See! You've proved his point exactly, he said that you're Tribesman and you argued against it... :nope:

Heard it's great, it's next on my list.

When you find yourself knee deep in the cesspool... just change your job title to slop jockey man and hang around until someone pukes or gets out their wallet.:03:
You'll have to pay me to go away.:rock:

oops, you have same avatar, on my phone i thought it was him, you were sure acting like him.My mistake:arrgh!:

And I don't do "ideology" so bubbles strikes himself out twice in that post:03:
Lets see if we can make it 3.

Ah yes "restraint".
You manage to get that backwards bubbles.
Like the Jones Limburghs and Becks of the world your "opponents" rely on your lack of restraint to make your ideology appear as the unhinged rant that it undeniably is.
Strike three:har:

Now, now kid. Let's not get into who's acting like what.

EDIT: You know, even though I disagree with you, I am still trying to show you how not to suck at this. You keep failing the same way over, and over again. It is frustrating to watch. I can only emphasize that you need to read more, and read more varied material before trying this sort of discourse out. I would start with your writing itself. My recommendation is the Bedford Handbook, of which I think the 8th Edition is the most recent.

http://www.amazon.com/Bedford-Handbo...dford+handbook


This little gem is standard issue for every first-year student at the institution where I teach. You would be amazed how people will take your words more seriously with better punctuation and grammar. Secondly, I would recommend Inventing the Truth, The Art of Craft and Memoir by William Zinsser. This is another required text for first year students, and is a wonderful insight into the writing of a persuasive essay.

http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Trut...illiam+zinsser


With an understanding of the fundamentals, I think that your discourse will go a long, long way.

NOTE: Amazon is down at the time of this edit, but I will post the links to them once it is back up.

EDIT 2: Links added.

@Takeda, does that Bedford Handbook include explanation of grammatical differences between British and American English or does it focus solely into American English?

Unfortunately, it is only for American English, and it won't explain the difference between the dialects. For that, I recommend John Alego's British or American English?; A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns.

http://www.amazon.com/British-Americ...6941329&sr=1-3

This is a book that I, even as a native (American English) speaker refer to on a regular basis.

One of the worst things that can happen to an obvious observation of reality, is happening in this thread: a highly polarizing statement gets the show started, in this case a book and author: and then the unfolding hack'n slay afterwards starts to give said obvious observation the looks and appearance of something hopelessly absurd and hilarious. That way, the true core in it gets overseen and actively denied.

There is no doubt in me that there is a very very obvious and strong tendency in modern Western voter-bribing democracies to bribe people to vote for political actors and parties by becoming more and more social (in the past), socialist (in the present), and communist (in the forseeable future), and that is an observation that is neither unique nor am I the first to have made it. When in the past I linked to Hoppe and Rothbard and Mises, you had the same, and it even goes back to the critical attitude of the ancient Greek regarding democracy, which for the most time they saw as something negative which better was to be avoided.

What Loudon seems to do (when I read the feedback on his books at American Amazon, and the Wikipedia entry on him) and what this thread also now does is linking this inner tendency of democracy to turn into a socialist and then communist regime it to superficial, stereotyped and person-related statements about political actor being "communist", conspiracy-linked, while missing that this is not so much a problem of conspiracy and a communist party trying to hijack nations, but that it is an integral, inbuilt, inherent trend-feature of the very democratic system itself. Seeing this means to realized that we are talking about a problem of much greater subtlety, complexity - and inherent threat, because you cannot solve it by just voting for other names, persons and parties. Without having read Loudon, I think it is possible that he exaggerates or is too superficial and stereotyped - nevertheless still points at the right direction when warning.

One thing is certain however when reading the feedback at Amazon.com: the guy is as polarizing as polarizing can go. Only 5 star and 1 star ratings. :D

Objective -- agrees with my opinion
Subjective -- disagrees with my opinion.

At least that's how it is on the Internets Tubes. :D

Also applicable to the terms "genius" and "idiot". :sunny: