Look, stupid tina (yes, you're damned stupid and you can't complain about harsh treatment, since you obviously think ad hominem insults are OK, then I will offer you [some] of what you think is right)

NOT ONE PERSON thinks prostitution is a good choice. In fact, I've said several times here that it is a very bad choice, and an immoral one. BUT, stupid tina, neither you, nor I, get to be the chooser for other people's lives. If you still think you should get to choose what other people do with their lives, stupid tina, then please submit yourself for slavery in some society where that is permitted, and be glad that such an option exists for you that meets your philosophical viewpoint.

If you wish to quit being stupid, stupid tina, then recognize that the only real right you have is to persuade people to make better choices. No one will stop you. Just don't be surprised, stupid tina, if the subjects of your "good will" tell you to go to hell.

--Ron

<<This is the difference between decriminalization and legalization. I do NOT support legalization because I do not find the buying of women for sex to be part of the normal, healthy sexual scheme of things (I think, like rape, power issues enter into it), and because it demeans and degrades women. Which is why absolutely nobody wants their OWN children to do it. Of course for some morally inconsistent people, it's quite all right for other people's daughters.>>

It was interesting reading that article, but it seems to me that it is too intrusive, particularly if one seeks to live in an honestly free society. There will always be people who benefit more than they've earned from certain circumstances. I think the only solution would be a strong understanding of objective (as opposed to subjective) morals, and the fact that most people, when it comes down to it, act morally within their own understanding of morals. Of course, if one uses subjective moral standards, then morality gets thrown out the window because subjective morals are impossible to achieve, and people who believe them either have to live in shame or cravenly according to their own beliefs. If enough people want to do something that they're willing to pay for it, they should be satisfied with that, and not seek to force others to agree with them. Just because something is desirable or better is no excuse to force others to do it. Initiating force is always wrong, and what kind of victory is achieved in forcing people into some situation? I don't want to participate in something, even something I want, if others are forced against their will.

--Ron

<<In economics, collective bargaining, psychology and political science, "free riders" are actors that consume more than their fair share of a resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its production. The free rider problem is the question of how to prevent free riding from taking place, or at least limit its negative effects.>>

While I didn't see anything in what Mr. Reese said in the quote you provided that I particularly object to, unless he's changed in the 15 years or so since I used to see his articles in Orlando, he's not especially dedicated to individual rights, and was one of those so-called Libertarians who were basically just a typical conservative republican, but couldn't quite stomach a few narrow things the conservatives republicans advocated (usually an economic issue). Witness their common tendency to see nothing wrong in intrusion into private lives (like seeing nothing wrong with anti-gay legislation, or anti-choice legislation, or other things that are none of the government's business). A good example is Ron Paul, while he has some useful things to say, he undermines his own good points by having contradictory premises.

Still, when any politician or writer or pundit does say something rational, I guess I can say that's a good thing. It's too bad that's mostly what one has to settle for, and has been for a very long time.

--Ron

Aren't the insults you're hurling just a little bit unhelpful? I don't think anyone who supports HIllary would respond well to your comments, nor should they.

--Ron Robertson

<<Hillary Supporters, or How to Look Small

Reading through the obvious hit letters, pounded out by the gnarled, irrational fingers of wizened HRC supporters makes me sad. Mainly because sometimes in life there are times to just Shut Up and appreciate the moment in which we live. This speech is one of those times.

Take a break, get a breath of air, and dare to dream a bit. Just for a day. You can all go back in a day or two to claiming Hillary is a Victim of her own Vagina even as she smears a great man, tries to rig a convention, and steal an election.

But just for once take politics out of the equation and Hope for once. To do anything else makes everyone look Small.>>

I doubt their tax returns will tell anything we don't already know about the Clintons. But the reaction to it will tell us much about those who react, including the people here assigning negative motives and calling the Clintons names, and being as disparaging as possible. Mr. Koppelman's call for dirt I find offensive and small-minded. I would find it just as offensive if he were looking for dirt on Obama. That shows poor judgment and damages the value of any writing he may do or has done.

I erroneously thought that democrats would be better at reasoning things out than what I see with the republicans. Day after day, that notion is further laid to rest. While not a majority, far too many remind me of the freepers, hating for the sake of hate.

A simple test, if you find yourself absolutely hating the Clintons, then you aren't rational. Nothing they've done is deserving of that level of vitriol, especially when you compare them to the real and lasting damage done to our country by the republicans, who the vitriolics seem to ignore (much as Ralph Nader does). THAT is irrational, and if you wish to be more sensible, then you've got some real thinking to do.

I wonder how much of this has to do with the overly pervasive Hillary hatred, and how much is genuinely against having a woman for a president. Several examples of the irrational Hillary hatred can be found right on the NY Times op-ed page, from Maureen Dowd (why does she still have a job?), Frank Rich, Gail Collins and even Bob Herbert. She's had a pretty rotten go with most of the media, as well as at the hands of a lot of Obama's supporters. As far as the right, they're going to hate the democrat no matter what, and I don't really think very many that are voting for Obama are really planning to vote for him in the fall, but I could be wrong about that. I've seen no convincing evidence either way, but the burden of proof is on those who think they'll somehow cross over and vote for a "liberal" democrat.

No, I don't think that's what she's saying, and it's wrong to assume you know what another person is thinking or what their motives are. It's something Maureen Dowd does all the time, and no sane person should want to emulate her!

<<Get that? She is sad to see that a lower support for a woman than a black. In other words, she would be happy to see higher support for a woman than a black.>>