AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Yeah Fox.. you fit your definition perfectly.. You are a numbnuts. I think some might even consider you a "stupid bitch."

You said "As yet, not a single member criticizing him have accurately represented what he said"
Now you want to argue..

Quote:

Dr. Sowell said that he did not intend to write 'debt' but intended to write 'deficit'. You seem to have a real disability in understanding the difference between those two terms. But do have a great day.

I understand the terms quite well. I know you said he intended to write deficit but wrote debt. You however said.. and let me quote again..

Quote:

As yet, not a single member criticizing him have accurately represented what he said

It is accurate to represent that he said "debt". It is wrong to claim he SAID "deficit" Since he said debt. It is accurate to state he said debt and anyone claiming he didn't say debt would be wrong.
You can argue all day what he "meant". It doesn't change what he actually said. Your claim that I wasn't discussing what he "said" is completely false. You don't seem to want to admit that.

You will notice you have NOT presented a valid rebuttal about what Sowell said and your claim that I never correctly represented what he said. What Sowell said may not be what he meant but "said" was the word you used in your claim about how I misrepresented Sowell.

1 Reply

@parados,

Read: "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, no one ******* cares"

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

(*I substituted 'deficit' in place of 'debt' as it appeared in the article as he clearly intended to say deficit.)

ROFLMAO.....

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Those who don't care, don't need to read this thread.

In sum, Sowell's article is fearmongering propaganda, not an intellectually complex thesis.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Are you attempting to paraphrase Maporsche here? Your post could be taken that way and, if so, I think you widely missed the mark.

Or are you saying that Sowell's article is fearmongering propaganda? Your post could be taken that way too, but if so, would you please clarify the specific remarks he made that you see as 'fear mongering propaganda' and explain why that is so?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

First,

wandeljw wrote:

In sum, Sowell's article is fearmongering propaganda, not an intellectually complex thesis.

. . . then . . .

Foxfyre wrote:

Or are you saying that Sowell's article is fearmongering propaganda? Your post could be taken that way too . . .

Is this the f*ckin' twilight zone ? ! ? ! ?

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

I'd like to participate in some intelligent discussion...it appears that there isn't much of that going on, just a lot of pre-school bickering.

3 Replies

@maporsche,

I suppose the problem maporsche is like all the rest of us here BUT Foxfyre, you can't understand what Sowell is saying and you lack reading comprehension and you are a numbnuts.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Food for thought Map. In the free market of ideas, words and ideas are our only currency. Whether Sowell knew what he was writing or now, the product is the same to the reader.

As to the question of whether or not he's that dumb to have the two confused, given history of Sowell articles that Fox has presented us here, I'd say that him being dumb is a supportable thesis. How many misses before somebody earns the title of a "bad shot?"

Sowell has a particular relevance in this thread because Fox has labelled him the ideal MAC. Critical analysis of his ideas are of absolute relevance in determining the future of the conservatives (at least in a thread where Fox dominates what can and can't be talked about).

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Sowell has a particular relevance in this thread because Fox has labelled him the ideal MAC. Critical analysis of his ideas are of absolute relevance in determining the future of the conservatives (at least in a thread where Fox dominates what can and can't be talked about).

Then I guess I shouldnt call myself a conservative.
I have read much of what Sowell has written, and while he does make some good points, there is much of what he writes that I disagree with completely.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I'd like to participate in some intelligent discussion...it appears that there isn't much of that going on, just a lot of pre-school bickering.

So lead the pack. Bring up a new topic you want to discuss, or some aspect of the current one that you find to be more interesting than the bickering, and see if you can't change the discussion.

If you examine the various threads on A2K, I think you'll find that this is exactly what happens, over and over.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Sowell has a particular relevance in this thread because Fox has labelled him the ideal MAC. Critical analysis of his ideas are of absolute relevance in determining the future of the conservatives (at least in a thread where Fox dominates what can and can't be talked about).

Then I guess I shouldnt call myself a conservative.
I have read much of what Sowell has written, and while he does make some good points, there is much of what he writes that I disagree with completely.

I don't think you're much like Sowell either MM. That might be the point. The future of conservatism may be obscurity, and people like yourself my find new definitions and political vision using your same values you hold dearly.

The right wing will die if everyone tries to look like Sowell or any other person. The goal should not be homogeny.

This is a big concern for me too.
K
O

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Foxie's comebacks are as misguided as her MAC thesis.

0 Replies

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb090629_cmyk20090626090935.jpg

On a sad note, the Cap & Tax bill passed in the House on the narrowest of margins late this afternoon. Forty four responsible Democrats voted nay with the Republicans. If eight Republicans had not voted for it, it would not have passed. The members did not get the bill until 3 am today and it was passed unread. As soon as I can get the names of the Republicans voting yes, I will post them.

The Senate is reported as much more reluctant on this bill, and maybe sufficient public opinion will be enough to get them to kill it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

On a sad note, the Cap & Tax bill passed in the House on the narrowest of margins late this afternoon. Forty four responsible Democrats voted nay with the Republicans. If eight Republicans had not voted for it, it would not have passed. The members did not get the bill until 3 am today and it was passed unread. As soon as I can get the names of the Republicans voting yes, I will post them.

The Senate is reported as much more reluctant on this bill, and maybe sufficient public opinion will be enough to get them to kill it.

Don't kid yourself about those 'Responsible' Democrats. The vote totals were carefully calculated, and once it was determined the bill would pass, Dems in Conservative districts were given cover to vote no.

The Senate will likely pass a similar bill after the recess. The liberal machine is finally doing a good job putting pressure on the Dem Senators to stop acting like pussies and pass bills with the majorities we have.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yeah you're probably right. I was probably wrong to label Democrats 'responsible'. Sorry.

0 Replies

You folks have likely noted that Mark Sanford is explaining that he doesn't have to resign because, after all, David messed around with Bathsheba and David didn't resign. It's a compelling argument. Likewise, fathers who, after hearing instructions from god, take a sword to their sons' necks can use the precedent of godly Abraham and justly avoid reproach.
But I popped in to point out Victor David Hanson's post at NRO today. He has seen (with his own eyes) contemporary days of chill and wet. So, it's empirical and puts the lie to the whole "global warming" hoax.
But the really bestest thing about Hanson's post is sentence one...

Quote:

It was somewhere around 3-4 years ago that "global warming" suddenly morphed into "climate change" in vernacular speech

Of course, as this lying dickhead surely knows, that change came about in 2003 after Frank Luntz advised Republicans as follows...

Quote:

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

Go read Hanson's post http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjNhN2E0NjZlZDBjMGRiMTQ4YzE0ZDY5M2RmYjIzN2I= and get another taste of how intellectually dishonest this movement now is.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

You folks have likely noted that Mark Sanford is explaining that he doesn't have to resign because, after all, David messed around with Bathsheba and David didn't resign. It's a compelling argument.

It is, and it opens up interesting perspectives for the future of polygamy. Way to go, religious right!

1 Reply

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Hi thomas
Yes, lots of wonderful precedents now available for biblically approved relationships. I suppose we also ought to note that Bathsheba's baby died (understood as punishment by god for David's naughtiness) and we appreciate that Sanford (a man of intellectual consistency and integrity) would approve even given personal the innocence of that particular baby who, we could say, was aborted in the fifth trimester.

And we'll also note that if Sanford took on nine other mistresses and then, later, Sanford's son, now in public office we'll imagine (who may or may not be named Absalom, I don't know) would have sex in public with all ten of his dad's mistresses, that would be scant cause for the son to resign his position of public trust because of the earlier biblical precedent.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know