the face of what the
marketplace is calling for, and that the marketplace is therefore
incorrect, then you are running exactly counter to what you are arguing
for.