2 of 3
2
If The U.S. Strikes First ?
Posted: 19 February 2005 05:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Hi global village idiot - it’s nice to ‘converse’ with another idiot (like me)from time to time.

Your post was certainly a constructive criticism, however, on my behalf the problem lies in trying to box certain political points of view into neat narrow perspectives that one can simply term “conservative” or “liberal” or whatever.  The full spectrum is really a wide and deep continuum and these linguistic namings tend to do an injustice no matter who is doing the defining.

In more specific terms you claimed that I have a distorted view of American conservatives, however in my defense, I was merely responding to Champion’s brand of conservatism, laced as it is with biblical “literacy.”  My use of American corporatism as an example of extremism on the right was admittedly a bit off the mark and I agree that Nazi or KKK are more likely a better example - although I feel you are probably a bit too forgiving of the right wing nature of the powerful Corporate American elites.

I agree also that Al Jazeera is more propoganist than Fox, I never said that it wasn’t and I certainly know that what they are reporting is hardly ever just the facts or the truth.  As for the Pravda analogy, the context is obviously quite different (21st Century America vs 1980 Soviet Union) but in a general sense the analogy remains coherent.

I think you and I are a lot closer in agreement than the interpretation of our separate posts appears to show.  Maybe it was just that I was responding to Champion that drew me a bit off to one side??

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 06:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

CanZen, guess I got you fired up…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“CanZen”] although I feel you are probably a bit too forgiving of the right wing nature of the powerful Corporate American elites. Those “elites” are far from monolithic. “American corporatism” is a myth; to the extent that it exists at all, it is apolitical to a fault and espouses no specific ideological agenda. Most corporate interests in America maintain good relations with all ends of the political spectrum, and a number of prominent corporations (ADM, BP, Microsoft, Target) and corporate leaders (Bill Gates, David Geffen, George Soros) are either outspoken liberals or major contributors to liberal causes. American corporatism’s only agenda is to perpetuate its own existence; it is neither right-wing nor left-wing, and it has no plans to control either the American electorate or the rest of the world. “American corporatism” is no more real than Satan or the Boogey-Man.

As for the Pravda analogy, the context is obviously quite different (21st Century America vs 1980 Soviet Union) but in a general sense the analogy remains coherent.

No, it doesn’t. Fox News is visciously independent, and regularly attacks the Bush Administration whenever it strays from the agenda that Fox supports. Fox is not a propaganda arm of the U.S. government, never has been, and reflects only the agenda of free (though quite powerful) individuals, none of whom labor under threat of gulag or execution. There is no meaningful sense in which the analogy is coherent; on the contrary, the analogy is nothing but superstition.

I think you and I are a lot closer in agreement than the interpretation of our separate posts appears to show.

That’s probably true, especially when it comes Champ’s rote spouting of “revealed truth.” I suspect that on many political issues, you and I would be closer to each other than either of us is to him. But, I think that your intimations about “American corporatism” and George Bush are every bit as superstitious as are Champ’s religious claims. They’re based on the same amount of verifiable evidence—which is to say, none at all, except for recursive self-referential hyperbole.

Understand that this isn’t personal. I don’t know you from Adnan, and thus am in no position to judge your character. But the charges you’ve leveled here concerning American “right-wing” agendas are themselves based on de facto religious beliefs, which I pejoratively call “Chomskianity,” to reflect the superstitious nature of the claims in association with their most well-known prophet.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 04:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Hi again global-v-i, so you had to go there, didn’t you.  First of all let me say that my “faith” in American intelligence is being restored by your response, along with Sam Harris’ and other’s writings.  Yes, I have been an avid “follower” of the “prophet?” for many years, never thought I’d have to string those words together in attempting to describe myself.  Perhaps living in a foreign land where Chomsky is often paraded in front of our tv screens to comment on any myriad of issues, we have become accustomed to his conspiracy theories concerning the “agenda” of Corporate America and the Military Complex.  And, of course, being in a different country we evaluate those ideas in the framework of what these corporations do in our own local environment (the Walmarts,  Exxons,  etc.) and how our own cultural identity is being re-shaped by the proliferation of America’s corporate clout and its branding practices.  When I said “the right wing nature of the American corporate elite” - I was of course thinking of the only the worst sort of exploitative corporations that openly endorse the Republicans, but as you corrected me, there is no monolithic entity of such a sort - the sort that Michael Moore is always battling.  The corporate world, whether American or not, is itself made of all variations of social and political ideas, most of whom probably do not profess to belong to any “wing” or have any political affiliation.

