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...
Oh, no, I've had quite enough of you, thanks. After all, you must have read for months, nay, years, to have attained such a primacy in debating skill. As a lowly libertarian, I can hardly hope to parry the argumentative thrusts of learned sorts as you, or heck, even follow your train of thought, me bein' slow and all. You being a reader, and all around smart dude, while I can barely get through the latest issue o' Spiderman without thumbing Websters for those multisb...multisybal...those long word thingies, I think I'll skip the heavy discussion a feller like you would have to present and thus avoid taxing my little brain.
But let me know if you ever plan to lecture on tic-tac-toe strategy or teach us slow folks how to play checkers or something that's more my speed. I can't hardly wait fer that.