AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I have forgiven you for ignoring my responses to you that I took quite some time to type out.

Quote:

. . . I celebrate and applaud said behavior . . .

You simply have failed to establish that it is a fact.

If you intend to discuss my posting style, then making a distinction between fact and assertion is hardly a matter of hashing minutiae. In fact, if asked to characterize my own posting style, i'd say the majority of it consists of short, irreverent, often childishly silly remarks, sometimes having no relation at all to the topic at hand. You really should get out of the politics forum more often, Boss, you're out of touch.

Foxfyre wrote:

No, I didn't duck it. I chose not to be politically correct and say what you wanted to hear.

okay. then let me ask it.

do you personally want to be associated, as a conservative republican, with a person like david duke? do you agree that everyone that voted for barack obama is a traitor to the united states?

you can answer both questions with one word in the affirmative or the negative and kill 2 birds with one stone.

If David Duke was still promoting the KKK, no I would not. But that wasn't the question. ....

I have already also clearly said that I don't believe those who voted for Barack Obama are traitors at least by virtue of their vote. But what our self-appointed judges, jury, and hangmen decree is that CJ said that. I don't believe he did and I am not going to judge him unless he confirms their assumed judgment of him.

And for the record, here is CJ's exact quote that has everybody so apolectic:

Quote:

Billions down the drain to placate his union cronies... Waggoner gone but Gettlefucker still on the job.... Obama is a disgrace. His supporters are enemies of the United States. It's treason pure and simple.

David Duke, Former KKK Leader, Detained In Prague

April 24, 2009 03:57 PM EST |

PRAGUE " Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke was detained by police in the Czech Republic on Friday on suspicion of denying the Holocaust.

Police spokesman Jan Mikulovsky said the action was taken because Duke does that in his book "My Awakening," which is punishable by up to three years in Czech prisons.

Duke traveled to the republic to promote the book's Czech translation of the book at the invitation of neo-Nazis.

Former Klansman David Duke Rips Limbaugh For ‘KKK’ Comparison, Says Sotomayor Is The Racist

Duke claims that Sotomayor is part of a grand Jewish conspiracy to control “any person who is influential or who may at some point in the future become influential.” No word yet on whether the right-wing will also embrace this attack on Judge Sotomayor.

Foxfyre wrote:

I have forgiven you for ignoring my responses to you that I took quite some time to type out.

Oh, come on. You challenge me to do something that would obviously require a lot of digging back - as you so often do, in the hope, presumably, that the other will balk at the task and you get to get away with your denial. Eg: "Please point out anything that I have said that I have refused to accept accountability for"- now there's a challenge that requires reading back up a lot.

So you know what, this one time, I decide - OK. You know what - you challenge me to show where you used red herrings? I'll go through the effort of listing them all, one by one.

Of course, then I do that, and you accuse me of not responding to your other post. Well sorry, but this already took way too much time.

Foxfyre wrote:

No, I didn't duck it. I chose not to be politically correct and say what you wanted to hear.

okay. then let me ask it.

do you personally want to be associated, as a conservative republican, with a person like david duke? do you agree that everyone that voted for barack obama is a traitor to the united states?

you can answer both questions with one word in the affirmative or the negative and kill 2 birds with one stone.

Foxfyre wrote:

If David Duke was still promoting the KKK, no I would not. But that wasn't the question. ....

actually it is the exact question that i asked you. and rather than just answer it plainly, i feel like you had to triangulate before you answered in order to try to avoid making a MAC faux pas. and in the process, you are letting your opposition define you.

foxy, i'm trying to help you here. you're getting crucified; not so much because of your beliefs (at least in my view), but because you keep trying to build an escape hatch into every answer.

And for the record, here is CJ's exact quote that has everybody so apolectic:

Quote:

Billions down the drain to placate his union cronies... Waggoner gone but Gettlefucker still on the job.... Obama is a disgrace. His supporters are enemies of the United States. It's treason pure and simple.

let's remove an obvious escape hatch here; it's not logical that a person would vote for a candidate they do not support.[/
[/quote]

I did not confirm that he said it in the context in which he is being characterized. Putting the statement in context, can you say without question that he was acusing Obama supporters of being enemies of the the United States without qualification? Or was he saying that those who approve of the 'billions down to drain to placate his union cronies. . . .' are enemies of the United States? Can you say for certain his intent? Do you see no reason to extend benefit of the doubt until he himself clarifies his intent?

I did not comment on the accuracy of the statement. I only commented on the right of a person to criticize his government and elected leaders; a right guaranteed by the First Amendment and, by virtue of current policies, allowed as a member of A2K. Do you think those who approve of 'billions to placate union cronies' are friends of the United States? Was his statement any more outrageous than many other statements for which people are not condemned on A2K?

