- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
| Moderator's Warning: |
| Moderator's Warning: |
Moderator's Warning:
Nah, just an admission that we dont know his intent. Nor can we get it from him. We have liberal reading of worst intent. Which is rarely how people speak.So he didn't say what he said, and his being dead changes that? This response strikes me as a desperate, no...make that pathetic attempt at plausable deniability.
So you're a conservative, except when you aren't. Then why do you call yourself a conservative? Do you not accept conservative dogma? Fine, then it may not apply to you. What parts of conservatism do you, a self proclaimed conservative reject? This statement is true "The acceptence of any ideology depends on circular reasoning." There is no rational justification for any ideology. Conservative or otherwise. There is no basis. If you hold to any ideology you hold to the authority from where it's derived. What is the basis for that authority. Appeals to authority are all invalid. Even an expert can be wrong. (Fallibalism again.) If you don't accept the ideology then say so. As for this: "The problem is when you accept that ideology you accept it all." what you're telling me is that you don't accept the ideology as stated by those that defined it. You're cherry picking what you like and disregarding the rest. So you don't hold to the "canon" of conservatism. Then why on earth do you label yourself as something that you don't subscribe to?
Ok. You said this, "What's real is a person that doesn't question their values as experience tempers them is a fool. I'm no fool." That was in response to this: "So lets keep it real here ok? I never asserted that you think conservatism is infallible. I asked you about your own falliblity. Knowing the answer to that means that I know the answer to the other." You already agreed that it's possible that you and the conservative ideology could be wrong. Are you now reversing that position? What am I projecting here?
Then what are you basing your statement on?? "I question your ability to be self critical, its lacking from what I can see."
And this: "conclusions without logic are not infallible, kind of like people" as a response to what? This? The conclusion contains one or more of the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST infallibly be true. Conclusions without logic? You're arguing against the deductive syllogism as logic? :shock: You bolded that statement. You disagree with logic as being logic? Are you saying that you don't think that logic is logical? What are you trying to say here because you aren't making any sense. If the premises are true in a deductive syllogism, then the conclusion Must infallibly be true. Do you deny that? yes or no? It's really that simple. Yes or No?
The very idea of critical thinking is criticism. It's taking an idea to see if it passes logic. To determine if it is foundationalist and if it is, what is the foundation based upon. You're saying that my critical thinking shouldn't use criticism of any assertion? What would critical thinking use instead of criticism??? What would you call it? And what makes you think that my critical thinking isn't applied elsewhere? Critical thinking IS the whole idea here. The reason that you seem to think that it's only applied to one school of thought probably has to do with the fact that it's conservatives that make absolutist statements of opinion as if they were fact. Example: " Evolution is a theory straight from the pits of Hell". That's from a conservative member of the House that's running for the Senate. They marinate in absolutes. I already told you that I'm more than willing to turn that on any liberal that would do the same thing.
Really? You said this: "How clever. You use the word sacred ground, then pretend as though I used it to refer to something I said when I did not bring it up." That's in response to what I said here; "But more to the point, I don't consider anything as sacred ground. I'm liberal because I'm open to change." The term "sacred ground" is just a metaphore for the things that we believe in. So you aren't willing to compromise the "sacred ground of your beliefs". But I thought that you already agreed that you know you could be wrong. That you know that you are fallible, and of course you could be wrong about a host of things, including your conservatism. After all, it's just as fallible as you are. In fact, there's no basis to it. Does that not concern you? Are you saying that you are unwilling to challenge those beliefs, by turning your own critical eye toward your own beliefs? How do you know if they're true? If you already know that you are fallible and could be wrong, you must conclude you could be wrong about conservatism itself. Can you be as critical of it as you are of me? Or your own beliefs assuming that you are?
I didn't assume anything. I asked a question: "Are you saying that you accept liberalism?"
Who are you to label me and decide what I can and can't believe?
Next time you whine, crab and bitch about my lean, I will report your post as off topic.
Because your distortions and circular reasoning dont apply when you accept the fact that 90% of people dont agree with everything conservative or liberal, they agree with some of each.
Your pigeon holing philosophical sophistry completely ignores that, and frankly the way you approach political discussion is pretty annoying, shallow and vapid. You want everything in black and white---either or, and the world and people just aren't like that.
You're projecting your own belief of your infallibility.
Politics is not always logical.
