Topic: Libertarianism
Blind Illogical Hatred What's the point of "discussion"by Logical Premise
(Statist)
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
I just wrote an article here discussing a few statist points. One of the responses by a reader closed by conflating Alexander Hamilton with Hitler and Lenin, and basically conflating them with "imperialistic socialists".
This person is a Ron Paul supporter.
You may remember one of my earlier articles where I said when Ron Paul loses you need to blame his supporters -- and this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
No one is listening to you because none of you ever admit that
1. You could be wrong
2. You could be out of touch with the public
3. Your ideas for fixing the problem are unrealistic
And when someone challenges you, you attack them -- and compare a great man to a monster like Hitler. Or you call people who support other canidates sheep, or accuse literally everyone else in the country of being in a grand conspiracy against you .....
...and you wonder why your "message" isn't getting more attention.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Logical Premise only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Logical Premise is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Sorry Logical, I haven't had a chance to read many articles in the last week or so, so I didn't even see the article, much less take the chance to defend your right to an opinion. From what I've read of your stuff it is logically constructed, even if I don't agree with the central premise that you put forth.
As for Rabid fans, you are correct that there are some very rabid RP fans. Of course, most of those were either rabid before RP for their own reasons, or are feral and have never participated in any political discusions before because they were disenchanted with the system. Essentially you will see rabid fans for anyone who inspires new people to become involved, this includes Obama, and to a lesser extent Clinton and Huckabee. I don't really include McCain in this because to inspire someone you have to be more than a fossil mummified in an American Flag.
Honestly you are also making the same mistake in this particular article of lumping RP followers all together. I know that you know better, and are either upset or looking to provoke reaction...but honestly you should expect folks to disagree with you, even the blind zealots who don't understand completely what their statements are implying.
Besides, all those blind zealots should be the easiest for you to defeat in debate, run them off with your logic or make them look like fools so you can wade through them and hopefully get more worthwhile debate. The only problem with the wading through theory of course is that we seem to be flying through the articles at the moment and many of them aren't getting the attention they otherwise might deserve.
There's no doubt in my mind - you rarely get a fair shake around here. They see themselves as libertarian, and see you as someone on the other end of the square, and all of a sudden, it's on. And there's so many of them, and you're the one statist. Fair play indeed.
Posted By: Gabriel Hernandez
Date: 2008-02-28 13:29:26
I see what you are saying and it makes me sad that the extremes of any group tend to be the measure of the whole. It makes me think of when I had a very healthy comment exchange earlier today with a non Ron Paul supporter (he didn't seem to have much support for the other candidates) who works for the FAA. He made some arguements, which I admit are not in my area of expertise, on the subject of Ron Paul's call to privatize the FAA (Feb07. Bill Maher) and I conceded that point. I also looked at the information he provided and I have to say I still agree with Dr. Paul that competition with the government via free market channels is a good idea in this sector and others. But being that this gentlemans bread and butter is the agency that would likely suffer the most, I can understand his position and see that there is a positive influence in having the government involved in regulating certain safety standards. I do not think there is a "conspiracy" in the US to black out Ron Paul, I think there is an attitude, a mentality that pervades us by way of group think. Not that everyone is sheep but that most are uninformed about things that do not affect them every day. That the media has an agenda that involves maintaining the profits of their organization and utilizing government involvement to promote that. And in these things, which I do not see as unreasonable, there is a very difficult landscape to promote an ideology that does very much have its roots in a far gone time. Unfortunately I also look at the current political climate and know that there are very few genuine champions of the people and their freedom. Ron Paul is one, Dennis Kucinich is another, even Mike Gravel has admirable ethics and a very impressive record. I think there are more Ron Paul supporters that are in line with my attitudes about it then the extreme examples you point out, yet those examples do exist, and they exist for a reason. The extreme mentalities inside this movement represent a very deep (multi generational) example of political blowback. Namely these people do not trust the federal government, They are so disenchanted with broken promise politics and obvious manipulation of their cumulative power that they are frustrated to the point of near insanity or delusion. If there is one thing this election cycle can show very clearly it is that the freedom movement and our desire to reassert control of our government is very passionate, more so then any movement in recent times. I do appreciate what it is you are saying but I disagree with you on your 3 primary assertions and I will address them here.