On the Pravda/Fox analogy, the differences between the two contexts are extreme to say the least, although by 1980 no Pravda propogandists were working under the threat of gulags or executions - you are exaggerating on that count. I guess my point was that these people (the editors, staff, writers, etc.) are towing a certain line because they are being paid to do so and they know that all too well.  Objectivity cannot exist in a broadcast medium where the journalists cannot publish the truth when the risk to bite the hand that feeds them is also activated by such a publishing (of course that leaves no Media Network free in a capitalist world?).  You say that Fox does attack the Bush Administration and I’m saying that yes they do and with the same veracity that Pravda attacked the Gorbachev Regime - and yes, they did that consistently because to them he was too liberal.  I realize, and admit that it’s a weak analogical thesis and personally, I wouldn’t fight all that vigorously to defend it.
I’m not saying that Fox is a propaganda arm of the Bush Administration, but their overwhelming support of George & Dick seems uncanny to me (maybe it’s just my conspiracy theory disorder coming out again?)

Sam’s references to Chomsky in “The End of Faith” certainly echo your own assessment that his views are to be taken with much caution and that the agenda that Chomsky is in all out battle against is mostly made up of numbers pasted together and then interpreted as containing conspiracy substance. But even on that score you are going to a place that Sam did not (in his text anyway) accusing the prophet of creating his own religion.  I have read your posts on the Chomsky board, but always filtered your thoughts as “oh, its that guy/gal who hates Chomsky” - but I realize now that you don’t really hate him at all, but that you strongly disagree with everything he stands for - perhaps with good reason(?).

So now you have put my Chomskianity on a ledge under the shelf that reads Christianity, Islamanity, etc. - perhaps I’m not totally cured, but I have taken the antidote.

By the way, thanks also for the excellent rebutal to The Champion on his erroneous understanding of the word ‘theory’ - I tried to make a similar point with him previously, not realizing at the time that it would take seven or eight paragraphs rather than the few words I used.  And not only do I hope that it helps him to make the break out of his “intelligent design” con-fusion with science, but I applied your appraisal of the scientific content of ‘theory’ to my own perspective on the Chomskian vision and it really helped to clear out the cobwebs, well Duh!

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 06:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“CanZen”]On the Pravda/Fox analogy, the differences between the two contexts are extreme to say the least, although by 1980 no Pravda propogandists were working under the threat of gulags or executions - you are exaggerating on that count.

I don’t think so. The mere existence of a totalitarian state is an implicit threat to all of its citizens, even the most loyal of them, and they know it.

I guess my point was that these people (the editors, staff, writers, etc.) are towing a certain line because they are being paid to do so and they know that all too well.  Objectivity cannot exist in a broadcast medium where the journalists cannot publish the truth when the risk to bite the hand that feeds them is also activated by such a publishing (of course that leaves no Media Network free in a capitalist world?).

I think you are rather misinformed about the internal functioning of the media. Having worked in a professional newsroom myself, I can tell you from experience that in an average newsroom, there is literally no political litmus test of any kind. There are no corporate censors walking around checking articles or reports for the proper bias. Editors do not act as lackeys for the investors; on the contrary, most media owners are contractually obligated to allow editorial freedom. Most journalists won’t work for them otherwise. A media owner who tries to shape the content of his news organization is going to find himself sued. In addition, most journalists are trained in a manner similar to scientists; they are skeptics, and resent any attempt to impose a “truth” that isn’t there upon the facts. And, as I said before, it isn’t the media’s job to be “objective”; their job is to expose the truth, no matter who that embarrasses and no matter whose bias it offends.

The problem with the mainstream media is that, like most other industries, it is a corporate culture that rewards mediocrity. Most professional journalists are hence neither liberal nor conservative, but cynical.

I’m not saying that Fox is a propaganda arm of the Bush Administration, but their overwhelming support of George & Dick seems uncanny to me (maybe it’s just my conspiracy theory disorder coming out again?)

It’s probably a function of Fox’s blind spot. Its founders and supporters don’t understand that journalists are antagonistic to authority and spin in general; their “attacks” on Bush on not born of a specific political bias, but rather of a low tolerance for what they see as bullshit, whether that comes from Bush or Clinton (who was equally savaged by the mainstream media, and often claimed a “right-wing” bias against him). Fox tries to be sympathetic to Bush because they think other news outlets are politically motivated against him, but they’re not. It’s a function of their cynicism, not their political views. If a liberal president ever gets elected, he’ll have it harder than Bush, because then Fox will be joining the rest of the media in picking on him.

