[MD] Intellect battles the [smokestack] barbarians

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
The rise and acceptance of "anything goes" values (witness the the lack of 
moral backbone even to support laws against indecent exposure) are sapping 
our strength from within so that West's willingness to fight to protect and 
preserve its civilization from its plainly dedicated enemies is in doubt.

[Arlo]
Arlo wondered how long it would be before he became an enemy of 
civilization. One wonders interestingly, however, how a reasoned approach 
to law can be responsible for the decline of the empire. Oh well, such is 
the fear of the right.

[Platt]
I agree. Case's accusations against capitalism are right out of the left's 
book of talking points. It would be nice if they would talk about hard 
work, personal responsibility, individual initiative, delayed 
gratification, self-discipline, openness to competition, etc. etc., but 
don't hold your breath.

[Arlo]
In other words, use the talking points from the right's book of talking 
points. Too bad we seek fear rather than solutions. Oh, wait, "fear" is the 
solution of the Party. Sorry, forgot. Your talking points and Case's are 
not mutually exclusive. We could seek to integrate them, as much of 
Pirsig's writings address Case's points as well as your own, but why bother 
when blowing hot air for the Party is so much easier.

[Platt]
The left is a religion, and like all religion impervious to rational argument.

[Arlo]
And the right isn't? What a joke.

The "right" and "rational argument" go together like oil and water, witness 
the "fear of rape" rhetoric over any ability to engage in rational 
discourse, even about one's own remarks! And, as if on cue, witness the 
continued use of hot air for evasion as evidenced by your concluding remark.

[Platt]
Did you notice in Arlo's latest post the number of straws he grasped at? I 
counted five paragraphs beginning with "If we propose . . . , an all  time 
record.

[Arlo]
No surprise here. Rhetoric over rational argument. Unless you think you can 
refute these points? Oh why bother, everyone knows you can't, and you'll 
come up with more hot air to cover it up. Typical of the right-wing hot air 
bags that looooooove to pontificate, but when challenged do the Limbaugh 
Limbo.

But, in an act of sheer futility, I ask, if my points are "straws", how 
would you refute them? (Arlo's prediction. Rhetorical distraction and 
evasion. Prove me wrong?)