reason.com: No Military Immunity

[Hubbs]

Really? your response is to throw more bull**** on the pile? Show me where I said "libertarians want a nuke to go off in Washington".

My comment was in response to this...

Oh, that's even more funny than you could possibly realize at the moment. But I'll get back to that. You're presenting me with two ways to take your incredibly sensationalistic posts:

1) You really, truly, honestly don't understand the impression you give off with your words. Let's break down the way you elegantly entered the thread by doing your best to impersonate a bull entering a China shop. You begin: "Once again the libertarian over-reaction to every issue comes into play." Exactly what part constitutes the "over" part of the reaction? Who knows? You certainly don't provide much of an explanation, unless it's hidden somewhere. Let's find out.

"Al Qaeda is working on nukes. By all means, lets stop prosecuting the war on them and bring our boys home. I'm sure they wouldn't use that opportunity to re-group and bring the fight back to us." Do we actually have ourselves some meat here? Maybe. It's possible that, in an effort to declare to the world as quickly as possible that a libertarian has had a thought and this makes you absolutely furious, you forgot that the "bring our boys home" stance has been associated just as much with liberals as it has been with libertarians. On the other hand, that still wouldn't address the fact that "bring our boys home" generally isn't associated with ending special ops activities, the worldwide efforts of our intelligence agencies, drone attacks, missile strikes, and cooperation with other governments. It's not synonymous with "stop prosecuting the war on [Al Qaeda]."

"After all, that would be much cheaper than a nuke going off in New York City or Washington DC. I honestly believe Libertarians will be the death of this country." First of all, um, no, it most certainly wouldn't be cheaper. Second, and this is far more important, it doesn't matter whether or not you literally said the words, "I think libertarians want NYC to be nuked." When you go on a rant about how libertarians would take a nuke going off in NYC over the Bush Doctrine because "it's cheaper" and you close by saying, "I honestly believe Libertarians will be the death of this country", you make Glenn Beck look like a calm, rational person. And I specifically wanted to mention Beck because he's the unquestioned master of using the most explosive and hyperbolic language possible to imply all sorts of things without actually saying them, then going back and saying, "I didn't say liberals wanted to end capitalism. I just spent an hour getting red in the face about how their policies would completely wreck their economy."

I also wanted to mention Beck because he illustrates the second way to take your posts:

2) You know very well how you sound, and just enjoy coming off that way.

It's possible, after all. Explains the username. If you're going to do that, however, you might want to at least make sure you line up your targets right. Remember how I said your claim that you were responding to "Bring them home and then let's get real about doing something about the deficit" when going off on your rant about libertarians was funny? Well, it was because that was said by ASF, who is not... drumroll please... a libertarian.

But don't worry. Rush Limbaugh has Pavlovian reactions like yours every time someone says the word "liberal" within earshot, and there are still some people who take him seriously.

As for your assessment of my responses to you, let's just say that all of the above should provide more than enough of an explanation as to why those aren't my responses to anyone who tries to discuss defense policy like a normal person.

[ACW]

A grammar policeman should know better than to have a sentence like "That's there's no waste or fraud" in the middle of a post callling out someone else for a mistake.

Self-owned

Only I'm picky about the small-l thing.