Your inability to criticize only the positions opposite your own is telling that your confirmation bias is alive and well.
Liberals make plenty of absolute statements. I dont make it a practice of linking board members to those statements unless and until they voice support for them. To do otherwise would be a dishonest debating technique. You have engaged in it how many times now?
So. Bolded are arguments I havent made, italics are concern trolls. Nearly an entire paragraph of phony assertions.
Are you saying that you accept Jesus Christ and your lord and savior? LOL You are couching your statements in the same language as religious belief. Ironic.
Noted. I can report approximately 3 to 4 posts by Adagio. Im a tad tired of being insulted by the philosopher.
You do not have actions where Lee Atwater acted as a racist other than dogwhistle statements that you placed out of context. We disagree.His actions are consistant with his words. If his words don't indicate his intent, his actions do.
Leans are not the topic of this thread.I didn't create your profile. You did.
Im saying that this forum is very specific on content.You're saying that on a poltical forum, in a debate between a liberal and a conservative, I have no right to question conservatism which is at the very core of your argument? How is it off topic to question conservatism on a political forum?
LOL. Where did I say I agreed with everything Reagan said? As I said you present arguments not made. Also, you present Kirk as the only authority on Conservatism? Also faulty logic as he cant be.I have distorted nothing, nor have I engaged in circular reasoning. I asked you for an example of that, and you couldn't present it. So don't accuse me of things that I haven't done, unless you can support that accusation. Ok? So...what you're saying is that you're a "nominal conservative". That's a bit different from the description of conservatism according to the people that defined it. That would mean that you reject at least some of the Canon of Conservatism as presented by Russell Kirk, the guy that gave the movement its name, and the guy that Reagan accepted as the voice of conservatism. Fine. Which parts do you reject. I'd like to know since a conservative is usually a person that subscribes to, you know....conservatism. Just clarify your position.
Remind me...whats the thread title again?No doubt I annoy conservatives, but theres nothing shallow going on here. In fact it's a lot deeper than the usual fare of ad hominem attacks and insults that you find on poltiical forums. It's not an insult to ask you to explain your position on things OC. It appears that you aren't used to having to tell anybody why you believe the things you do. That makes it easy to utter a bunch of nonsense without having to justify anything. But that won't work with me. The black and white, Either/Or is called Bifurcation. That's what happens to ideologues. Those that live by a doctrine find themselves in a black and white world that they can't justify. I'm very aware of that, and the fact that it makes them uncomfortable. But I didn't come here to make life comfortable for conservatives. It's a debate forum and the topic is the SOTU address. I've seen a lot of attacks directed toward that, and of course it comes from conservatives. My question is what justifies conservatism in the first place. They love to attack. How good are they at defending their ideology?
The reverse is also true. You also assume my beliefs before testing them, conclusion reached without foundation. You argue like a ideologue.Now what is there in what I said that would lead you to say such a thing? Probably this: "I asked you about your own falliblity. Knowing the answer to that means that I know the answer to the other.You already agreed that it's possible that you and the conservative ideology could be wrong. Are you now reversing that position? What am I projecting here?" That's not a projection of infallibility OC. That's recognizing a logical conclusion. If you are willing to admit that you are a fallible human being, and recognize that all humans are fallible, then it's logical to conclude that a fallible human being cannot create an infallible idea. Therefore, you have to conclude that conservatism is inherently flawed and prone to error.
1. All humans are fallible
2. Conservatism is a human idea
therefore:
conclusion: Conservatism is fallible.
Is there something in that syllogism that you find false? If the premises are true ( and they are)then the conclusion MUST be true. Thats no projection of my infallibility. Saying so is either a misunderstanding of everything that I said, or a refusal to recognize a logical conclusion. OR....it could simply be unwillingness on your part to agree with anything that I have to say, regardless of the logic used to support it. Only you know the answer to that.
No. It isn't. Very often its emotional. And looks to emotionalism to make it's case. It feeds off of long held beliefs with no basis and attempts to legislate those beliefs. It's often operating off the Gut. The "Gut" is the repository of dark and ancient fears. It knows what it knows because it knows how it feels. Intellect is pitted against feeling, on the ground that itis somehow inconsistant with warm emotion. It is pitted agasint character because it is widely believed that intellect stands for cleverness, which transmutes easily into the sly, or the diabolical. If something feels right, it must be treated with the same respect given something that actually IS right. If something isfelt deeply, it must carry the same weight as something that is true. If there are two sides to every argument - or more to the point, if there are people willing to take up two sides to every argument - then both must be right, or at least, equally valid. Dress it up and the Gut is "common sense" which is rarely common, and even more rarely makes sense. It often comes down to assessing what Everybody Knows, even though Everybody might be as false as pink Unicorns to the truth of things.
