> Ok, so we are going to talk serious. The flaw is not that you call me > "retarded" or "full of crap", those are just childish name calling and > are taken as such. The thing is that you need to resort to a personal > or > character attack, which usually means that you have no other resources > left.
I don't need to--it's just that that's all you respond to. I've put forth many a tightly-reasoned argument, and usually the response from you is crickets. The only time you jump in is when you think you can make some smarmy joke out of something. My flaw is I engage it, and occasionally let my emotions get the better of me. > > In this case I was not mocking your typo, thought it was some kind of > expression I didn't know. I just quoted "ruly elite" to refer to those > mythical Danes. Nope it was a typo. > > > your analogy is flawed on several levels and I don't I buy > > the assertion that they are "happier" in the first place---happiness > being, > > as it were, a subjective thing. > > In that case why didn't you say so in the first place, instead of > questioning their system? I didn't question their system, but your valuation that it was somehow obviously superior. > No, I differ. The article makes more sense (although a bit > oversimplified) to me. Whatever. You just liked the conclusion--that Denmark is "happier". > Why do you equate socialism with tyranny. It denotes a big gap in your > political knowledge. No the gap is in yours. Socialism is a form of statism, which is a form of tyranny. The state makes most important life decisions for you, ostensibly to protect you from making bad decisions and to ensure everybody has "equality"; and it takes most of your income to do with it what it pleases, based on whoever the ruling party is at the time. How is it not a form of tyranny? > These socialist countries (Denmark, Sweden, etc) > are way more democratic and free than yours. Really? In what way am I less free than a Dane? > > Do you really think you are hated in most South America and in oh so > many other places just because we don't like your faces? Or because we > envy you? C'mon! I don't think we're hated everywhere, and that claim is a gross over-simplification of the world's view of us. A great many people around the world love us and what we stand for. Conversely, there are people even here in the US, our own citizens, who hate us and what we stand for. There are some aspects of us worth loving, other areas where we could be a lot better. Generally speaking, if you believe in economic freedom and religious liberty, you'll love us, and if you believe in state-controlled economic policy and either a.) enforcement of a single religion, or b.) wiping out of all religion, then you'll hate us. If most of the world "hates us" it is as much a reflection on them as it is us. Worrying what my friends thought of me never got me anywhere in life. Taking a stand and changing whatever wasn't working for me --and having the freedom to do so, yea, even to make mistakes and suffer the consequences--has been very good for me. - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