1. You could be wrong: Yes, and so could all the other candidates and voters out there. The best argument I can offer is that there is a large body of evidence that Dr. Paul is right on many issues and almost all experts agree with some portion of his platform, though maybe not on his methods for achieving specific goals.
2. You could be out of touch with the public: This one is interesting, what I find with the "public" is that in general it is out of touch with itself. I speak often with people and very rarely meet people who are familiar with Dr. Paul. Of the ones I introduce to him, the majority agree with his platform and find his message very refreshing. Most people I meet want nothing to do with politics, they do not trust the media or the government.
3. Your ideas for fixing the problem are unrealistic: The ideas being offered by the other candidates (spending ourselves into a collapsed economy) seem at least as unrealistic as instantly closing the IRS (which Dr. Paul agrees is not going to happen). His ideas are technically very realistic in the sense that, while his goals are lofty and potentially rather extreme, his understanding of the condition of the nation and the time and work it would take to achieve those goals is also very accurate and unclouded. He openly admits that many of his fundamental views would not occur during his presidency. But the promise he has made is to change the nation building welfare / warefare mentality that has a strangle hold on the executive branch and has for many decades. There are changes that need to occur in the other branches of government as well, and the freedom movement has mobilized to offer a real alternative to the "born into office" representation that is currently spending us broke.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-02-28 15:33:35
I am the one that said Hamilton was a socialist along with Hitler and others. Can you show me one shred of evidence to the contrary?
As far as my political support I never said anything about being a RP supporter, you deuced that from the fact that I was defending LIBERTY, well ok I am guilty.
If being vehimently against someone who wishes to impart a politcal thought process upon me that takes away my freedom is not what patriots are supposed to do, then how should we reply? Oh its ok tax me, its American?
Get real dude you are talking about enacting a totally different form of government that is contrary to our form.
If labeling your idol a socialist offends you, I am sorry but the truth is the truth.
Aaron Burr shot him because he ran his mouth too much and was venomous to our REPUBLIC. Burr had his own ambitions making him equally repulsive, but that one shot slowed the Federalist movement to a has been for decades. Simple history.
Do you even have any conception of what socialism entails? Socialism is identified with LIBERALISM. Fascism is basically NEOCONSERVATISM. Those are organized around the FOCUS of society. The fact that both end up with large governments is because the point of both is CONTROLLING PEOPLE'S LIVES.
Libertarianism is about the idea that the PEOPLE SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS THAN GOVERNMENT CAN and that GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED. Statism is the proposition that PEOPLE ARE MOBS , MOBS CAUSE PROBLEMS, GOVERNMENTS SOLVE THEM and that THE PEOPLE CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
Hamilton was an aristocrat, and an elitist, and had a strong belief that the rich, intelligent, and influential who invested their time, insight, money and energy into a country had a much better idea of how to lead it than a group of people who were too sorry to even fight tyranny until the rich, intelligent and influential people lead them to do so. Jefferson was a humanistic idealist who had faith in the people and denied the very fact that if not for the "aristocrats" the people would have never risen up.
How you conflate that to socialism, where everyone is supposedly equal and government is only there to level people and promote egalitarian principles, when Hamilton, and federalism and in large parts statism hold the idea that egalitarian ideals are idiotic and that not everyone is equal or qualified to lead, is utterly beyond me. So, either you are :
1) too stupid to understand the difference. You don't strike me as stupid, so the real answer must be
2) you assume most people don't have enough education or understanding of history to know the difference.
Aaron Burr is about on par with most traitors to this country. He murdered a man who outmanuvered him politically, who revealed him as a shallow and repugnant cur, and he amounted to nothing. Hamilton, lest you forget , was one of the people who fought for freedom that you enjoy today.
Please, if you're going to take a historical name, have the goddamned common decency to bother to read a GOOD biography of Hamilton and not some of Ayn Rand's brainless slurs.