You have nothing to defend because you offer nothing relating to this thread. Try that first and we can see what you have to defend.The positions opposite my own are easy targets. Those in line with mine, aren't rooted in ideological committments rooted in foundationalism. They require a base to rationally justify themselves.Do you expect me to take up a position that is illogical for the sake of being fair and balenced? My interest is in the truth. Since when is truth either fair OR balanced? I subject my own views to the same criticism I direct toward others. The truth has no bias. The framework that I come from permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position. Since I have no position, I have nothing to defend irrationally. I ask questions. Then I examine the answers I get to see if they withstand criticism. If they can't, they're dumped and exposed as bull****. If they can, I accept them.
Give me an example: Dont just say it. That means nothing. So you don't link people here to the statements made by other liberals unless they voice support for them? Well...we wouldnt want you to stick your neck out and actually say, "thats a stupid ridiculous statement by an ignoramous, and I don't subscribe to that crap at all." would we? I can remember hearing a lot of people complaining that Muslims weren't being vocal enough to direct any criticism at the outrageous acts of terrorists acting in the name of their religion. Their own silence spoke volumes. When Mitt Romney was asked to comment on the words of Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut and a prostitute, he didn't distance himself at all. He said, "those aren't the words I would have used". Stuff like that doesn't fly with people, and that stench is now attached to him. You have to call out stupidity when you see it or run the risk of being painted in the same light. If you call yourself a conservative and one of them makes a completely absurd racist, or simply dumb statement, it would serve you and your conservatism to come out and reject those comments. So far the only person I say from the conservatives willing to do that is Joe Scarborough.
You havent bothered to find out what I think on any issue, you have pre-supposed my beliefs and ran with your preconcieved notions. Then when backtracked you frame the argument with limitations rather than open ended issues. Thats not wanting to find out, thats setting verbal traps. How about you try this: address the issues and observe the answers of other instead of jumping in and stereotyping others because you aren't open minded enough to view the beliefs of others before attributing a belief system to them because your opinion is already made.Bolded are the arguments that you are dodging. I asked if you were fallible. You admitted that you could make a mistake. I said Fine, I'll take that as a yes. Then you said I'm putting words into your mouth. You seem to be hung up on the phrase "sacred ground" How about Sacred Cows? It's a metaphore for holding to long held beliefs that you won't give up. But we both know that you could be wrong about things. You could be wrong about liberals. You could be wrong about conservatism. You know that it's fallible. You'd agree with that right? Logically you'd have to, or face the uncomfortable position of dealing with a contradiction. So when I ask if you know that, if you have any interest in the truth, then you know that could involve compromising the long held beliefs or "sacred cows" that you held. Then you object. So you aren't willing to compromise the "sacred ground of your beliefs" after all. Even though they can't be demonstrated as true. Do you see them now as infallible? Based on what? Again I ask you a question: "Are you saying that you are unwilling to challenge those beliefs, by turning your own critical eye toward your own beliefs? That is not an assertion. It ends with a question mark. It's called a question. You say this:"Nearly an entire paragraph of phony assertions." I say, look at that paragraph and point to a single assertion. Everything is a question. I haven't asserted anything. I'm asking you to explain your nominal conservatism to me. I'd like to know what parts of it that you reject. Why is that such a problem?
The question was rhetorical. Nah, what I did was listened to the entire taped conversation in its entirety and drew conclusions. They were just different from yours, which you ridiculed, how open minded and logical of you.The answer is no. I don't. That was pretty easy. No dancing. No dodging. I don't hold any religious beliefs. Do you? Questions to a believer, don't indicate a religious belief in the person asking the question OC. Maybe you aren't a believer. I haven't asked you about your religious inclinations. Only your political ones. Apparently you don't subscribe to the Canon of Conservatism as presented by the voice of the Conservative Movement. Or the Manifesto from a Conservative radio personality. I'd like to know what parts you reject. So, you aren't a true believer in conservatism as described by conservatives. Yet you call yourself a conservative and defend somebody like Lee Atwater. :roll:
Leans are not the topic of this thread.
