Good grief, now you're talking like a Sarah Brady type.. Thanks for outing yourself.
and chemicals and the glorification of criminals. You seem to know very little about intimate connections between liberty and responsibility. "Avaricious? - I doubt he died a particularly wealthy man...[later]...And sure, he was paid well. -- So what?" You either miss the point or you find it convenient to argue two sides. The lifestyle he was addicted to demanded the cash and he could no more enjoy "liberty" as you call it than he could fly. He needed money because he was the slave of an expensive master. Don't kid yourself; his "liberty" was inextricably tied to money.
Rave on.
I've seen through your 'forest' my son, and its not a pretty picture.
Sigh...
Sigh on. Your rant here is not a pretty picture.
Why do you still "struggle against the man"? He's dead...
I don't. I gave an opinion that you and a handful of his libertarian fans disagreed with. Until yesterday, I have never written a word about HST one way or another. After today, I doubt I will again. HST is yesterday's trash.
Another pretty picture. You're 'trashing' a man you don't even care about to make a political point.
I suspect he was terminally ill, and ended life on his own terms. Obviously, that enrages you. How sweet.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. I don't care about his passing other than yesterday's comments on the news.
Yet you care enough to continue your diatribe here. Go figure.
You, OTOH, as an apparent HST insider, Constitutional scholar and right-to-choose enthusiast DO seem to have an emotional interest.
I'm a student, not an 'authority' attempting to preach to the choir.
Care to provide the background that demonstrates the Founders were interested in a form of anarchy (liberty is the word you misused) that entailed NO personal responsibility of restraint?
Why should I try to play your 'straw man' game? --- How old are you? Do you really think that such pitiful leading questions are honest debate?
So, why the condemnation of HJT? -- Your vindictive rhetoric serves no real purpose...
I have condemned him to the same extent that you champion him.
He's not my "champion", and your condemnation seems to have no bounds.
For you, my critique has no value.For others, it has seemed to hit the mark and been appreciated.
Dream on.
For still more, it will serve to balance the MSM palaver being served. In any event, it's an expression of my freedom - HST would have approved.
I won't, however, endorse, or ignore, the romantic myth that boomer culture has granted him.
Someone asked you to endorse his lifestyle? Who?
This is nonsensical.
Not in context to your remark; -- "I won't, however, endorse" ---.
We obviously disagree about a sick man that lived a sick life. Frankly, I don't care what your thoughts are about HST anymore than you do about mine. Go pursue your liberties - given to us by men far better than the wreck you champion.
He's not my "champion", and your condemnation seems to have no bounds. You might give some thought about just who here is "sick".
“…you're talking like a Sarah Brady type...”
Go fish. My 2A credentials are just fine, thanks. HST, however, routinely threatened people, shot up places and things and shot a friend. Hardly a solid son of liberty. You still seem to know very little about intimate connections between liberty and responsibility.
“I've seen through your 'forest' my son, and its not a pretty picture.”
Thanks, Dad, but you might consider a new prescription for your glasses and I think your compass is broken.
"Avaricious? - I doubt he died a particularly wealthy man...[later]...And sure, he was paid well. -- So what?" You either miss the point or you find it convenient to argue two sides.”
My original point about his avarice still stands, evidenced by factual observation, and, again, you offer no insight, evidence or logic to the contrary.
“Why do you still "struggle against the man"? He's dead... “
Believe me, on this thread I don’t struggle against anyone. I offered my own obituary of a particularly useless life. You have taken umbrage and through initiating ad homonym attacks you reveal yourself as the one struggling.
You're 'trashing' a man you don't even care about to make a political point.
The political point is that he had no political point to his life. His political raison d'tre has nothing to do with historic American liberty. You are one of the very few here that don’t seem capable of understanding that.
“I suspect he was terminally ill, and ended life on his own terms.”
You repeat yourself and still offer no evidence to support your assertions. How do you know this - wait - I don't really care.
“Obviously, that enrages you. How sweet.”
Nope. Couldn’t be further from the truth. HST is no longer a concern. I respond only because you have addressed me, but factual discourse with you seems to be just as much a lost cause.
"Yet you care enough to continue your diatribe here. Go figure."
Again, wrong. You're consistent if nothing else. I have politely and factually responded to your...uh...posts. After this post, there is nothing more needing a reply since you offer nothing factual – only pretense and bluster. You, OTOH, as an apparent HST insider, Constitutional scholar and right-to-choose enthusiast DO seem to have an emotional interest.
“I'm a student, not an 'authority' attempting to preach to the choir.”
If you’re a student, you might share some of the nuggets about liberty and the connections to HST’s life with us all. So far you’ve provide zip. Since you claim to be a student, I would suggest that you might’ve been snookered in your education. Care to provide the background that demonstrates the Founders were interested in a form of anarchy (liberty is the word you misused) that entailed NO personal responsibility of restraint?
“Why should I try to play your 'straw man' game?”
Well, offering evidence to support your thoughts, especially when you disagree with someone, is called debate.
“How old are you?”
What bearing does that have on anything here? I strongly suspect much older than you because you still wear your emotions on your sleeve and act with petulance and malice at the drop of a hat.
“Do you really think that such pitiful leading questions are honest debate?”
Why, yes, yes I do. Again, I have supported what I say about HST with examples and facts from his life. You have yet to offer a single fact or reference to support your disagreements.
“So, why the condemnation of HST? -- Your vindictive rhetoric serves no real purpose...”
I’m not being vindictive because I have no personal connection to the man. How is one vindictive when you see a cowflop and call it a cowflop? Seems to me that the crux here is that you like the man and don’t like to hear the contrary opinions of others.
“He's not my "champion", and your condemnation seems to have no bounds.”
Actually, that’s not true. My focus in our exchange has been more about your lack than his. In any event, I have condemned him to the same extent that you champion him. However, if you’re the best he has, he is better off dead. For you, my critique has no value. For others, it has seemed to hit the mark and been appreciated.
“Dream on.”
Read the posts above.
“Someone asked you to endorse his lifestyle? Who?”
This is nonsensical. I tendered my opinion and you don’t like it. Put some ice on it.
“He's not my "champion", and your condemnation seems to have no bounds. You might give some thought about just who here is "sick".”
You’re a marvel and you're redundant. I didn’t say that he was your champion. I said that you champion him. Your apparent lack of critical reading skills might be at the root of your misunderstanding the man. We obviously disagree about a sick man that lived a sick life.
I really don't care what your thoughts are about HST anymore than you do about mine. Hang it up and go pursue your liberties - given to us by men far better than the wreck you still feebly champion.
Right on - fight the power, man!