I used to read your articles, but I found you to be very stern and angry and you could not bring yourself to say much good about Dr. Ron Paul. Look at this chart http://news.goldseek.com/RickAckerman/1204268460.php Ron Paul knew this was coming at us 30 years ago when he got involved in the political arena. We've been dealing with a worthless piece of paper for so many, many years and we are fed up. Check out the chart - DAMN THE TORPEDOES
Joan, should I say something else? I've said that Dr. Paul is honest, that he's straightforward, that he's above corruption, and that he seems intelligent. Although black, I don't buy into smear campaigns run by his enemies, and I've noted several times where the MSM has belittled or blacked him out.
And I'm of the COMPLETE OPPOSITE POLITICAL persuasion as Ron Paul.
But oddly, you feel it's me who is the problem, despite what I have said. That's your right to do so, but I think it's only fair that I point out that not many Libertarians have anything at all good to say about anyone but Ron Paul -- expecting others to look up to your canidate when you compare literally every other politicial figure in the country to a socialist, a traitor, a crook , or worse ... it's very, very unlikely at best.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-02-29 10:10:59
LP
I have to throw something back at you. Your first premise was #1 I could be wrong.
See I like reading and threading you b/c you make me think and continue to educate myself.
I went and read more about Hamilton last night in the Founding Brothers (for your reference). I was wrong in labelling Hamilton a socialist. He was more in line with fascisim. He believed that the "corporate elite" knew better how to deal with our money than the individual.
In the natural coarse of creation, God created man, man created the Constitution, the Constitution created the Government, the government created the environment for honest free trade (read captilist corporations) This is a republic, when you invert that algorithm you place corporations above the government, and government above the people (you are free to place god in there or exclude depending on your views)
When Hamilton placed the money of the people in the hands of corporations/Central Banks etc you have advocated fascisms.
So I stand corrected on the socialists. Either way you slice it Hamilton placed money above FREEDOM, even though he thought or rationalized it by putting the people on a course of honest currency. But he viewed a countries greatness by its debt, where as Jeffersonians had a very negative view on debt. He couldnt help it, he was purely economically minded as influenced by Hume.
Hamilton typified exactly what we were trying to free ourselves from, plutocratic oligarchy controlled by a central bank (read Bank of England which Franklin penned the most influential casue of the revolution). True he fought the British with great, courage, daring and zeal from NY to Yorktown, of which I am eternally thankful, but his view of what the REPUBLIC should be is not the original vision of the Revolution or Spirit of 76.
Granted the Spirit of 76 essentially wanted anarchy (lack of government) which is impossible to peacably do based on human nature.
So the REPUBLIC was the next closest thing in line to it. Hamilton desired to jump over a REPUBLIC and advocated a STATE, a state very closely matching the one we just fought, only now he was at the top of the controlling elite.
So patriot? Yes.
Self serving human? Most likely.
Correct in his views? Being a central bank and a stronger federal government is what got us here I would say no, but that is open to your own personnal interp.
Also you need to remember that Col Aaron Burr also fought for our FREEDOM. To call Col Burr a murderer shows lack of knowledge of the Code Duello. Gen Hamilton bet his life over his pride and libaleous ways, and he lost. To call Burr a traitor and murderer is false, he killed an armed man who shot at him first.
Hamilton was exceedingly arrogant about the common man. But I don't think he can be called a fascist anymore than he could be called a socialist.
Hamilton had a belief that a good system could be corrupted by evil men, and that the fact that evil men corrupted something did not make the system itself "corrupt" nor evil.
In the same way you view the way the Constitution has been twisted and corrupted, I believe Hamilton would view the policies (and aims) of the Federal Reserve. Hamilton had some more moderate ideas about central banking, but since he could get zero support from Democrats, he was frequently required to throw his support to big-money Federalists -- who, it must be said in fairness, WERE bankrolling a LOT of what transpired. It's very easy for us to say that we would have given our money away for freedom with no thought of return, but these bankers were not fighters nor, in some case, brave men. They gave and they wanted something in return for their risk.
The Spirit of 76 wanted not pure anarchy, but something equally unworkable -- Hamilton tried to give it the features that would make it endure, and be able to last and withstand financial shocks and pressures.
