02-01-2019, 12:09 AM
(01-31-2019, 11:40 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Doubtful someone who thinks "the left" has played into right wing definitions since Trump was elected can simply back off said definitions. Nothing to replace them with.
You can hop from thread to thread asserting that this "left" has somehow become a mirror image of the right, and that's why you are always attacking it, but you can neither demonstrate what you are claiming, nor explain why there is never any energy left over to attack the right for balance. Repeatedly calling others "biased," "partisan" and "ridiculous" establishes nothing more than that you disagree, without explaining why.
I don't think "the left" is a mirror image of "the right" I think they're their own special brand of bullshit. This brand has become more bullshitty since Trump's election.
Quote:In the past you have several times claimed others twist your words and impute positions to you that you don't hold; it would be rather inconsistent if you frequently do what you accuse others of doing, especially if you can never seem to prove others twist what you say.
What I prove, and don't prove, is rather subject to interpretation. As I'm talking to a person who has zero issue with an ideology that involves rampant misogyny and executing homosexuals I should hardly find this comment surprising.
Quote:So after reaffirming your "actual respect" for the U.S. constitution, followed by your dislike of "the most oppressive ideology currently practiced on the planet outside North Korea," followed by a hyperbolic defense against all kinds of things of which you have never been accused--all a rather bad defense of "centrism," non-partisanship, and ideological impurity--could you perhaps calm down a little, shed the red herrings, and devote just a little time and space to demonstrate where I've called for or held people to "ideological purity"? You've had some trouble defending bald assertions like that in the past, unable to muster more than argument from sensibility. Another flurry of defensive hyperbole won't do the trick. Nor will ad hominem. Show us the posts which establish your claim, or leave it empty.
Kindly stick to defending, or disproving, points one at a time. This jumbled word salad does nothing to refute my points. A more cynical person might claim that this was intentional.
(01-31-2019, 11:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why would someone have to choose between owning a rifle and gay marriage?
They don't except for ideological purists, hence the debate.
Quote:You have to look at where they spend and have spent their political energy. I can tell you that years ago SSF turned out to be the biggest 2A supporter here, I was surprised because I had never seen a liberal that adamant about the 2A.
Why doesn’t he wade in? I have a guess but only a guess. Lying with...
I'm very ideologically consistent, which is why Fred, GM and Dill are confused by me. I believe that the government should not dictate what an adult can or cannot do as long as they, personally, aren't harming anyone. This infuriates ideologues, who believe adults should be controlled based on the ideologues personal convictions.
Quote:Finally, why would someone lie? I don’t say I’m liberal. You don’t say you’re conservative.
Because the final refuge of the exposed is to accuse the exposer of lying.
Quote:With that said, I think I’ll wrap up my part of talking about someone else as if they aren’t here. But I know what I’ve read over the last ten years. I may be average intelligence on a good day, but I remember things pretty well.
Kudos to you for actually having a memory untainted by having to be proven right. Sadly, most of our brethren don't possess this quality. Far easier to dismiss the detractor as "other".
