On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 12:16:49 -0700, Winston_Smith
<
inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 11:48:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:09:59 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:12:35 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:23:08 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Deflection, but no rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>><g> I won't waste my time trying to rebut some anonymous shit you
>>>>pulled out of your ass, Winston. If you have some real evidence, I'm
>>>>interested. Otherwise, it's just another empty conspiracy story.
>>>
>>>But you DO have time to deflect. How interesting.
>>>
>>>*I* have to prove what I post but *you* can reject it without any
>>>proof. How convenient.
>>
>>You just say any shit that you pick up from place unknown with no
>>attribution, and you expect me to "rebut" it. That's what Gunner used
>>to do. How convenient for you!
>
>Sorry Charlie, no. This thread has gone just like many we have been
>in. Polite back and forth until I hit something that's a problem for
>you. Then it ends the way most liberals on usenet sign off a thread.
>Foul language and personal attack.
Take a look at the parts of the thread you snipped. You made some
empty assertions with no attribution and expected me to "rebut" them.
You dump bullshit and conspiracy theories and then you expect me to
"debate" them. As I said, that's what Gunner did for years.
Come up with some evidence, and we''ll discuss it. Until then, don't
waste everyone's time.
>
>You chug along fine as long as there is a response you can make. Along
>the way you pontificate from your high bench of "learning and
>experience" and trash a few posters as side issues. On close
>observation, what you post is just what you think backed by as little
>substance as the US dollar; just your opinion all dressed up pretty.
Bullshit. I consistently back up my assertions, especially if I'm
asked to do so. That's what drives you batty.
>The people you trash are trashed without your bothering to give
>chapter and verse of why they are wrong or what the truth is. It's
>just defect from the issue and do a personal attack on the poster.
>Neatly shifts the thread from issues to a name calling contest.
If they do what you just did above, they deserve it.
>
>Your authorities are usually things like "everyone who knows" and
>occasionally some obscure research paper you are hoping no one has
>access to.
I post links, Winston. You post nonsense with nothing to back it up.
>When someone does, it usually turns out your reading of the
>paper is way off the mark.
Bullshit. I actually read anything I link to, unlike the rightards,
who dump anything that has an appealing headline. It's obvious they
usually don't read what they post, and if they do, they never check
facts. Checking facts is something I've spent a lifetime doing.
>
>You have declared for years you are Republican. I've never once seen
>you make a kind remark about any R or any R program instead always
>defending the Democrats and the most liberal viewpoints.
Today's "Republicans" are mostly phonies -- rightist-populists and
paleocons who don't even know what conservatism is. I joined the
party at the tail end of the moderate days, when sensible people made
up most of the party. They were a lot more rational than the
Democrats.
There are still some of us around. After Trump crashes and burns,
maybe the party will regain its senses. Meantime, I vote for whomever
I think is best. We had a crappy Democrat re-upping for governor a
while back, so I voted for Chris Crisco. I no longer volunteer for my
county Republican convention, but I used to.
>Sometimes you
>are right, far from always, but it's telling how one sided your
>postings are. If you are registered R, it's either a cover for
>business purposes or you intellectually fail to have the least
>agreement with the party you chose to join. You would fit well in the
>Democrat party however.
I fit in well with real conservatives -- people who know and have read
the founders of conservatism*, and who know where their ideas come
from. They've scrutinized the ideas. I also get along well with
moderate progressives. They have better goals, but lack good ideas for
achieving them. So I take some from both. That's what some people call
a "radical centrist." It's similar to old-fashioned liberal
conservatism, which contrasts with classical liberalism. You can look
them up if those terms give you a headache.
There are only a few real conservatives here, and one calls himself a
"libertarian." He's not. <g>
>
>You clearly have time to come here and debate, usually several times a
>day. You will ride a thread for as long as you perceive you are making
>points.
As long as rationality and facts are responded to, for the most part.
> Then, when you get stuck, poor boy "doesn't have time".
Often true. What we get stuck on, for the most part, is irrationality
or phony "facts," like yours above.
>Poor
>boy can't be bothered explaining he has ducked an issue by saying
>something like your opponent "just sucked it out of his ass".
That's where you got it. That's why you can't support it. Like most
paleocons, you often don't even know where your ideas came from.
>
>You have become classic and predictable.
I like "classic." <g> As for being predictable, I am pretty damned
consistent in my views. I'll accept that.
--
Ed Huntress
* Edmund Burke, Oakeshott, Santayana, Disraeli, and, in modern times,
Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, George Will, and Goldwater. Read
them and you'll know what "conservative" really means.
If you have time for only one, read Kirk, _The Conservative Mind_. If
you want the founding ideas, read Burke, _Reflections on the
Revolution in France_. He was a Member of Parliament and critic of the
French Revolution but he supported the American Revolution, and he was
a contemporary of both. It's instructive to learn why he reacted the
way he did to each revolution. That's where the heart of modern
conservatism lies.
Very few people here have that heart. They just hate anything that
doesn't lie in their comfort zone. That's a paleocon. As I said, most
Republicans right now are either paleocons or rightist-populists, or
some mixture of the two.