Re: indy708
You mean like the way you steal and waste your bosses time posting your redundant rhetoric. I bet if you calculated the money you steal from your boss posting on boards it would be substantially more than what your hourly taxes add up to.
So, are you actually proud of your dishonesty? You certainly seem to be. As I recall, I actually took the time to address this somewhat irrelevant issue when you brought it up before. Of course, why should that matter to someone whose preferred method of winning an argument includes demonizing by repeating lies over and over? (Kind of like the tactics of some other people in history who have been mentioned in this discussion, huh?)
Do you work for the government?
No. (See how easy that was? You should try it sometime.)
>"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."<
About as clear as your understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and equal justice for all.
Nope, not even close. My understanding of these things is clear enough to know that they don't include a claim on what belongs to someone else. You, however, have removed all doubt regarding your stupidity about libertarianism.
It's just not my fault you weren't born with the ability to distinguish the difference between logic, reason, hostility and reality.
True enough. Neither of us were BORN with it. Unlike you, however, when I grew up I developed enough of a grasp on those things to use them to defend my beliefs rather than relying on dishonesty and ridicule.
So why was it you declined my offer to let you ask a couple of questions and I'd respond then I could ask a couple of questions and you could respond. I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question.
You should. I already addressed this in post #1860. But since another one of your traits is to ignore points that have already been covered, let me refresh your memory.
There are other priorities to deal with before even considering limitations on something that is as fundamental to debate as serious, relevant questions. For instance, the first thing to go should be all the lies and ridicule that you've been trying to pass off as argument. Additionally, answering some of my questions that were already on the table would also be a sign of good faith before attempting to change the rules to suit you. I also realize what a laugh it is to talk about "good faith" while referring to you at all. Accordingly, at this point, complete, unqualified retractions to at least some of your lies would also be in order.
These are all are perfectly reasonable suggestions, certainly more so than placing a strict limit on questions, so until you come clean on some of the crap you've been getting away with, there's not any reason to believe that honesty is of any importance to you, or that you would ever live up to anything you would agree to in the first place.
Because you ask 15 or 29 questions responding to a post in which no questions have been asked.
So what? Are you suffering from the delusion that the only legitimate question is one prompted by another question? Most of mine have been in response to your bullsh!t statements, and you've certainly given me plenty of material to work with. As I said before, lies always have a better chance of being passed off as truth when inquiry is discouraged, or worse, ridiculed.
Ask me one question, any question, I dare you to just ask one single question. If I have no opinion or can't even come close to a response I'll be more than happy to admit it.
Okay, just to see where you're going with this, let's try one of the more recent ones you didn't answer. It should be easy even for you, as there are only two possible choices. Do you think the Hitler Youth Movement you spoke of earlier would be more likely to encourage questions or to ridicule them?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
