On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, here it is right here:
>
>
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=86dd0277-c6ee-4e3c-83e9-0bb468c5c40d&p=2
>
> Daniel Fischel is one. There is also Richard Epstein, a prominent
> libertarian. Now say, "Thanks for giving me this information that I
> asked for!" And I will be all like, "You're welcome, you fascist
> weirdo, you!" And then you'll be all like, "ZOMG I am not a fascist"
> and I'll be all like, "Are too!"
>
> Regards,
>
> Barrett Brown
> Brooklyn, NY
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was hoping for someone a bit smarter and polite than you, but I
>> suppose this is about the highest quality of debate I can expect to
>> get.
>>
>> But if we are going to debate, you need to start by not making
>> nonsensical accusations about me. For instance, I am not voting for
>> Obama. I am a libertarian. I simply prefer Obama to McCain. Second of
>> all, the matter of Obama editing papers was not the only reason I have
>> shared. If you can start by acknowledging that this is the case,
>> instead of beginning with nonsense, then I will take the trouble of
>> going through my New Republics to find the article on Obama's
>> relationship with the conservative U of C professors.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:00 AM,
greatbanana@frontiernet.net
>> <
greatbanana@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>> so,
>>>
>>> do you really believe that editing someone else's article is a sign of
>>> presidential judgment? A reason to vote for someone for president? That is
>>> what you said at proteinwisdom. That is the one example that you could come
>>> up with to post as a reason to vote for Obama. I have to assume you meant
>>> it. tell me how that is not asinine. And, before you go off on a tangent,
>>> I realize you have other reasons for voting for Obama. But, that is the one
>>> reason you felt was good enough to share, so that is the one you should
>>> defend.
>>>
>>> Also, please cite me some conservatives at the University of Chicago who say
>>> they support Obama for president. You kept implying that this was so and
>>> you made the argument that you only deal in "facts". You cited to one NY
>>> Times article which did not support your contention in any way. Please
>>> enlighten.
>>>
>>> You wanted desperately for someone to engage you in email. Here I am,
>>> please respond directly to my questions rather than you normal routine of
>>> changing the converstation entirely. I understand that it is difficult to
>>> defend the idiotic things you spew, but please try.
>>>
>>>
>>
>