Quote:

you want to add questions that are out of the way; about words vs. actions; in the context of this discussion, i'd say that's easily answered by these links;

Quote:

Quote:

David Duke, Former KKK Leader, Detained In Prague

April 24, 2009 03:57 PM EST |

PRAGUE " Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke was detained by police in the Czech Republic on Friday on suspicion of denying the Holocaust.

Police spokesman Jan Mikulovsky said the action was taken because Duke does that in his book "My Awakening," which is punishable by up to three years in Czech prisons.

Duke traveled to the republic to promote the book's Czech translation of the book at the invitation of neo-Nazis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/24/david-duke-former-kkk-lea_n_191234.html

Quote:

Former Klansman David Duke Rips Limbaugh For ‘KKK’ Comparison, Says Sotomayor Is The Racist

Duke claims that Sotomayor is part of a grand Jewish conspiracy to control “any person who is influential or who may at some point in the future become influential.” No word yet on whether the right-wing will also embrace this attack on Judge Sotomayor.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/01/david-duke-limbaugh/

While, as a passionate defender of Free Speech, I don't think the views anybody holds about the Holocaust, race, religion, or anything else, no matter how hateful or idiotic or ignorant or stupid, should be punished by government. The sources you cite here are all questionable as to reliability in my opinion, but if we can accept the content at face value, I am disappointed in the Czechs for enforcing that kind of thought control which was one of many things for which the Nazis were guilty. Seems a bit hypocritical in fact.

Again, if Duke is an active racist and promotes efforts to denigrate or separate or otherwise diminish people by race, that alone would be sufficient to make him unacceptable in my club or group.[/color]

Quote:

and sotomayor;

on this one, i'd have to say that people can screw up pretty good. in her case, she has admitted it was kind of stupid to go there.

fine. people should reserve the right to change their mind. sotomayor seems to have done, and david duke apparently still holds on to his earlier beliefs while trying to say he doesn't.

I agree, that people should be able to change their mind and also should be able to apologize for saying stupid stuff. There does seem to be a huge double standard as to who is allowed to do that, however.

But did Sotomayor apologize? I can't find much on that if she did and, given all the hooplah in the media about that remark, you would think it would be the banner headline and lead every newscast for awhile. I see where Newt Gingrich apologized for calling her a racist based on that remark--that has been widely featured.

We agree that David Duke should be disqualified from anything in the public sector if he is unrepentent. So, if Sotomayor has not repented, should that disqualify her from the Supreme Court? Is there a difference?

P.S. Even though you and I agree on very little DTOM, YOU would be welcome at my dinner table. (And I've been told that I'm a very good cook.)

Foxfyre wrote:

I have forgiven you for ignoring my responses to you that I took quite some time to type out.

Oh, come on. You challenge me to do something that would obviously require a lot of digging back - as you so often do, in the hope, presumably, that the other will balk at the task and you get to get away with your denial. Eg: "Please point out anything that I have said that I have refused to accept accountability for"- now there's a challenge that requires reading back up a lot.

So you know what, this one time, I decide - OK. You know what - you challenge me to show where you used red herrings? I'll go through the effort of listing them all, one by one.

Of course, then I do that, and you accuse me of not responding to your other post. Well sorry, but this already took way too much time.

if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I'll take that as your admission that you can't back up your accusations about me. That's cool.

I have just now, in my two posts above, inventorised comprehensively how you have done exactly that

Foxfyre wrote:

I'll take that as your admission that you can't back up your accusations about me. That's cool.

Huh, what? I accused you of using any number of red herrings and deflections to duck a criticism or a critical question. And I have just now, in my two posts above, inventorised comprehensively how you have done exactly that in the last dozen or so pages on this thread.

I know that while I was compiling my second list, you posted a response to my first. I haven't read it yet, because after doing all that work on you already I was feeling kind of done for the moment.

But the Founding Fathers did not see 'welfare' as you define it as the prerogative of the Federal government and they were quite specific about that and gave quite excellent rationale for that. You did not comment on the specific pertinent quotes of the Founding Fathers that supported my argument.

Fair enough.

Mind, I've run out of most of my patience for this kind of thing too... I remember getting into things like this all the time in the past on a2k. Now it's more of a once in a blue moon kind of thing. The futility of it is indeed tiresome.

Where we differ, I guess, is that I consider writing insult-ridden broadsides no less futile. There's no more of a point in that. So then it's more of a question of what you feel more comfortable with, or what you find more gratifying.

..I have long suspected that a greater amount of in-your-face resistance to the more hateful and neanderthal-ish amongst the Conservative crowd was the only appropriate response...

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I wasn't asked for extemporaneous criticisms of the Bush administration.

Ah, Foxfyre, up you sometimes crack me.

Glad to be of service. But perhaps you would admit that you did not ask for extemporaneous criticisms? At the time the discussion took place, we were well past the Bush administration.

So when do you see MACs as not being CALs?