I’m not sure what you’re getting in in the hypothetical case, I prefer to deal with what people have written as their own beliefs. We can engage in hypotheticals another time.

Anyone supporting the war (or any voter, really) is complicit in the crimes the State commits. S&A made the point earlier. You may not label yourself a bloodthirsty maniac (who would?) but nonetheless you are complicit in the crime that is an aggressive invasion of another sovereign country.

As I stated earlier, if I’m guilty of anything, it’s hyperbole. Let’s deal with the subject matter and not semantics, mmmkay?

That’s a hell of a binary world you’ve got going in your head there.

Like I said, if I’m guilty of anything, it’s hyperbole. But I’m not tailoring my words because J. Ewing never referred to his wartime support as “bloodlust” … that’s just semantics.

The way to prove me wrong would be to cite (and I know that’s a sticking point for you) something J. Ewing has written wherein he doesn’t support the war, or speaks out in support of natural law.

I’m giving you a BIG hint here, Kev…

My ego is firmly entrenched, yes, but it has nothing to do with defeating you two intellectual lightweights in debate. It’s difficult to derive much joy from winning a game of chess against someone who doesn’t understand checkers.

I’ll stick with it as long as I get a laugh out of it, though. Comedic value is about all this site has going for it.

“Sorry, but the very freedom you claim is our universal right must always permit me to hold a different opinion, regardless of what you believe it ought to be.”

Either you misspoke or I’m right. Either way, you should explain yourself or enjoy a big ol’ plate of crow. You can share with Kevin…but he’s probably full. He’s been eating his words for five days now.

And spare me the “you didn’t find my exact words in context” rebuttal – it’s easy to extrapolate that you do not believe in universal freedom for all people based on your words above. From that, one can deduce that your endorsement of warfare (and subsequent refusal to fight) is rooted in cowardice and hypocrisy because you endorse the killing of foreigners and Americans in the name of “democracy” by voting.

Liberal thinking? Ha! Classical liberal, yes, but not today’s liberal. Keep talking, J. Ewing, I’m enjoying the show. I never claimed to be intellectually superior to anyone (methinks that’s a product of your imagination, although I appreciate your complimenting my imagination)…I only defended natural law.

You paying attention, Kevin? THAT’S how you cite sources and win arguments.

where the hell did you find these assholes?

You attract the worst trolls

it gives me a headache to see how difficult they can be

Given that, I don’t know how many converts you are getting. Or that anyone is interpreting my writings as “stupid”. Not that I really care, because anyone that starts a blog based upon anyone’s opinions but their own is headed for disaster.

I shared my opinion of Lew Rockwell and his rantings. The fact that you don’t agree doesn’t change my opinion at all….in fact in these circumstances it actually reinforces them.

And really it hits right on what J. Ewing just said, and I think he nailed it…

that you are intellectually superior to everyone else– and proven by the fact that you take such offense when your ideas are challenged. Challenging your ideas is a personal attack because you consider your intellectual superiority essential to your personal image of yourself.

Looked at differently, S&A are helping your case. By spending all of your time “refuting” (ha) S&A and I we are preventing you from writing more garbage that only underscores your stupidity. You’re welcome in advance.

Yeah, it’s a silly thing to ask for proof whenever you make a broad-based comment about someone you clearly know nothing about. Excuse me if I don’t want to rely upon your “experience” to justify your claims.

“So long as someone harbors bloodlust for brown people overseas…”

“Your unabashed support for warfare and intervention… ”

“… you don’t think everyone is entitled to his life and his property?”

Now I defy you to find any of these things in what I’ve posted. I submit that you have created these gross and offensive mischaracterizations out of your fevered imagination and obsession for being right all the time. It’s typical liberal thinking– that you are intellectually superior to everyone else– and proven by the fact that you take such offense when your ideas are challenged. Challenging your ideas is a personal attack because you consider your intellectual superiority essential to your personal image of yourself.

Far be it from me to disturb you of that delusion. Please do me the same courtesy henceforth. If you want to debate the topic at hand, whatever the heck it was, in a reasonable and respectful manner, have at it. If you know how.