On 21-Oct-08, at 8:35 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: >> Even more so when you can't come up with any snappy comebacks to >> smart arguments. > > How come a smart guy like you doesn't use the word "rejoinder"? --
Because I'm called "elitist" when it looks like I've intentionally used an exotic word. > Unless you're in an echo room where you agree with everything posted, > you become nasty and combative. And then continue pretending to be > just a warm-hearted liberal that wants to spread the love around. -- Oh please, I'm always on the attack, and it's always rhetoric. You know that, and you participate with gusto. I come here for a debate. Maybe your idea of a warm-hearted liberal is outdated. I've said many times before that liberals need to stop being nice and start trying to win. > Considering that you don't have a dog in this fight, and your > preferred candidate is leading in all the polls, it surprises me that > you can't be more gracious in these discussions. -- I believe you would call that "smug". It's not over till it's over, and Obama could easily be undone by the typically poor voting turnout of the demos he's championing. > I'll bet you try to blame someone else for that behavior, too. -- Have I ever? I can own it. >> I didn't put any words in your mouth. I simply responded to your >> questions, one-by-one, clearly and without personal attacks. > > That's a refreshing change over your earlier vitriolic diatribe > against me, conservatives and Republicans. I'll bet that got you on > the kill list of that snarky tw*t from dogtown. Keep up the good work. -- Um, what? You'll have to unveil that one a bit, because it sounded like a pretty snarky comment about someone who wasn't even part of this discussion. > I don't think you know what socialism is or what represents the far > left in this country. I think you've forgotten who propelled Obama to > victory in the Democratic primary. I think you're willfully ignorant > of the close -- yet perfectly legitimate and legal -- association > between Obama, Ayers and ACORN. They've worked together to promote > socialist policies, first in Chicago, then the state and now, sans > Ayers, the entire country. There's also that pesky bit about his fun- > loving pastor of 20 years, Rev. Wright. > > I don't know any moderates or conservatives that associate with folks > like that, do you? -- Yes, you. You're on this list daily, "associating" with far left nutjobs. Why doesn't that make you a terrorist? And as I said, I don't have an issue with liberals working together to promote "liberal" ideas. It's your dogged insistence that being charitable is a keystone in a shadowy communist plot that keeps killing me. > I know you're either ignorant or dishonest about the eagerness of > Democratic Congressional leaders to raise taxes. (The fools must be > giving the Obama campaign fits right now.) Higher taxes are needed to > provide more socialist policies, such as state-run health care. > > Last time I checked, those weren't conservative ideas. > > Contracting our military is also needed to expand socialism in the > US, and Obama is for reducing our military expenditures. > > At the very least, Obama has socialist leanings. For you -- and Bruce > -- to insist that he doesn't have socialist tendencies, or that > those > tendencies don't make him a socialist, is laughable. Actually, it's > dishonest, but it's a common game politicians play -- pretend to be a > moderate when you're really on the political extreme. We can expect > it of them, but not fellow citizens. (I guess you get a pass on the > count.) > > Now, if you want to argue that he won't govern as a socialist, you > may be right. But it's going to be delicate balance between the far > left in the Democratic party and the vast majority of Americans. -- I think your idea of "socialism" is in bed with your ideas about communism, and rides the continued paranoia and xenophobia that a military industrial complex needs to keep fresh. Yes, democrats tend to focus less on the military. If you contend that contracting the military is socialist, how does that lead to the slippery slope of communism? Is your distaste for any "socialist" ideals really because you don't want your country to spiral down into the kind of fascist military rule of the USSR, or because you don't want to look like wusses? If I give my spare change to homeless guy, I'm charitable. If I vote to give some of my taxes to homeless guys, I'm a socialist. Why is the first good, and the second evil? It's amazing how the Republicans have used fear to turn good deeds into evil ones, and evil ones into patriotism. There's this amazing discord between the espoused values of conservatives and the actual actions taken by Republicans. Why is voting to have your taxes go towards repairing roads and bridges ok, but public health care is not? Aren't they both for the public good? Aren't they both an investment in your country and your people? Bush spent, and continues to spend, an awful lot of money on a war I don't think should have happened at all. The only reason he didn't raise taxes to do it is because he did it entirely on debt. If it's on credit, you're still capitalist, is that how it works? So is it really spending that bugs conservatives? It seems like spending is alright, as long as no one has to pay for it right now, and no one is helped in the process. Take a look at how much Carter increased your national debt, as he's often referenced as the model of crazy socialist spending, and then look at how much Bush has: <http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm> Conservatives talk a lot about how responsible the are fiscally, but in reality, they outspend democratic presidents on credit, and talk a lot about how much they did without raising taxes. That's called bullshit. Is that the conservative idea? I hope Obama does spend, and does get some "charitable" ideas off the ground. If Republicans get to raid the cookie jar every so often for their crazy ideas, and Democrats are going to be blamed for the financial mess anyway, I say let's do it. Democrats are already serving the sentence, at least enjoy committing the crime. > No matter who wins, they'll be able to renege on many campaign > promises. I think the current economic crisis will drastically reduce > their ability to deliver. -- What's new? Campaign promises are like advertisements for the "types" of things they'll try to do in office. They don't always come to pass, for various reasons. Politicians are great liars and the world is complicated, I didn't think that was news to anyone. -- Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