In the course of a poltical forum, on a thread devoted to politic's and the questions regarding the SOTU address, delivered by a Democrat, who's also been called a Liberal, a socialist, a Kenyan, among a lot of other things, the question of the legitimacy of those comments from conservatives, brings into question the legitimacy of conservatism itself. You call yourself a conservative. You appear to have a problem with your own self identification.
.Im saying that this forum is very specific on content
I have yet to have a Moderater tell me that conservatism was off limits as far as discussion goes.
LOL. Where did I say I agreed with everything Reagan said? As I said you present arguments not made. Also, you present Kirk as the only authority on Conservatism? Also faulty logic as he cant be.
You didn't. But neither have to told me what parts of conservatism you reject, despite my asking you that very thing. As for Kirk, if he's not the most respected authority on Conservatism, which is noted by the Heritage Foundation, and Mr. Conservative, Ronald Reagan himself, then maybe you can tell me who is? Who are these authorities on conservatism? It seems to me that while calling yourself a conservative, you can't articulate the things that make you a conservative.
Remind me...whats the thread title again?
I already did. It's in the comment that you quoted. "It's a debate forum and the topic is the SOTU address. I've seen a lot of attacks directed toward that, and of course it comes from conservatives. My question is what justifies conservatism in the first place? The arguments against the SOTU are from conservatives. Those argument's are based on the idea that they conflict with conservative ideology. Fine. What is that ideology based on? Maybe the arguments aren't legitimate.
The reverse is also true. You also assume my beliefs before testing them, conclusion reached without foundation. You argue like a ideologue.
I have been testing them. That's what this entire back and forth has been about. You call yourself a conservative. That IS foundationalist thinking. I'm not arguing "like" an ideologue. I'm arguing "with" one.
blah blah blah, make a point.
I did. "Very often its emotional. And looks to emotionalism to make it's case." That is the point of that comment. It was stated at the very beginning of the comment. Did you miss it?
You have nothing to defend because you offer nothing relating to this thread. Try that first and we can see what you have to defend.
What I offer is a critique of conservatism. If conservatives choose to criticize the SOTU, then I choose to criticize conservatism itself.Obviously that bugs you. But if you're going to criticize it, what is the basis for the criticism? If it conflicts with the foundationalism of conservatism, why should that foundationalist view be taken as logically valid? That's going to effect the view of the SOTU address.
The question would be if I, myself offered up such comments. You seem to decide what others do and dont believe a lot. That doesnt appear to be so logical and rational.
No. I don't. They decide on that. I ask them why? It's like a person that calls himself a Christian, but then tells me that he doesn't believe in the doctrine of Christianity or the Divinity of Jesus which is what it's all about. Like saying, I'm a nominal Christian. I like calling myself a Christian, I just don't believe in it. I believe in this and maybe that...but not this or that. I cherry pick my religion, my politics. I'm sort of a conservative, or sort of a christian, but don't pin me down to actually being what I claim to be. If you reject Kirk and his 6 Canon's of Conservatism, or his 10 Principles of Conservatism...then why can't you say what parts you reject? Are you a part time conservative? A nominal conservative? You just call yourself a conservative. What you're saying is that has no meaning to it. You call yourself that, but when questioned about fundamental conservative beliefs, you deny holding them.
You havent bothered to find out what I think on any issue, you have pre-supposed my beliefs and ran with your preconcieved notions
I'm afraid that isn't true. You've been asked repeatedly what it is your conservatism believes. You won't go there. There is a basis to conservatism. A foundational principle. Do you disagree with that? There is a reason you call yourself a conservative. You tell me that I have preconceived notions about all of this. I understand and have read what those prinicples and canons are, by people that have defined the movement that goes by that name. Has that been redefined? By who? I'm sure that Reagan was a conservative, and he subscribed to the writings of Kirk, who subscribed to the writing of Burke. What's changed? Perhaps you do simply "lean" conservative without going all the way? Does that mean that something stops you from going all the way? Do you have a liberal streak in you that stands in the way?
Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6. Society must alter slowly.
Is there something there you reject?
