3493
« on: November 18, 2006, 06:42:03 AM »
Good gravy, Crane. You said a lot of stupid things.
I noticed that you railed against asking "why" a few times. I had no idea you were so opposed to analytical inquiry, Crane. Someone wants to make his ideas of economic fairness into law, and you think asking why they should is a "mindfuck"? I was not aware such a simple question would be such a threat. As to why my question should be answered, well, if we are to be an informed populace, seems to me that "why" should be be the very first question asked when someone, regardless of that person's political affiliation, declares his opinion should be made into law. And frankly, other than trying to see how many times you could work the word "mindfuck" into your post, you gave no reasons, as in not any reasons whatever, as to why the "why" question should not be asked.
You also mentioned Grover Norquist a few times as if he were a major factor in the recent elections. Which leads me to wonder what you have been smoking.
Neither Jim Webb nor George Allen were favorites of the libertarians. Both are generally considered less than the brightest bulbs in the box. And yes, I have noticed people on both sides of the political aisle "expose" themselves. Some of them I would have thought to have known better than to hold racist and/or xenophobic ideas. But then these days, fear of others is so politically in vogue, isn't it Mr. "torches and pitchforks"?
It is amusing and interesting that you would bring up the Boston Tea Party in a discussion of someone wanting his economic ideas made into law so that everyone else must obey them. I would ask if you are suggesting people should rise up in active protest to government taxation they consider unfair, but of course you're not. Clearly, however, you seem to have misunderstood the nature of the protest of the Boston Tea Party.
In another bit of amusing linguistic silliness, you talk about "vigilance against the foxes in the henhouse"—one of the core concepts of libertarian politics—and try to deride libertarian ideas in the same sentence. I say try, because there is no such thing as a libertarian idea about existing either without or outside of a political construct. You're just making up complete inanities and then trying to argue that they're inane. You have made what is commonly known as a strawman argument.
"[M]indfuck metaphors of megaego narcissism"? Wow. Nice turn of phrase, I'll give you that. But "emerging from caves" and "torches and pitchforks" and "metaphorize the math", et cetera, are all silly metaphors you've used in your post to prance around without addressing the issues and to serve your own apparent desire to appear moralistically superior. To put it politely, you're a fraud.
As for your bonfire and "reeducation camp" ideas, it's interesting to see your tyrannical side come out so soon after you've talked about the nature of liberty. But of course I thank you for being so "forgiving" as to want to see me forcibly made to agree with you. That is so much more "enlightened" than the libertarian idea of letting people decide for themselves what to think. Who says you liberal folks don't care about personal freedoms?
The most asinine, and perhaps most illuminating, comment in your post you saved for last. After speaking of seeing seeing me and those like me forced into "reeducation camps" you then accuse me of embracing a "draconian contract". Your thinking is truly warped if you think "reeducation camps" is forgiving but allowing people freedom is draconian. Or you're using your thesaurus without knowing what the words mean. Or perhaps some of both.
Whatever the case, you seem not to know what you're talking about. I recommend you rectify that before you start trying to play out of your league again.
Show Posts