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.
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.
Here are your attacks, starting incidentally, with your very first post.
"Not wanting to be a fool,"
Too late, Harry.
I said (in a nutshell) that Harry is a tired, boring representative of the Libertarian party and since I have already heard his pitch a million times I don't need to re-read the same drivel over and over again to know what he stands for.
Harry just sounds like a bitter, tired loser. He doesn't bring anything new to the table, it's just the same stuff, over and over.
I think if the libertarian party/movement/cult
I count three attacks on Browne and one at the Libertarian party in the form of the word "cult". I counted no refutation of any point Browne made in his article. Which of course was impossible because you didn't read it. Your intention was to attack Browne and Libertarians, not to refute the facts about his subject.
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.
I addressed your comment in the proper context, namely that of you addressing the content of the article. Browne is your focus, not the contents, it was/is apparent. The context was correct.
Reasoned debate to you guys is when you make a point and no one answers
Reasoned debate is when someone makes a point, and another party either refutes the point with logic, or debates individual precepts within the point.
Your points were off topic. And I answered them point by point.
"We're right, everybody else is wrong".
Please cite where I said that or kindly withdraw the quote.
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.
The word maybe is the key here. I never said what your position was or is. I don't know your position nor do I care.
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.
I wasn't looking for it because I never asserted that you took a postion.
I've been polite, presented an argument, and tried to debate.
The only arguments you tried to make were off topic. And polite isn't the word for someone who starts his first post by calling someone a fool.
You have told me I was cheap-shotting,
The "fool" remark was a cheap shot and the "cult" remark was a cheap shot too.
helping to destroy the country,
I never said that. I said the Republican party was helping to destroy the country and I stand by that statement. If you are supporting them you should wonder if you are part of the problem.
questioned my intelligence,
I questioned whether or not it is an intelligent response to an article to call the author a "fool" without reading the article. I still question the response.
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.
I never said you stated that. I asked a question. It was no leap to ask someone what they would suggest when they advocate dumping a person as spokesman who is not an offical spokesman. Plain to most people, but you made it impossible not to ask the question.
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).
Debate is impossible in light of what I have just posted, not because I'm a libertarian. I didn't call you any names and I have made no baseless accusations.
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.
You finally got around to the last gasp before you drown. That Libertarians are wrong because they have yet to find a way to break into the closed two party system with major electoral success. If ever there was a goofy argument that is it.
I will hand it to you and the rest of the crowd however, they have succeeded again at evading the central points of an article by changing the subject to something or someone else. The points about Bush are correct and none of you have refuted them. Of course you couldn't from the git-go, because you never read them. It didn't keep you from commenting however, and as I first pointed out, it isn't very intelligent to respond to an article by attacking the messenger.