I still hold the belief that central banking is not inheriently "wrong", but that if you let the control of such a powerful state organ fall into corrupt hands, it can be turned to evil purposes. Hamilton liked the idea of a "natural aristocracy" that had the best interests of the people at heart and would lead without falling prey to partisian corruption or more moral failings. We are not the generation that he devised this for, we are lesser men and we are less honorable men.
I think that placing the power of the central banks in the hands of the corporations was an INCREDIBLY BAD idea. The government -- and only the government -- should have any influence over that at all, and that is one point Ron Paul and Libertarians do have right.
Hamilton himself was highly uneasy about the idea of letting merchants clear credit and maintain any form of control over the money supply, but he had no realistic options at the time he proposed his ideas. I doubt he could have envisioned the fascist, soul-destroying, hateful horror that is corporate power today.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-02-29 12:00:44
Under the Assumption Act the responsible states had or were in the process of clearing those debts.
Remember the Virginian Aristocracy to include Jefferson had nearly bankrupted themselves for the Revolution.
But to impose that upon others was wrong. Should the Torys have to pay for it too? I would say since most benefitted from it yes, but this was forced participation albeit after the fact.
Inherently Jefferson had it right, "He who controls the money controls the power, and for the people to remain in power they must control the money" Jefferson also feared central banks as more detrimental than standing armies, and in light of the point of view that standing armies where Intolerable this says alot.
This is going to be an endless debate of Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism.
Even though Madison penned with Hamilton and Jay, it was only to help ratify A constitution, Madison was no Federalist.
Even Franklin made such concessions to sign a near perfect constitution vs having the REPUBLIC fall apart in front of their eyes.
Follow the Constitution its not just a good idea, its the law.
What I see here is labeling someone or something this or that instead of defining concepts in a logical manner. Usually this is done to try to win an argument. But what it really reveals is the sloppy thinking of a disordered mind.
LP: I would respectfully suggest you refrain from publishing anything in the heat of discussion, because a cooler head would see the falsehood of a too-quick rush to condemnation. So ALL RP supporters are (fill in the latest slur here) or fascists are neocons or ALL people are mobs or Ayn Rand, (the greatest philosopher of the 20th century) is brainless.
Nor is it sensible to label Hamilton a socialist, as PH understands. He was a Federalist and like all the Founding Fathers, were children of the Renaissance and certainly not on par with a megalomanic like Adolph Hitler.
Less "blind irrational hatred": I'll vote for that.
*sighs* In case it has somehow escaped your .. intellectual capacities, it was PH who labeled Hamilton a socialist in the first place, as well as applying some other labels in other pieces on this site.
To suggest Ayn Rand is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century is an opinion -- and one not held by a very, very large amount of people. I don't know who the "greatest" is. I would consider it astoninshingly arrogant to try to suggest that there could be such a thing, since it would imply a supreme philosophy.
If that's not sloppy thinking out of a disordered mind -- or at least one that fundamentally misunderstands "philosophy" -- I don't know what is. Less attacking , more listening, tadpole.
PH: Hamilton and Jefferson were very content to have such a debate. I think the critical key problem in society today is no one debates, they simply accept blindly.
I read a very powerful essay yesterday as to why people accept statist arguments and government control over libertarian ones and freedom. It's because statist/authoritarian arguments appeal to your sense of "fair play", your ideal of having assitance, and dont' require you to think. Libertarian ideals cater to your sense of idealism and require a good deal of rather high-order thinking.
Taking this back to the ever-lasting debate, if more people has paid attention to the Jefferson-Hamilton debate they would have a better grasp not just on what Jefferson was saying (wihch I agree is important) but also Hamilton.
I've said it mulitple times, Hamilton would be AGHAST at what has become of this country. All to often , Statists are thrown in with fasists, communitsts, socialists, and dictators. But that's akin to throwing libertarians in with libertarian socialists (look it up) , neo-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and dystopians.
I agree concessions were made. I think it's time perhaps for conessions to be made again. But that's my opinion. The only thing I can prove is that more discussion leads to more understanding.
Grasshopper: The second part about Hamilton was directed at PH, not you. He conceded your point, finally, that it is not accurate to label Hamilton a socialist.
