I said "In any case, it was nice of you to admit that you didn't even read the article and therefore could not make an intelligent comment on it's contents." Your exact words.
To be honest, I didn't even read this article.
I rest my case.
However, since you would like to reflect on the relative "intelligence" of my comments, let's review yours
My statement is above, it says you couldn't comment intelligently (on the article) because you admitted that you hadn't read it. You then started to attack Browne and libertarians instead of addressing what he said. To do so would be a problem for you because what he said was correct. So,,change the subject and go on the attack, typical tactics of evasion.
For you to claim that Harry does not speak for the Libertarian party when he has run for President under the banner two, three, who knows how many times, shows up on TV under the banner, and writes articles for WND under the banner is a ludicrous statement.
If Browne speaks for us now, David Duke speaks for you now. It's simple. The only thing ludicrous is that you can't see it.
Btw, you not knowing how many times he ran and then trying to claim that he writes a column as a representative of the Libertarian party is also ludicrous.
So ludicrous, I might say it reflects nicely on my earlier statement about how reasoned debate with you guys is fruitless.
Reasoned debate to you guys is when you make a point and no one answers. Agree with me or it isn't a reasoned debate, seems to be you idea of it.
And Bob Dole may have been a lousy candidate for president, but when his obituary gets written, included will be how he was a war hero, a Senate Majority leader, and how he was leading the charge during the Florida recount fiasco.
You are right, lets not pick on old Bob Doleful. After all the "tax collector for the welfare state" was a sucessful politicion. ( boy, isn't that a recommendation) He loved big government and showed it. I guess by your standard he is your eternal spokesman. No wonder the Republicans suck so much.
What's Harry ever done besides slam the government and advocate legalizing dope?
Both of those things are worthy activites, but heres a news flash for you;
THIS ISN"T ABOUT THE AUTHOR, IT'S ABOUT WHAT HE SAID. Which of course you and the others are trying to avoid discussing.
To place Harry and Bob Dole in the same sentence is to insult Bob in a pretty big way.
I have no problem with insulting what he did and stood for while in elected government positions. His heroism in war is admirable, I salute him for it.
I wish I could find out what the Republican party/movement/cult stood for so I could take pot shots at them "party/movement/cult". Gosh, where did you come up with that? Oh, yeah, I said it. I guess the best you could come up with is to take my words and throw them back at me.
Precisely my intention. It highlighted your cheap shot and showed it for what it was. Mission accomplished.
If a recommendation to find a new spokesman, and tone down the drug rhetoric until after you actually elect someone to high office is a "pot shot" in your book, so be it. I thought it was a reasonable suggestion.
It would be reasonable if it was made in good faith. But what is your suggestion? That we use force to prevent Browne from speaking his mind? Not too reasonable. Maybe you support the WOD but we don't and have no intention of skirting the issue that is the most responsible for the dilution and usurpation of our rights just because it is unconfortable.
But you see, that's the problem I mentioned. Reasonable discussion is out of the question with you guys. You're right, everybody else is wrong, and there is no middle ground. Doesn't make for much of a debate, does it?
Oh I see, we have to say you are right and we are wrong in order to have a reasoned debate? Amazing diatribe.
Now I'll give you a hint, we think you are wrong, if we didn't we would be you.( and helping to destroy the country one baby step at a time)
What exactly was the "attack"? That people (other than libertarian die-hards) turn off Brown when he starts talking? That to put the WOD in the forefront of your platform is a non-starter with Joe/Jane Sixpack? If those are attacks, I'd hate to see what you define as suggestions.
To be honest, I didn't even read this article.
You are absolutely correct, those are my words. They are taken out of context, but those are my words. In their proper context, they merge nicely with my position that I didn't have to read this particular article to know exactly where Harry stands, because I've read so many other articles by him that I've got it down. Once you've heard a song 500 times, you don't hear anything in the 501st listening you didn't catch already.
If Browne speaks for us now, David Duke speaks for you now. It's simple. The only thing ludicrous is that you can't see it.
I can't even respond to that. I'm only re-printing it so you can see how silly it looks in print. I'm hoping that sounded better in your head.
Reasoned debate to you guys is when you make a point and no one answers
Hardly. Reasoned debate is when someone makes a point, and another party either refutes the point with logic, or debates individual precepts within the point. For example:
* I stated my opinion that in order for libertarians to make successful runs at higher office, their preoccupation with the WOD should move to the back burner, and that once office is acheived, and you have a platform for national debate, you'll probably get further.
* A reasoned reply would have been a) we need to keep the WOD as a front-burner issue because (insert reason here) or b) that's an interesting idea, why do you feel that way? or c) any other reply besides what you came up with, which was to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and the Libertarian favorite "We're right, everybody else is wrong".
Maybe you support the WOD but we don't and have no intention of skirting the issue that is the most responsible for the dilution and usurpation of our rights just because it is unconfortable
Nice to see you're paying attention. Please point to the statement I made detailing my position on the WOD. Don't bring up what I said the Libertarian party should do to win elections, show me where I told you my position as to its validity. Come back after you don't find it.
Now I'll give you a hint, we think you are wrong,
Gee, there's something I didn't know. Thank you for (unwittingly) making my point for me. I've been polite, presented an argument, and tried to debate. You have told me I was cheap-shotting, helping to destroy the country, questioned my intelligence, and made ridiculous leaps of judgement like this one -
*That we use force to prevent Browne from speaking his mind?
I've looked, but I just can't see where I said that. So I'll close with this. Debate with you guys IS impossible, because it deteriorates into name-calling and baseless accusations (just like this exchange). It is like arguing with liberals, the only difference is at least you guys pretend you want to discuss things until someone disagrees with you.
Well, this has been "fun", but now I have find some way to destroy the country one step at a time, so I must take my leave. You can hang around here with the rest of your cheering section and congratulate yourselves on that 2-3% of the vote you consistently pull down.