Sam’s references to Chomsky in “The End of Faith” certainly echo your own assessment that his views are to be taken with much caution and that the agenda that Chomsky is in all out battle against is mostly made up of numbers pasted together and then interpreted as containing conspiracy substance. But even on that score you are going to a place that Sam did not (in his text anyway) accusing the prophet of creating his own religion.

I don’t think it was Chomsky’s intention to start a cult around himself. But the way he writes (always in the passive voice, dropping in big words and obscure references that obfuscate rather than reveal facts, creating the illusion of erudition) has the same effect on political discourse as identical tactics used by creationists have on scientific discourse. Chomskianity isn’t a formal religion in the way that, say, Scientology, is, but functionally, it is the same.

I have read your posts on the Chomsky board, but always filtered your thoughts as “oh, its that guy/gal who hates Chomsky” - but I realize now that you don’t really hate him at all, but that you strongly disagree with everything he stands for - perhaps with good reason(?).

I don’t hate Chomsky; in fact, I don’t even necessarily disagree with some of his larger moral points. But I do hate what he represents, which is the hold of the irrational over the mind. When I started getting serious about politics after 9/11 and really digging into Chomsky’s citations, I began to find that he never tells the truth. Ever. In more than four years of research into his claims, I have never once found an instance in which Chomsky was accurately citing facts or paraphrasing the work of other people. He either reveals only half the picture, or twists words to give them a meaning opposite to the one the authors intended, and in some cases, he simply makes things up.

In his way, he is a mirror reflection of Fox News. He assumes that one political point of view is metaphysically true, and he twists all facts to fit that “truth,” even when the actual truth is otherwise. It isn’t that I disagree with him politically—though on many issues, I do, and did even before I became skeptical of him—so much as that I don’t trust him. He doesn’t play fair with his sources, and anyone who reads him thinking that he does is making a big mistake.

Most of his supporters labor under the assumption that Chomsky is scrupulous with his source citations. And because he throws so many of them around, it intimidates many readers who might otherwise be inclined to question him.

But Chomsky is not the least bit scrupulous with his sources.  He is a liar and a charlatan, a flim-flam artist of the highest calibre.

It should be noted that my criticism of Chomsky comes from the left. I am not a conservative, and hold many political views that some Americans would consider radical. Chomsky is taken as speaking for the left, but in fact, he regularly attacks it and distorts what its proponents believe and say, making them look sinister in the process.

I know this is an obscure point to make, but there are many different factions of the left, which can be broadly divided into two main categories—the progressive left and the reactionary left. The former is represented by what you called “democratic socialism”; that is, rejecting totalitarianism even when it’s practiced by other leftists, and adhering instead to Enlightenment principles of rationalism, evidence, democracy, etc. The latter faction—the reactionary left—is in many ways similar to the reactionary right, in that it holds ideology to be the one truth and engages in propaganda to advance that “truth.”

Chomsky falls into the latter category. He is a reactionary, in that he gives no thought to who or what his writings will embolden in other countries; he is concerned with one ideology above all things, and the rest of the world be damned. This is what led him, for many years, to deny the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia, and to reurgitate the state propaganda of Milosevic during the Balkans conflicts.  For Chomsky, any voice who condemns the United States is considered truthful, without evidence; conversely, any voice who supports the United States is considered lies, without evidence. Thus it is, today, that he (and most of his followers) ignores the fact that the current war in Iraq is openly supported by the Iraqi left and has been right from the start; the Iraqis who fought alongside the American invasion came almost exclusively from among that country’s secular Left, including the commies, and they continue to support it to this day, on thoroughly Marxist grounds. An honest progressive would look at this fact and consider its implications; Chomsky, however, ignores it, and instead parrots the propaganda of the most visciously right-wing political movement in the modern world: jihadist “terrorism.” Most voices of the Afghan and Iraqi left are praising the U.S. for finally abandoning the policies of the past and fighting against the forces of reaction.  But rather than consider the possibility that maybe Bush’s Middle East policies represent a victory for the left (which is the view held by the left in Iraq and Afghanistan), he knee-jerkedly mumbles about “empire” and “hegemony” and his usual prattle.

I know I went off on a tanget there. Sorry. Bottom line is this: Chomsky simply can’t be trusted.

So now you have put my Chomskianity on a ledge under the shelf that reads Christianity, Islamanity, etc. - perhaps I’m not totally cured, but I have taken the antidote.

Well, don’t take my word for it; do some digging yourself, if you have the time. I think I sufficiently proved my case against him on the other thread. But no one’s claims—neither mine nor Chomsky’s—should ever be taken at face value.