If you weren't on the defensive all the time, you would have noticed that I was agreeing with you.
Who do you consider the greatest philosopher of the 20th century? I say Rand for her great influence.
Your continuous insults about her do not impart on you any kind of philosophical stature, but diminish your credibility. I can accept that you loathe Rand because she was anti-statist, but debate her ideas instead, if you can.
1. PH makes an assertion in one article that Hamilton was a socialist. Also, equating him to figures such as Hitler.
2. I make an article expressing my disgust with such a thing while not "naming names" since that misses the point -- who does such a thing is less relevant than the fact that such a thing would be done at all.
3. PH conceeds Hamilton was not a socialist -- after stating , AGAIN that he was and having me challenge him to read up on Hamilton. Mind you, he didn't retract that he was akin to Hitler -- and even conflated him to a fascist. Again.
4. You post "What I see here is labeling someone or something this or that instead of defining concepts in a logical manner. Usually this is done to try to win an argument. But what it really reveals is the sloppy thinking of a disordered mind." Which I would have thought might apply to someone who had been, oh, labeling, except for the fact that you then direct me to never write articles in the heat of discussion. You say that Hamilton is NOT like Hitler -- even though PH has restated that he is a fascist and i.e, Hitler like.
5. I pointed out that your statement seemed to implicate me. I can't think of anyone who would assume you were talking about PH, since PH certainly didn't seem to agree with you that Hamilton != Hitler.
The basic point is pretty much summed up in what you wrote about Ayn Rand. I think the idea of there being such a thing as "greatest philosopher" in ANY century is utterly absurd. I don't have to debate Ayn Rand's ideas. Ayn Rand stood for a form of thinking that was basically a construction, like all philosophies. She did not espouse some "universal truth". She was entitled to her opinions and beliefs and people are certainly welcome to follow those beliefs, but more often than not her name is invoked as if anything she wrote has any sort of value or meaning outside the Libertarian/Objectivist movement.
It is silly to presume that you threw that "greatest philosopher" in your sentence to show you were agreeing with me. You wanted to make some kind of point about lumping all RP supporters as one. Unfortunately, because of the majority of interactions WITH Ron Paul supporters, I'm increasingly coming to hold that view.
It's not just on this site , hell, that's the minority. When I engage them in person, most are :
- Belligerent, and of course have no interest in listening to anything you say or any information you may have. Most of the few who do listen only do so to inform themselves as to a new way to attack your argument.
- Self-absorbed. I posed the question: in an ideal world, what is better, taxing the people to ensure people don't go hungry, or no taxes and assuming charity will feed the hungry. When I asked someone who answered the latter what should be done if compassionate donations and charity didn't feed the hungry, this man with a Ron Paul badge on and a RP sign on his lawn sat there and said "I honestly don't care about the poor. I only care about my own freedoms, and my own rights, and I value my money more than some starving wretch who wouldn't be starving in the first place if he was worth spit".
- Arrogant. Supremely confident in their own "rightness" and in everyone else's "wrongness". There isn't a middle ground for these people, most times. The ones on the wings are no more compromising than the ones in the middle -- they just hold various values. All of it is overlain with this patina of arrogance as if your .. beliefs and values are somehow unutterably superior to everyone else.
- Dismissive of complexity and difficulty. Always full of ways to "slash government" and "fix government" and short on details, or ways to deal with the aftermath of such things.
*shrugs* To be honest , it doesn't matter. You won't have a voice in government because you keep making the same fundamental mistake: you pitch your arguments in a way of thinking that would convince only another Libertarian or someone who sees that way anyway, and never convince anyone who doesn't agree with the majority of your views.
That pretty much dooms you to the 10% bracket for all eternity, for all of the above reasons. Are there exceptions to how RP supporters behave? Of COURSE.
You, however, sirs -- neither of you are exceptions.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-03-04 13:54:28
Ok I got it Hitler was a socialist and Mussolini the fascist, got it. The fact stands that he opted on the side of bankers, the social elite and corporatism over the people or the Constitution (read fascist, there are some real simple definitions on wiki)
But you do make one statement I still havent figured out. If the tenants for statism are the same tenants as socialism, fascism and communism what would you like us to call it?
