Re: indy708
The difference is that you people discriminate against the very poorest in our society.
And how exactly is it "discrimination" to oppose anyone taking by force what doesn't belong to them? If anything, doesn't allowing some people to do this "discriminate" against those they are taking from?
You know you don't have the stroke to attack the rich ...
And this is what you think we would do if we only had the "stroke" to do so? Yeah, you continue to make your "understanding" of libertarianism quite clear.
... so you feel as if you can improve your personal wealth by not contributing to the poor.
So, basically, you just keep repeating lies over and over, and when corrected on them, you just repeat them some more, right? Why, that sounds like a tactic that might be used by the very people you're trying to associate libertarians with, doesn't it? For instance ...
The nazi's did much the same thing except they had the numbers to attack the rich by turning it into an ethnic redistribution of the wealth.
Boy, if you take out the ethnic part, that DOES sound familiar. But for some reason, it reminds me of somebody other than libertarians, especially that whole "redistribution of the wealth" thing. So, does that mean that those who support such redistribution remind you of nazis? Also, since the nazis had the "numbers" to do this, and I know such things are important to you, does that mean you would have been right in their agreeing with them at the time?
Perhaps you may see me as bankrupt in terms of legitimate criticisms be cause I tend to agree with the majority on issues of how we contribute to the well being of our society as a whole.
I see you as bankrupt in terms of legitimate criticisms because you don't have any, and you keep falling back on "majority" arguments like this one. And if anything, I find it slightly encouraging. Though it is rare, the majority has been known to occasionally shift its thinking, and sometimes it even seems to occur with issues that are based on little more than .. well, majority thinking.
Besides, the majority of people have never heard of libertarianism anyway, and most of those who have don't have an accurate view of what it is really about. That's certainly consistent with what's been going on around here. The fact that you and mikkj can get so many things so wrong, and remain so confident about your errors, is an example of the problem, and a testament to the quality of "majority" thinking.
Then again, if you stand a butt ugly woman up next to a very attractive woman why do you suppose it is that the majority would agree about which was better looking?
Because it's something that doesn't require a lot of thought, that's why. Besides, the difference is that if I see a beautiful woman, and the overwhelming majority of those around me express the view that she's ugly, it's not going to sway my opinion in the least. Some of us think for ourselves, others follow the crowd all their lives. (Thanks for the softball question, by the way.)
See you just have a butt ugly, utopian, political agenda and the majority can recognize that fact a glance.
Well, you got the "political agenda" part right. That's pretty much what "political" parties are for. Too bad that, in true Indy fashion, you've taken no responsibility for establishing the relevance of the terms "ugly" or "utopian".
The "Parrot Boy" reference was in direct relation to Spallz being sucked into this whole politico, socio-ecconomic ideal, when it has such a strong resemblance to the Hitler Youth Movement.
And do you think that the majority that you love so much would agree with this particular assessment?
He's a bright young guy that could do great things and I'm just dissapointed that he would fall for the same kind of rhetoric that caused his people to suffer so dearly at the hands of other bright young men and women who were brainwashed by a utopian charismatic movement.
That's funny. If anything, the "Hitler Youth Movement", and anything that even remotely resembles them, tend to argue a LOT more like you do than like Spall does. He has demonstrated an ability to actually think, to address challenges to his position, point by point, using arguments based in logic and reason, to remain civil, etc., all traits which are as noticeably absent from your own posts as they are from most of the rhetoric of such movements.
If you don't know that many of the weakest links in the chain ..
I guess I shouldn't be surprised if a "chain" is how you view humanity.
... would be deprived by the institution of your political agenda ...
"Deprived" of what? The ability to take what doesn't belong to them?
... then I feel more of a sense of pity for you than anger toward you.
Yes, that's so evident from the fact that you're trying so hard to use logic and reason, rather than hostility, to make your case.
You might as well go play pin the tail on the donkey as try and pin me down.
So, you can get something right after all. Too bad it's merely an admission of one of your own failures.
Though your questions are long, tedious, boring and redundant ...
Well, some of them are long, I'll give you that. I realize that some of you have some attention span problems, but given the fact that you tend to dodge most of them anyway, what difference does it make?
As to "tedious" and "boring", that's probably how I'd expect anyone to refer to questions they were stumped by.
Now, about this "redundant" thing. I have repeated a few questions that you never answered, so the redundancy of those questions is merely a reflection of your own "redudancy" in continuing to dodge them. Of course, since I've pointed this out before, and yet you keep bringing it up again anyway, the fact that I am explaining it again at all is yet another example of YOU creating redundancy in the discussion. In fact, I'm pretty sure that just about anything you could specifically point to in any of my posts that's been "redundant" is a direct result of you, or one of the others, being redundant yourselves.
... they aren't really that much of a task to respond to.
I guess you somehow see your failure to answer most of them as evidence of this, right?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