Then when backtracked you frame the argument with limitations rather than open ended issues.Thats not wanting to find out, thats setting verbal traps
Is conservatism an open ended issue, or a closed system with limitations? What I'm doing here is not setting verbal traps, but more accurately...logical questions. They present contradictions that we all have to deal with, IF we want to maintain our claim that we are rational humans. Most of us accept the Laws of Non-Contradiction. They've been with us since Aristotle. The law of non-contradiction is one of the most obvious laws of logic, but one of the most frequently denied. It states that for any two propositions, if they contradict each other, they cannot both be true. Whenever I argue with people about the law of non-contradiction, they almost always resort to equivocation to get around it, but two statements can only contradict each other if they are talking about the same thing at the same time and in the same sense. Take the following two statements for example:
1.I'm in Vermont
2.I'm not in Vermont
Maybe I'm in Vermont but on the phone with somebody in Chicago, so I'm kind of in two places at the same time. That's equivication. Obviously I'm not physically in both places at the same time.
The law of non-contradiction is important because it’s how we tell the truth from a lie. Without it, there’s no such thing as a lie. A lie is that which contradicts the truth.
Russell Kirk gave the Conservative Movement it name. He created the Canon for conservatives.
I'm a conservative because I subscribe to Kirks Canon
I'm a conservative but I don't subscribe to Kirks Canon.
So what does it mean to say I'm a Conservative? What defines Conservatism and who defines it? There are a lot of members of the Republican Caucus that say they are Conservatives. And if they don't hold these stated values and postions, they are primaried by those claiming to be MORE conservative, or tell people that they were a "severely conservative Governor" in order to appeal to those that subscribe to a doctrine. What makes a person a conservative?
You said before that you don't regard Kirk as THE voice of conservatism. Does that mean that you reject his Canon or at least part of it? It would seem to me, that if Kirk regarded it as Canon (sounds very Ecclesiastical to me) rejecting part of it, rejects it as it's laid out in its entirety. If you only take part of it, then you aren't accepting the Canon as it's written.
address the issues and observe the answers of other instead of jumping in and stereotyping others because you aren't open minded enough to view the beliefs of others before attributing a belief system to them because your opinion is already made.
Well that's a very interesting concept for debating things. Observe the answers of others...and that's it. Don't bother to ask any questions regarding their answers? They're not permissable. And asking these questions somehow means that I'm not "open minded" enough to view these beliefs without questioning why they might believe such things which are totally relevant to an issue? When I ask what this belief is based on, I'm the one that isn't open minded??:roll: Maybe their belief is false or somehow in error. That's possible since we both know they're fallible and prone to error. You would agree on that right? Maybe by examining those "beliefs" and how they relate to the issue, they'll get closer to the Truth which should be the most important factor, shouldn't it? They don't own the truth or have any monopoly on it. It's not something you can possess. They believe something, and if they aren't willing to examine that, I attribute that to a belief system of some sort and you say that means my opinion is already made? My opinion is formed by the other persons willingness or unwillingness, to find the truth. And unless you can tell me that you possess it, you must know that if the truth has any meaning to you, examining your own fallible pre-conceptions is where the problem is. NOT as you say, my lack of an open mind. An open mind worthy of calling itself such, would have no problems with examining their own beliefs. So just how open minded are you?
Nah, what I did was listened to the entire taped conversation in its entirety and drew conclusions. They were just different from yours, which you ridiculed, how open minded and logical of you.
Well, mine have to do with the fact that neither I, nor anybody that I know would talk to anybody about how to use dog-whistles to appeal to a racist. Why would anybody want to appeal to racism? That's a racist position to hold.
Nobody got kicked out of politico, fool. It closed. You have nothing of value to add here. It's way over your head. You were dismissed long ago. :smash:
I think in your case they probably made a exception.
And NOTHING youv'e written here so far has gone "over my head". It's not possible, your'e a liberal.
Generic self massaging egocentric hypocritical rhetoric may pass for intellectual discussion at politico, but not here. Or maybe not, maybe thats why they banned you. Who knows, who cares.
Youv'e already backed down from my direct challenges 3 times to respond to a earlier post. I suspect it's a character issue, but one things clear. You'll tap out 5k words of totally irrelevent superficial drek eventually and not say a thing.
think in your case they probably made a exception.
Like most everything that you post here, you'd be wrong.
And NOTHING youv'e written here so far has gone "over my head". It's not possible, your'e a liberal.
You're a hate monger Fenton. You have nothing to add here beyond your own hate. That's boring.