By the way, thanks also for the excellent rebutal to The Champion on his erroneous understanding of the word ‘theory’ - I tried to make a similar point with him previously, not realizing at the time that it would take seven or eight paragraphs rather than the few words I used.  And not only do I hope that it helps him to make the break out of his “intelligent design” con-fusion with science,

I ain’t holding my breath!

but I applied your appraisal of the scientific content of ‘theory’ to my own perspective on the Chomskian vision and it really helped to clear out the cobwebs, well Duh!

That’s what I did, too; I applied the basic tools of skepticism to Chomsky’s writings, and he failed the test. Every time. It’s always easy for people to bag on other folks’ idols; it’s never easy to bag on their own. But intellectual honesty demands it. I wish you luck in your own questioning of Chomskianity. I hope it will not only clear out the cobwebs, but also let in a little light.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 09:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“CanZen”]First of all, it’s interesting to note that out of the 6 earlier posts here only one is irrational, full of inaccuracies and devoid of any sense . . . I wonder why?

Of course only Liberal Canadians are rational, accurate, and full of sense??

[quote author=“CanZen”]Speaking of a U.S. first strike, we (in Canada) are often reminded that it is the American nuclear missle arsenol that keeps Canada protected. People like Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly have in fact gone as far as to lecture us about not doing our military share and preaching to us about how the American Forces keep Canada safe and could “roll over us” if they wanted to.  Our question is, “Safe from who?” What country or “rogue state” is threatening to “blow Canada off the map?” The only country that we need to fear at the present moment is the United States itself, especially if it is being managed by mental cases like Coulter and O’Reilly. Bob

The facts are - Bob - Canada does not spend any money on their conventional military forces and can’t field troops in any significant numbers to aid in international conflicts.  This is a damn shame because of the fine history of the Canadian forces in all previous world conflicts for freedom.  Canada is an integral partner in NORAD and NORAD is a joint command which includes Canadian officers in command of parts of the joint venture.  Why don’t you support Canada withdrawing from NORAD?  Wouldn’t this support your vision of no rogues wanting to vaporize Canada?  Also for your information:  Bill O’Reilly is a liberal.  Repeat after me l-i-b-e-r-a-l.  He clearly states that his political model is Robert Kennedy.  In many situations when confronted with an issue he thinks the government is the solution - for example the vaccine shortage, his kneejerk reaction was that the government should take over production of all vaccines.  Anne Coulter is a true Conservative and prides herself in being provocative.  Although she is provocative she still remains an acceptable voice in the market of ideas.  Contrast this with Lawrence Sommers who dares to be provocative in the market place of Liberals.  He’s run out of town.  What say you oh know it all liberal master???

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 02:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Regarding the statement that Canada spends NO money on its military, the truth is that we do spend billions per year, but no where near the percent of GNP that does the U.S.A.  I don’t really care if we pull out of NORAD or not - at present we do not have any nuclear weapons on our soil (supposedly) and that is by our own choice.  I won’t get into the amount of opposition there is here over whether or not we should join the U.S. in its “missile defence” project - apparently part of the NORAD defense shield?

As far as combat troops go, we have been involved in several of the U.S. offensives in the past few years including Somalia and Afghanistan.  I’m sure you can recall that the majority of Canadian troops killed in Afghanistan were the soldiers bombed by our American allies in a surveillance manuevre (four Canadians died).

We presently have peace keeping troops stationed in the Balkans and in Cyprus, to name two that come to mind - but troops have been sent to various parts of Africa (Rwanda) and Central America/Carribean (Haiti) recently.  Our government has stated openly and its a matter of policy that the foremost reason for Canada maintaining its armed forces is in response to the peace-keeping needs of the world.  Whenever and wherever armed conflicts break out the U.N. usually requests of Canada to play a role in containing and preventing further bloodshed where peaceful means can be established to solve the discord.

I don’t know why you are convinced that I am a liberal - the fact is that I have voted for the NDP (a social democratic or democratic socialist party) in the past few elections, but I obviously admire much of the liberal policy.  I do have an MA (master’s degree) in philosophy and a brown belt in karate (not quite at the master level) - so maybe that does vindicate some of what you said.  By the way, where is lawrence?

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 06:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“Anonymous”]Also for your information:  Bill O’Reilly is a liberal.  Repeat after me l-i-b-e-r-a-l.  He clearly states that his political model is Robert Kennedy.

O’Reilly is no liberal. He’s a libertarian conservative, with occassionally aberrant views to either the left or right.

