So instead of responding to the text of the article, you rant about the
I am not going to analyze adverts from your site - if you have to say something say it here - as I tried to explain in simple terms, spamming with canned stuff is not the point of a discussion. Or is it too expensive for you in cognitive terms to come up with arguments yourself ?
author. That's intellectual integrity about on the level of many of those anti-property rights protests.
Your perception is impaired. I never mentioned the author. *You* qualified author as "Cato's". Another granfallooning. I simply pointed that out and re-qualified what you implied about Cato, in your manner of using implied values to build a point out of nothing.
The problem is that the protesters have no coherent message. Take this bit of silliness:
This is not bad in itself. Single-mindedness is not really a quality I am looking for. Are they all supposed to be warriors for the same idea ? Where did you get that ?
Does anyone really think that breastfeeding is a right anytime, anywhere? Don't I have a right to tell someone to leave my home if they're doing it at a gathering I'm hosting on my property? (I wouldn't, but that's not the point.)
These are rhetorical questions. The answers are supposed to be, let me see ... "no" and "yes" ? The analogy is false, of course. Take a look at US propaganda shorts from 50-ties and learn what to avoid.
Yep. And it's also pretty accurate. The protesters have no coherent message,
There it goes again. Is it too hard to understand that these people are not corporate employees adhering to company's policies ? Declan, you proved beyond any doubt that you have nothing to say. You just talk an re-shuffle buzzwords you deem popular. You are also incompetent propagandist - I do enjoy discussing with the skilled ones, though. Therefore I see no point in furthering this exchange. Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/