"he just fought the good fight against control freaks his whole life...he loved liberty..."
HST's liberty was in self destruction, illegal snd dangerous use of firearms 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.
"I've seen through your 'forest' my son, and its not a pretty picture.
Sigh...
"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.
"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. You, OTOH, as an apparent HST insider, Constitutional scholar and right-to-choose enthusiast DO seem to have an emotional interest. How sad.
"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?
"So why the condemnation? Your vindictive rhetoric serves no real purpose..."
I have condemned him to the same extent that you champion him. For you, my critique has no value. For others, it has seemed to hit the mark and been appreciated. 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.
"Someone asked you to endorse his lifestyle? Who?"
This is nonsensical.
"Might your family have first hand knowledge on the same subject? Your words here give that impression."
You're witty.
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.
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".