"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

No, but I do think it's no worse than some of the ads that have been run by
the Dems in the past.

Or the ads the Republicans ran comparing
him to Osama bin Laden?

It never happened. The ad noted at its beginning that the United States
faced threats to its security and the screen was briefly divided into four
squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled
with images of the American military. I've seen the ad. Is it now
forbidden to challenge any Senator on his voting record and the 11 no votes
he cast regarding Homeland Security, simply because he is an amputee?


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.


Does that change the fact that Kerry wrote a book saying he was one place
when his own diary said he was somewhere else? Am I supposed to feel good
about a guy who has a place of honor in Norht Viet Nam?

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


And yours. You pulled out the bull**** about Cleland.

Get your facts straight. Then you'll stop being a doorknob.

I do have the facts straight and I don't need name calling to present them.

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. Popularity of an idea is not what legitmizes it.

Not at all what I meant.

I don't believe you.

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.

Now you are lying again, I never said any such thing.

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.

Yet another lie. I have no problem with the legitimate rights of people
being protected by law, that's what law is for. The idea that former
victimhood entitles a gorup to special treatement in perpetutity however is
wrong. The notion that you serve the cause of freedom and civil rights by
destroying property rights in also wrong.

The
marketplace, according to your arguments, is basically a
self-correcting system.


In some respects, yes.

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.

It only reacts to what people want and how best to get them what they want.
In the case of Plesy vs. Ferguson there was a role played by the
marketplace, I have not said that the market should be the sole vehicle for
change or even that it the most promenent one. Just like the Cleleand ad
you are distorting what I said in order to trry and win an arguement.

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.

Still wrong, still not relevant. How many votes do you think the Bill of
Rights would get today?
If it weren't already law, it would not pass.


While your ideas may or may not indeed be legitimate, it would seem the
marketplace has decided they are not, for whatever reasons.

Your use of the word marketplace in this context is not legitmate.


i have
decided that way because it appears to me that your position is racism
lite.

Which is also wrong and I have explained my view of racism counteless times.
Any notion that determines a person worth on anything other than his
character and values is moronic and evil.
That does not mean that you may then go ahead and destroy the concept of
private property by calling a business "public."


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.

I'm claiming only that political thought ought not to be full of
contradictions.

Or lies like the one about Cleland that you told.