[presidio9]

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.

[bamahead]

Why would I bother to refute your points when you haven’t even acknoledged mine? I clearly posted the paragraph you claimed I haven’t even read in post 30, and made several points of my own. Your only counterpoint was that you thought Reagan was a liar and a political panderer.

You really expect people to carry on a debate with you after you refuse to acknowledge any point that the person you’re trying to goad has made? That ain’t how it works, pal.

And your integrity is on display for everyone here to see.