Generic self massaging egocentric hypocritical rhetoric may pass for intellectual discussion at politico, but not here. Or maybe not, maybe thats why they banned you. Who knows, who cares.
Obviously you care, or you wouldn't continue the baiting.
Youv'e already backed down from my direct challenges 3 times to respond to a earlier post. I suspect it's a character issue, but one things clear. You'll tap out 5k words of totally irrelevent superficial drek eventually and not say a thing.
Your talking points are boring. It's evidence that you can't think for yourself, and that doesn't equip you to deal with reasoned debate. Dueling talking points is a waste of time.:duel. So...it comes down to my talking points are better than your talking points. Say's who? Says me! Well...isn't that productive? :doh You've already illustrated clearly, the depth of your own hate. That kind of hate is irrational. Why would I, or anybody entertain an irrational person like you? You have no credibility.
Like most everything that you post here, you'd be wrong.
You're a hate monger Fenton. You have nothing to add here beyond your own hate. That's boring.
Obviously you care, or you wouldn't continue the baiting.
Your talking points are boring. It's evidence that you can't think for yourself, and that doesn't equip you to deal with reasoned debate. Dueling talking points is a waste of time.:duel. So...it comes down to my talking points are better than your talking points. Say's who? Says me! Well...isn't that productive? :doh You've already illustrated clearly, the depth of your own hate. That kind of hate is irrational. Why would I, or anybody entertain an irrational person like you? You have no credibility.
Speaking of lacking in credibility, look in the mirror, you have yet to address the SOU rhetoric vs. the actual results reported on BLS.gov, U.S. Treasury, and BEA.gov. You have further ignored the massive increase in dependence on the U.S. Taxpayer by record numbers as well as respond to the kind of country Obama is creating, high unemployment, low economic growth, greater dependence, and record debt. Nothing Obama has proposed is going to solve our economic problems, because you like he has no concept how a free market and capitalistic economy works. Govt is the answer in his world but not ours.
Speaking of lacking in credibility, look in the mirror, you have yet to address the SOU rhetoric vs. the actual results reported on BLS.gov, U.S. Treasury, and BEA.gov. You have further ignored the massive increase in dependence on the U.S. Taxpayer by record numbers as well as respond to the kind of country Obama is creating, high unemployment, low economic growth, greater dependence, and record debt. Nothing Obama has proposed is going to solve our economic problems, because you like he has no concept how a free market and capitalistic economy works. Govt is the answer in his world but not ours.
Yawn.:funny
Yawn.:funny
Baiting,trolling, off topic, and no response to the sites given and the data reported there.
Adagio;1 061523350 said:Like most everything that you post here, you'd be wrong.
You're a hate monger Fenton. You have nothing to add here beyond your own hate. That's boring.
Obviously you care, or you wouldn't continue the baiting.
Your talking points are boring. It's evidence that you can't think for yourself, and that doesn't equip you to deal with reasoned debate. Dueling talking points is a waste of time.:duel. So...it comes down to my talking points are better than your talking points. Say's who? Says me! Well...isn't that productive? :doh You've already illustrated clearly, the depth of your own hate. That kind of hate is irrational. Why would I, or anybody entertain an irrational person like you? You have no credibility.
What talking points ? What hate ?
You think my post are wrong then have the courage to adress my points specifically.
Specifically show me the post "of hate " I'm responsible for.
Also when I asked you to prove me wrong on a specific point by point basis you replied with generic nonsense.
I don't hate, I expose. No I don't like when the stupidest of our electorate make decisions that will affect me and my family but hate ?
Its allot more fun to prove your ideology and your data dead wrong than to wrap my self up in hate. Calling what I do hate just motivates me to challenge your corrupt ideology even more.
Baiting,trolling, off topic, and no response to the sites given and the data reported there.
Thats ok, i'm waiten for fenton to step in this thread anyway.Hi fenton, i see you lurking.:2wave:
Thats ok, i'm waiten for fenton to step in this thread anyway.Hi fenton, i see you lurking.:2wave:
Like a Great White on a South African Surfer.
GOOD GRIEF!I thought Conservative could **** up a post but you managed to **** up a two sentence post. That,s gotta be a new record.
Come on Con, don,t let fenton get away with that ****.Showem whatta ****ed up, disjointed post looks like.:2wave:
| Moderator's Warning: |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?