I have been busy with the birth of my first child and have not bothered to check this email account, so yes, I have not bothered with any "debate" with you.

The article you cite does not even remotely prove your point, but I'm sure you know that.  B/c some liberterians thought he was a nice guy and a decent teacher, you think that means he's a liberterian or that real liberterian's support him for president or that real liberterians think he is qualified to be president?  Please.  You really are as stupid as I thought.  Do you even read the article you cite?  You are either the dumbest person I have debated recently or a complete and utter liar.  Either way, you are not worth my time.

As you consistently lie about your own statements and arguments, it is impossible to have a real "debate" with you.  I asked a pretty simple question, based on statements you made, and you failed to answer them.  So, there you go.  I don't really have time to try and have an intellectual conversation with someone who a) operates in bad faith (i.e., claiming that you are a liberterian when every single position you espouse is contraty to what a liberterian believes) and b) lying repeatedly about what your own statements and arguments have been.

Thus, I'm not going to bother with you anymore.  You consider yourself an intellectual I am sure, but I have yet to see signs of intelligence (getting a graduate degree and working in acadamia is not even remotely proof of any intellectual bona fides - I know far too many complete idiots who are college professors to give such credence as learning or knowledge).

I hope you well.  Maybe someday you will have the honesty and integrity to simply argue honestly.  Until then you are simply not worth my time.

And, as far as fascism goes - it is a leftist phenomena (i.e., the National Socialist party) and O! and his supporters have proven far more likely to supress speech and prosecute those they disagree with.  So, fascist is what you and your candidate are.  I have no fear of being a fascist as, unlike you, I believe in personal freedom and responsibility.

Quoting Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>:

Hey there! You seem to have lost interest in our little discussion.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Ahem.

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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>