So, in Libertopia, rights still accrue to those with political clout, and political clout still accrues to those with property, but they just acquire the property by different means. OK, fine. Then what was the point of your comment (“I appreciate your making that point because it is a point I’ve often made: rights in America accrue to those with the greatest political clout.”)? Or did you have one?
It’s a matter of something you wouldn’t understand: ethics. It is the ethic of earning wealth by peaceful honest means versus the ethic of taking wealth from other people just because you can.
Maybe it’s time for you to pull out your December card.
From my initial post:
The Secret Service agent in question has complained about Kerry’s treatment, top sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
Christ, talk about taking a quote out of context. Read it again:
Some who have encountered this story have stopped to ponder if perhaps the Senator voiced his “son of a bitch” characterization in an affectionate or playful manner, as some are wont to do in reference to acquaintances they feel particularly close to. Or, that the remark had been delivered in a tone of pretend anger as a way of ruefully admitting how inglorious the collision must have appeared to onlookers. Yet those theories wash out upon examination of the earliest account. According to The New York Times’ description of the incident, Senator Kerry wasn’t joking — he was pissed off
Which doesn’t even come close to answering the question I posed. Why did you feel it necessary to remark that rights accrue to those with political clout? We all know this to be true. Regrettable, but true. It’s not at all clear to me how the philosophy you espouse would alter this sad reality. Rights would still accrue to those with political clout.
Are you arguing that it would be more acceptable in a libertarian society, because that political clout had been achieved “honestly?” If so, I say, “Nonsense, it would still be a sorry state of affairs.”
Are you arguing that Kerry shouldn’t have political clout because he earned his money dishonestly? How so?
At last, I believe we have found common ground. 
I do agree that you believe it would still be a “sorry state of affairs” if peaceful honest people were permitted to pursue their own happiness in their own way. That is because you are a communist, believing yourself to be entitled to the fruits of other men’s labor. For you, your own failures are mitigated only by the failures of others. You are jealous of wealth no matter whether it is earned or stolen. Frankly, I believe that your hijack of this thread has gone on long enough. If you simply must nip at my ankles, muster sufficient decency to take it elsewhere.
Another wild swing! It’s going deep, deep,… but drifting foul. In a state that distributed wealth even more than our current system does, I’d be on the losing end. I’m curious - which of “my failures” are you referring to?
You fucking little weasel. The thread hijack started here:
What a miserable, lying, dishonest little prick you have become.
No, it’s really more of a cyclical thing. When I first joined the boards four years ago, it was a running joke that Lib would find a way to hijack almost any GD thread imaginable towards a discourse on the virtues of his brand of libertarianism. Then he settled down and became a thoughtful, passionate, and intelligent advocate of his views, confining them to appropriate threads and not treating debates merely as a way to score rhetorical points. Now the pendulum, she is swang again.
What other political worldviews do you prohibit from expression aside from mine? Because, God knows the Demublicans and Republicrats damn sure express theirs whenever and wherever they please. All I did was agree with a statement that had already been made by Diogenes. Where is your ire over his pointing out that the whole thing is nothing more than a Senator exercising his political clout? Why the hell can’t you let me express my opinion and then leave me in peace? If you want to argue with my opinion, then do so. But otherwise, don’t pretend you’re doing anything other than hijacking a thread to make some big fucking stink over me as a person for no good reason. Cycles my ass. How about cycling yourself back out of my loop?
And this, ladies and gentleman, explains why we’ve had such lackluster candidates for the office of President of the United States lately. With the advent of 530 news stations, the press is unrelenting in its effort to get the next “story.” And since neither party has the balls to promote a candidate whose personality isn’t bleached beyond recognition, the press can’t find anything titilating to report.
So now we are now discussing an $850 catering bill and a presidential candidate who uttered the words, “Son of a bitch.”
::Sigh::
There are tons of qualified, dynamic individuals out there who will NEVER run for office because the press is so vociferous in their zeal to dig up dirt. They know that one day some news reporter will dig up some ancient picture of him at the frathouse and ask in front of America if he ever smoked marijuana. And it just won’t be worth it to him to put up with that sort of character assassination.
So we’re doomed to have white-washed candidates. Quite frankly, I’d gleefully cast my vote for the first candidate who said to a reporter, “Gay marriage? What is the big fucking deal?”
And yet, earlier in this thread you were agreeing with somone who opined that the campaign shouldn’t have to pay the airport because of the manner in which the work was done. Why shouldn’t the campaign pay this private business the full facilities use surcharges they agreed to when they chose to land and store the plane on the business’ property?
Again, I really have no problem with believing Kerry might be a prick. But I DO have trouble believing that the Secret Service said word one about Kerry, Drudge’s *unnamed * ‘top sources’ not withstanding. I’m pretty sure I would need one of these sources to go on the record.
You see what I’m getting at? Even if they felt, in their heart of hearts, that Kerry was the biggest slimeball on the planet, the Secret Service would keep their mouths shut about it. I do not believe they would talk about Kerry. I do not believe they would talk about Bush.
Am I alone in this belief?
Yes, I agreed until my misimpression was corrected. If they did indeed provide the service after all, then they should be paid.
Ah, gotcha. So long as you understand that from the airport’s perspective the “service” might be as slight as “vetting potential caterers in advance and letting them traipse across the tarmac,” even if in one case or another the airport didn’t provide storage, refrigeration, etc.
I’m glad the campaign coughed up. And of course, the fact that running a little FBO at a destination resort is something of a dream retirement job for me has nothing whatsoever to do with it. 
You’re not alone.