Setanta wrote: Please respect my request that you not address me again on this stupid, useless, manufactured topic.
No, I will not respect a request to not respond to yet another long insulting, inaccurate tirade on a topic that you, yourself manufactured. Feel free to ignore my response if it pleases you, but I don't lay down for groundless attacks on my character from those preaching as if they are holier than thou while clearly demonstrating that they are not.
This is the post that got this ball rolling:
OCCOM BILL wrote: Redheat wrote:D'artagnan wrote:I might favor an amendment to allow foreign-born citizens to run for President, if it weren't for the fact that Arnold is the poster child for the campaign. No thanks. He give new meaning to the word "unevolved."
Yeah I'd like to see their faces if say a Muslim ran. Of course they are only thinking of one person and sorry but if Arnold is the best they can do then we are in a heap of trouble.
What is the reason for this idiotic babble? Who are "they"? It makes little difference who runs... what matters is who wins.
Put the gropinator out of your minds for a moment and I wonder how many of you hyper-partisan folks would be forced to switch sides.
My entire point was that because Arnold is currently the only candidate likely to be affected by such a change, people from both sides of the political fence are arguing opposite sides from where I would normally expect them to be.
Redheat's; "Yeah I'd like to see their faces if say a Muslim ran." Struck me as idiotic, so I said so and why. Take note of who here is presuming positions to argue against. It isn't me. My response was direct and utilized a single quote to isolate what I am responding to.
D'artagnan's words; "if it weren't for the fact that Arnold is the poster child for the campaign" make it quite clear that he too found that Arnold was the reason for a change of thought. Later, he even asked who's partisanship came first. Obviously, my point wasn't lost on him.
Setanta wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:I don't even know what the hell you are talking about. If I belittled anyone, it would be the hyper-partisan among us from both sides of the political fence. Since some of my favorite people fit the description, and I kid them about it quite regularly, I'd be horrified to learn they reacted as you have. Fortunately, I know most don't.
I am sad to say, you probably don't know what i'm talking about. Your entire rant on this topic--blown enormously out of the proportion suggested when i made a silly remark only for the humours effect--inferentially charges those whom you identify as "liberal democrats" with ideological hypocricy.
Set, I was being polite. I should have said you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Your inferred charges exclusive to "liberal democrats" are wholly imagined. The hypocrisy I implied had no partisan boundary whatsoever. While your defense of Redheat is admirable, your inclusion of yourself as being painted by my comments is silly. You volunteered to be counted with the ranks of the hyper-partisan and now you feel I've betrayed your friendship, because of your false inference. That's BS, but we'll get to that later.
Setanta wrote: You make your case entirely out of straw men, and you raise the level of accusatory dialogue to near hysteria with the use of a term such as "hyper-partisan." As i've already pointed out, this is a molehill into mountain exercise.
Up until now Setanta, all of the hysterical accusatory dialogue is from you, directed at me. Again, I invite you to re-read the thread and watch you're shrill insulting tone accelerate at a pace that dwarves even the false perception you have of mine. As for your repeated Strawman accusation, Orrin Hatch introduced the idea in the Senate SPECIFICALLY about this, and I provided you a link. How could that be a Strawman? Every conservative republican (Orrin Hatch) who likes the idea and every liberal democrat who oppose it are doing so out of partisan loyalty, not ideology. This is where my charge of hyper partisanship comes into play. Since you haven't even voiced an opinion on the issue, any self-inclusion in that charge is 100% your own voluntary inclusion. Don't blame me.
Setanta wrote: As Dart and Redheat pointed out, before i pointed it out more than once myself, this is a non-issue except with regard to Arnold. Your inferential accusation of ideological hypocricy smears an entire class of people. I was personally offended to see you using an attack-posting style reminiscent of some of the most egreggiously partisan posters here such as Karzak (on the right) or Infowarrior (on the left),
What you demonstrate here, is that you are capable of seeing the hyper partisan folks on both sides of the ball. Very good. My definition would include McG and Ican opposing Blatham, CI and yes Redheat as well. Since I've seen Setanta distribute the voice of reason from both sides of the ball, I would not include him here.
Setanta wrote: employing wildly extravagent claims, and extrapolating from little to no data (in this case, Phoenix saying she opposes such an amendment) to a contention that "liberal democrats" (without further qualification, this means all liberal democrats) want to argue against the extension of rights to immigrants. That very language is disingenuous, in the kindest construction; in the most critical, it appears that you're hysterically reacting to casual, silly remarks to manufacture an excuse to attack those with whom you suspect you disagree, without actually knowing if they do disagree.
Here, your own hysteria has blinded you completely. Phoenix, who is a friend of mine, whose ideology is remarkably similar to my own in many ways, usually leans towards conservative views in my opinion. I used her as an example of someone who DIDN'T let her conservative support of Bush interfere with her belief in that part of the constitution as written. How you failed to extract that meaning out of
OCCOM BILL wrote: Phoenix was first to voice her opinion that only folks born on our soil should be allowed to hold the top office... which makes sense because it is in keeping with her standard politics.
is beyond me. I suspect the fact that you had already ignored my
long before this got heated statement:OCCOM BILL wrote: Republican's hyper-partisanship came first on this one, hands down. I wasn't picking sides on that.
left you somewhat desperate to find a way to blame me for
your uncalled for outburst.
Setanta wrote: I took this pretty easy for a while when the exchange first took place, but i finally grew weary of your pig-headedness in insisting on employing a sledgehammer to swat a fly. One of my first experiences of your participation in these fora was in defending you against just such an outrageous attack made on you by the Hobbit (Dog rest his virtual soul).
A defense that I appreciated immensely and will never forget. I, myself, have followed that lead in coming to the aid of unjustly attacked newcomers. However, My few sentence, single quote response bore no resemblance to hobit's shameless chopping of one of my posts into dozens of pieces in an attack that had no real reference to the point I was making. My "attack" was simple, to the point and directly addressed the point Redheat was trying to make. Your attack on me is far more reminiscent of the hobit. Perhaps when you get over the fact that you are wrong you'll be able to see that. This is the first post I am making on this thread that resembles Bob's work and even now I am directly engaging points you've intentionally made. You on the other hand
Setanta wrote: It has been a disgusting experience to see you employ the same shabby tactics here as those which i condemned when the Hobbit used them on you. For that, i resent you deeply. For that, i have little reason to consider you a friend. Friends don't betray trust so casually, and for so little reason, in such a dubious cause.
Look in the mirror my, eh, fellow A2Ker. You attacked me here, with no cause. I've treated you with nothing but respect from the beginning of this thread to the end. Not as much as you've earned by my estimation perhaps but certainly more than your behavior here deserves. I've made mention of my admiration of your demeanor on half a dozen threads at least, and meant it. Normally, I do consider you "the voice of reason".
If imagining you are part of a group that you have imagined I've separated for the purpose of insult is all it takes for you to imagine that I've betrayed your trust somehow; than by all means pretend that I caused this. You have exemplified every false accusation you made of me, here, even while you were making them
So, by all means, suit yourself
I've little use for fair-weather friends and even less for hypocrites, anyway. Good day.
How dare you? Well I never. 