On Apr 17, 2:19*pm, First Post wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Gary Forbis





wrote:
On Apr 17, 8:52 am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/17/11 09:29 , Gary Forbis wrote:

On Apr 17, 6:13 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 4/16/11 23:44 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:02 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 4/16/11 22:37 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 10:26 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 4/16/11 20:08 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 8:03 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 4/16/11 15:43 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:02 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 4/16/11 10:55 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:55 am, Gary wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:29 am, Barack Hates wrote:

Obama and his band of liberal fools will dismiss this like they do
anything thats true

You realize it is a work of fiction don't you?

and its a poor one at that. written by a drugged up sex maniac, that
worshiped serial killers. then ended up living on the socialist dole
its easy to start a cult in america, any demagogue can do it, look at
limpballs and beck. america has a lot of people will malformed brains,
lacking the gray matter necessary in the part of the brain that can
understand complex situations. so they flock to cranks, hoping for
some direction in life.

And there you have it. No substance, only adhoms.

No impact, here.

i cannot help what shape your brain is in, its a retardation, it
might be environmental, or genes, its hard to say. but its been quite
well reported what rand was. its just to complex for you to
understand.

snicker, i have always felt this was the case:
A new study shows liberals have more gray matter in a part of the
brain related to understanding complexity, while the conservative
brain is bigger in the section linked to fear:How Your Brain May Be
Different Than a Conservative's

Try making an actual case, instead of simply making a personal
insult.

i did, and your response proves all of my points. none of what i said
were insults, it was all facts.

LOL!

giggling is a sign you know

Giggling is a sign that you've done nothing but levelled personal
insults, and defended that as a rational argument.

Knowing that you're as empty as your handle is quite amusing.

Carry on.

i posted lots of empirical evidence what rand was.

All of it personal insults. What you do not do, is debate the
content, nor the ideas.

You simply insult the person.

The USENet equivalent of "So's your old man." You either have no
position of substance, or you're not willing to engage one for fear
of defeat in the arena of ideas.

In the case of Rand one has to debate philosophy becuase there
is no substance.

Of course. Why am I not surprised. Deny the substance of the
argument, default to personal insult.

So why did you delete all but the first sentence? *Could it be because
I provided facts to support my claims concerning her philosophy?

You provided nothing more than your own opinion. *No facts were cited.

I cite her early life. This is very important in shaping her
philosophy.

Coming from a position of privilege then having it taken away by
communists
is a very good explanation for her hatred. At a minimum it taints her
opinions
on the matter.