... I wasn't attacking antiwar.com at all. I was attacking your logic (or lack thereof) in touting them. ...

Ah, just another attack on me simply because you are full of hate. Fine, and thanks for the clarification.

It is odd that you claim to like antiwar.com but did not respond when LWM slimmed them in vile ways --- you only responded when I defended them as credible and non-partisan. Come to think of it, perhaps it is not so odd, considering the source.

...I read what you wrote and responded by cutting to the quick. The libertarian laissez-faire ideology was in full sway in 1900, it was supported by McKinnley/Hannah Republicans. And Bourne was not one of them. ...

Then you would be ignorant of history. Wikipedia says, "...In the United States, laissez-faire was mainly present up to the American Civil War, although various protectionist measures were passed by the North against the South before that time ..." but even they are wrong. We have never practiced pure laissez-faire economics in this country. We have given lip service to it, but never practiced it.

Besides, "The laissez-faire means that the neoclassical school of economic thought holds a pure or economically liberal market view: that the free market is best left to its own devices, and that it will dispense with inefficiencies in a more deliberate and quick manner than any legislating body could."

As I keep saying, it is classic liberals that were correct, not the socialist liberal like yourself.

From the Tao Te Ching (6th century BCE):

Chapter 17: "In the highest antiquity, the people did not know that there were rulers. In the next age they loved them and praised them. In the next they feared them; in the next they despised them."

Chapter 30: "He who would assist a lord of men in harmony with the Tao will not assert his mastery in the kingdom by force of arms. Such a course is sure to meet with its proper return ... Wherever a host is stationed, briars and thorns spring up. In the sequence of great armies there are sure to be bad years."

Chapter 57: "A state may be ruled by (measures of) correction; weapons of war may be used with crafty dexterity; (but) the kingdom is made one's own (only) by freedom from action and purpose.

Chapter 58: "The government that seems the most unwise, Oft goodness to the people best supplies; That which is meddling, touching everything, Will work but ill, and disappointment bring."

Chapter 60: "Governing a great state is like cooking a small fish."

Chapter 75: "The people suffer from famine because of the multitude of taxes consumed by their superiors. It is through this that they suffer famine."

Chapter 78: "There is nothing in the world more soft and weak than water, and yet for attacking things that are firm and strong, there is nothing that can take precedence of it."

---

Note: added much later was Mao's statement that, "all government flows from the barrel of a gun." ;-)

I'm not hiding. I'm right here, just as I was when I interjected a comment into your dishonest comment to William.

How William took the comment is up to him, you entered only to attack and slime and ride his coat-tails. Shame on you, little one.

I have yet to read William's response to my follow up and yet you want to play war for him. You are a liar.

As I wrote in my next comment following the comment regarding your dishonesty about William, I hadn't seen his comment before posting mine.

But enough of this. Replying to you has been, once again, a waste of time.

Well Kitt you fool, what did you expect when you called me a liar over a matter of interpretation going on between two adults? William asked me to engage, and I agreed. Any mis-interpretation of his position on my part is up to him to correct. He will do so; he is not afraid to state his position be it popular or unpopular.

You, came only to attack and try to ruin the conversation. Shame on you.

Projecting your personal animus onto me still doesn't address the points I raise. I've lost track of how many people's arguments you've misrepresented on this thread alone.

Why, none of course.

You read things into my words and then make up stuff from whole cloth. I understand that is is just the raw hatred that consumes you and your small (3 or 4) band of hate mongers, but it does no one any good to pretend you are anything other than an attack dog.

You have a long history of it, though, I see. Raised in the Jefferson "small government" tradition that never even tries to explain the Louisiana Purchace.

It is just this sort of garbage that fingers you as a moron. You are attacking me because I did not mention the Louisiana Purchase? You are an idiot. If you care to ask about it, then ask you little minded hate-monger, but do not pretend that I 'ducked it' or some such.

I did not claim to like antiwar.com. Like I said, I was not expressing an opinion one way or another.

I see; so you are a hate monger and a war-monger. Good for you.

No one has ever practiced pure laissez faire because it is an impossibility.

That is one hell of an assertion. Any evidence for this extraordinary claim? This should be a lot of fun, since you are obviously a moron when it comes to history.

Except for all those nearly system-destroying panics and depressions, which the post-WWII managed economies of the OECD have utterly done away with, that is. ...You see, somehow you missed the part where you're not God. The fact that you keep saying things doesn't make them true.

Now that combo is funny. You make the most outlandish claims with no proof and then claim I do it. Children, can you say 'projection'?