All feel the state and the elite that run it are better, wiser, less evil than the rest of us. They feel they should control education, business, agriculture, transportation all for the benefits of the state. No one person should hold property, advocates a central banks, and controlled markets.
If you read Capital or the Communist Manifesto by Marx, he is speaking your language. I agree pure Marxism and communism are not the same animal. BUT bottom line is that we have to give up my LIBERTY for your Statism.
We try and have educated discussions with you on this "premise" yet you seem to fail to grasps these realities:
1. That if all people are stupid, evil and need to be ruled, then what makes those ruling the stupid masses intelligent and benevolent? The premise of your theory contradicts itself in the first statement. You fail to answer that question time and again by a multitude of authors who pose that question to you.
2. You dont get that in order to enact statism, you have to take LIBERTY from others and that tends to make some of us upset.
3. The system you advocate causes alot of the ailments you complain about, racism, poverty, crime etc. And when given argument to the point you don't care to listen, yet you label us as Belligerent, Self-Absorbed (in my own LIBERTY, guilty as charged) Arrogant and dismissive of complexity.
I think most LIBERTARIANS here give you good solid arguments full of complexities (albeit some as simple as following the rules) You throw back stuff like the laws of physics in your retorts yet fail to acknowledge natural laws in mine. We/I tell you the way we/I feel/see it in a rational manner. If you like Hamilton so much and are so offended then that is your natural right to be offended as it is mine to speak my mind and if it offends so be it. Sticks and stones.
As far as my "behavior" I am advocating FREEDOM (which entails RESPONSIBILITY), just because you advocate usurping your RESPONSIBILITY to the state, a true patriot would not sit idly by an promote your (non-constitution) statist views without challenge. I feel that you are more upset at failing to find anyone that will buy your argument for statism, then at the actual fact that we or I am exhibiting Blind Illogical Hatred to you, just the non LIBERTY respecting political point of view which you maintain. I am a responsible FREEDOM loving American that will not give up my freedom so someone can take care of me (maybe that makes me the exception). I don't need it.
As far as your proported RP supporter and their view on the poor, so be it, they are FREE to feel that way. Remember that the Golden Rule generally appplies (kharma vs dogma). By the way how much did you give to charity last year. Our current system of the welfare STATE does not encourage people to donate to charity. Charity of the poor and downtrodden has historically been fufilled by the church, as it should be.
Bottom line is there is nothing blind and illogical about my argument and I dont hate you only your view de politic, as it looks to take FREEDOM away from us responsible few and give something tangible to the lazy people that dont deserve it (read didnt work for it.) IM not asking you to change your view, only trying to educate you on the unintended consequences that come from what you advocate. Conversely, don't think that you are going to sway me to communism. So lets just agree to disagree, just come visit me in Gitmo once they (the State's Brownshirts) come and take me away.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-03-04 15:09:16
LP
One more interesting thing you said, "I read a very powerful essay yesterday as to why people accept statist arguments and government control over libertarian ones and freedom. It's because statist/authoritarian arguments appeal to your sense of "fair play", your ideal of having assitance, and dont' require you to think. Libertarian ideals cater to your sense of idealism and require a good deal of rather high-order thinking"
So whats your arguement? I think you make most RP supporters or LIBERTARIANS points here. Statism doesnt require you to think, after all the mind is a terrible thing. LIBERTARIANism requires rather high-order thinking, exactly! So to review, statism=no thought whereas LIBERTARIANism= intelligence.
You are very skilled in doublethink and newspeak.
"Your government wants ignorant unarmed peasants"- P. Stevens
Interesting title for this article. Initiallly you were upset by a disparaging comparison of Hamilton in another article. Since he was an ardent patriot and, despite his nationalistic leanings, penned many of the wonderful Federalist Papers supporting the Constitution. What took me back was when you immediately became the person you wrote about. You conflated all Ron Paul supporters with a simple brush of your pen. I suppose this is when I'm to call you some foul name or belittle your intelligence yet that simply doesn't fit. Debate is a great and enlightening event, arguments never work out that way.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved.