Replies

Which gets us back to this interview. It's clear that none of you have read it, because each of you missed the hext paragraph:

If you weren't so daft and self righteous, and actually bothered to process information, you'd realize that I posted that paragraph in post 30, and even BOLDED the portions I thought relevant:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2474831/posts?page=30#30

Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. That's the beginning of his very next answer, and there is not a libertarian alive today who could agree with it.

Another pantload of fecal matter. This is exactly what libertarians believe. The very core of libertarian philosophy is that an individual should be able to do whatever he desires in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness - so long as it does not impact another individuals liberty to pursue the same. The *ONLY* laws which libertarians would even argue are constitutional are laws that codify this sole limit to human liberty.

You know, you really have no authority to define what libertarians believe, because you've already proven yourself on this thread to be completely dishonest ,and ignorant. But that doesn't seem to stop you from fortifying the little mental construct you seem to thrive from within.

It's obvious you have not answers for the twenty or thirty comprehensive and profound points I made in my post, ranging from the nature and character of Ronald Reagan, to the substance of his presidency, to the content of the interview, to the nature of conservatism. You addressed none of these. There is no valid answer to many of them, other than "you're right." That's why you went with the personal attacks, and the isistence that libertarians believe a government exists to protect us from each other. That may be part of it for some libertarians. It is most definitely not for others.

Meanwhile, virtually everything else I posted to you would seem to discedit virually everthing you claim to believe about Ronald Reagan, and you chose to ignore it. I find that curious. Is it because it just makes you uncomfortable, or because you have no rebuttal? I know its the latter, but it's fun to so how much of a hole an opprobrious character like yours is willing to dig for itself.

Confronted with 20 better possibilities, you still chose to salvage some pride by offering your own incorrect interpretation of a 35 year year-old quote. If you accept the rest of it without rebuttal, that makes you completely wrong. At that point, you're arguing because it hurts to much to admit you're wrong.

By the way, you didn’t need to ping the other two guys in for help. I did that before, because I was answering all three of your similar posts at the same time. If you had any confidence in your response to me, you would have let your words stand on your own, and let the others show up when they decided to.