I don't represent any party but myself, but I can see you're certainly part of one from which I will absent myself, even through the bright shine of thousands of lumens of your blazing hubris. What you know of conservatives, having rated Nixon as the third greatest Republican of the century, I would consider just as worthy of discussion as those great controversies like "how many Adam Smith truisms can dance on the head of a Milton Friedman philosophical pin," and that discussion would be every bit as brief.
Pardon my intrusion into the arrogant little universe that is you. I'll try not to bother your self-worship again.
Thanks; I prefer it that way when it comes to those of your stripe.
"What you know of conservatives, having rated Nixon as the third greatest Republican of the century, I would consider just as worthy of discussion as those great controversies like "how many Adam Smith truisms can dance on the head of a Milton Friedman philosophical pin," and that discussion would be every bit as brief."
C'mon, fess up: you never really have read "The Wealth of Nations" from cover to cover, despite the brave pretensions, have you?
You're quite right: such a discussion would probably be brief, indeed, since I've likely forgotten more about Adam Smith, Friedman, Rand, et al than most so-called "libertarians" have bothered to learn. I've read their books, after all.
That's not "hubris": it's just plain old fact.
Sorry for being so well-read and educated. Sorta...