Federal Government Takes Final Step to Suspend Constitution

[guerilla]

You've made hundreds of posts on here acting like you care about various issues that are related to what other humans do.

In the past.

Just in this week you made it obvious that you care about the way the press chooses to cover Ron Paul.

You mean I notice how they choose to cover Ron Paul. Correct. But I don't do anything about it because I don't care enough to.

In 2007, I was a hyper activist. Not any more. 2 years ago, I would defend all sorts of stuff. Not any more.

If Hoppe wrote in a book that in order to protect America, the Fox News covenant community must not mention Ron Paul's name - people would discuss this and I doubt you would enter the discussion and be like "Who cares? Fox News has property rights and that is just Hoppe's opinion.

You can doubt all of the hypotheticals you want. I don't care.

Which words or sentences are confusing to you? You can understand economic theories but have trouble with relatively basic reading comprehension?

Apparently.

DITTO

I am replying because if I don't, some idiot will say I am squirming, and another idiot will say I am a coward running from an argument.

I don't care that they think ill of me, and I don't care if they speak ill of me, but that arrogant ignorance masquerading as intellectual superiority does kinda get under my skin.

So that's what I care about.

If I choose to raise questions about Derek Jeter's fielding skills and then you choose to obnoxiously insist that I'm arguing that the Yankees are the greatest team, and obnoxiously tell me I need to read the baseball rulebook, then guess what, maybe I would respond to this.

If you then reply again with a comment about Derek Jeter's right to swing the bat as hard as he wants, maybe I would then post again to point out that I was only commenting on his fielding, etc.

I still have no idea how this is relevant.

Can you illustrate this with the actual arguments you and I are making, so I can verify my position is articulated correctly? This Derek Jeter example loses me.

Also, I am only carrying this on past this post out of some sick obligation I feel towards completion. In the future, I won't engage in this stuff with you. You can call it cowardice or hypocrisy or whatever. I am not worried about you thinking you're smarter than you are.

 

[Moxie]

Guerilla, I commented on a quote from a book and questioned the part about what was said would be needed in a contract designed to protect families. I was not questioning the rights of groups to have, or to enforce that or any other contract, and I don't think anyone else in here took up that position.

You then choose to quote my posts and respond as if I was presenting that argument and told me to read about property rights, etc. Even at post 117 you were still feeling a need to tell me that I would have to abide by your rules if I signed on to live in your gated community, which is a concept that I already had a clear understanding of years ago.

An analogy might be a book about Derek Jeter with a sentence stating that he would be a better fielder if he used a glove made by a different brand. I would then question if switching brands would really make that much of a difference. You would then quote my posts and act as if there was a debate taking place about Derek Jeter's right to sign an endorsement deal with whatever brand he wants; and then even at post 117 you would still be informing me that if Jeter voluntarily went to your house to play baseball he would have to wear the type of glove that you wanted him to.

 

[dreamache]

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

You guys do realize you're debating about debating about debating on the internet, right?

 

[guerilla]

You then choose to quote my posts and respond as if I was presenting that argument and told me to read about property rights, etc.

Contract theory, but then why bother with precision...

Even at post 117 you were still feeling a need to tell me that I would have to abide by your rules if I signed on to live in your gated community, which is a concept that I already had a clear understanding of years ago.

If you understood it, what was controversial about what Hoppe wrote? Rhetorical question, I'm not going to end up reading your answer.

Thanks for the chat. TTFN.

You guys do realize you're debating about debating about debating on the internet, right?

That's what Moxie does with me. Refuse to articulate a clear argument and waste hours of my day responding to him.

He's an evil genius and I am obviously an idiot.

 

[Moxie]

Refuse to articulate a clear argument

"PROVE IT" "MAKE THE CASE" - this is often your way of making it known that you are questioning something. You though are apparently holding me to a double standard where I am expected to write an encyclopedia to make it clear to you about what I'm questioning.

What can be anymore clear than asking for evidence or reasoning about why the nature worshipping homosexuals in the apartment my friend owns are a threat to families in the building?

Why can a 8th grader understand that a discussion about whether or not they are a threat can be had without discussing anything at all about contract theory?

 

[JakeStratham]

... just kidding.

 

[lukep]

^Was that meant for G & M's argument or for Uncle Sam?