And Robert Kennedy wasn’t as liberal as some people seem to think. Both he and JFK had essentially the same politics as Ronald Reagan.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 04:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“global village idiot”][quote author=“Anonymous”]Also for your information:  Bill O’Reilly is a liberal.  Repeat after me l-i-b-e-r-a-l.  He clearly states that his political model is Robert Kennedy.

O’Reilly is no liberal. He’s a libertarian conservative, with occassionally aberrant views to either the left or right.

And Robert Kennedy wasn’t as liberal as some people seem to think. Both he and JFK had essentially the same politics as Ronald Reagan.

You apparently have no idea what you are talking about.
Libertarians want the Gov’t out of all decisions including drugs which O’Reilly
is vehemently opposed to.  The problem is that O’Reilly is a liberal in the mode
of a Scoop Jackson orZell Miller.  The main stream US liberals as well as Euro_Canuck Trash Liberals have moved so far to the left that they can not recognize a liberal who is strong on defense and traditionalist on values.  Just because they have these views doesn’t put them in the Libertarian camp - this is preposterous.  Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy would be ostracized in today’s Democratic party and would be sitting to the side with Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.  But at the end of the day they are all liberals.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2005 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“Bill G.”]You apparently have no idea what you are talking about.
Libertarians want the Gov’t out of all decisions including drugs which O’Reilly
is vehemently opposed to.  The problem is that O’Reilly is a liberal in the mode
of a Scoop Jackson orZell Miller.  The main stream US liberals as well as Euro_Canuck Trash Liberals have moved so far to the left that they can not recognize a liberal who is strong on defense and traditionalist on values.  Just because they have these views doesn’t put them in the Libertarian camp - this is preposterous.  Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy would be ostracized in today’s Democratic party and would be sitting to the side with Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.  But at the end of the day they are all liberals.

And you, Bill G., are apparently incapable of realizing that you didn’t actually contradict what I wrote. On the contrary, your little screed actually agrees with my assessment of the guy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 04:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“global village idiot”][quote author=“Anonymous”]Also for your information:  Bill O’Reilly is a liberal.  Repeat after me l-i-b-e-r-a-l.  He clearly states that his political model is Robert Kennedy.

O’Reilly is no liberal. He’s a libertarian conservative, with occassionally aberrant views to either the left or right.

And Robert Kennedy wasn’t as liberal as some people seem to think. Both he and JFK had essentially the same politics as Ronald Reagan.

You apparently have no idea what you are talking about.
Libertarians want the Gov’t out of all decisions including drugs which O’Reilly
is vehemently opposed to.  The problem is that O’Reilly is a liberal in the mode
of a Scoop Jackson orZell Miller.  The main stream US liberals as well as Euro_Canuck Trash Liberals have moved so far to the left that they can not recognize a liberal who is strong on defense and traditionalist on values.  Just because they have these views doesn’t put them in the Libertarian camp - this is preposterous.  Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy would be ostracized in today’s Democratic party and would be sitting to the side with Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.  But at the end of the day they are all liberals.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 04:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“global village idiot”][quote author=“Bill G.”]You apparently have no idea what you are talking about.
Libertarians want the Gov’t out of all decisions including drugs which O’Reilly
is vehemently opposed to.  The problem is that O’Reilly is a liberal in the mode
of a Scoop Jackson orZell Miller.  The main stream US liberals as well as Euro_Canuck Trash Liberals have moved so far to the left that they can not recognize a liberal who is strong on defense and traditionalist on values.  Just because they have these views doesn’t put them in the Libertarian camp - this is preposterous.  Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy would be ostracized in today’s Democratic party and would be sitting to the side with Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.  But at the end of the day they are all liberals.

And you, Bill G., are apparently incapable of realizing that you didn’t actually contradict what I wrote. On the contrary, your little screed actually agrees with my assessment of the guy.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about.  There is no libertarian in O’Reilly so there is no agreement with your “assessment”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2005 05:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“Anonymous”]Again you have no idea what you are talking about.  There is no libertarian in O’Reilly so there is no agreement with your “assessment”.

Your reading comprehension skills are abominable. I didn’t say that O’Reilly was a strict libertarian. I said he was “a libertarian conservative, with occassionally aberrant views to either the left or right.” Your retort to that—that O’Reilly is “a liberal in the mode of a Scoop Jackson or Zell Miller” and linking his views to those of RFK—essentially agrees with my assessment, almost 100 percent.

You need to bone up on your grammar and comprehension skills; learn how to read an entire sentence and absorb its meaning before going off half-cocked.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 February 2005 05:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“global village idiot”][quote author=“Anonymous”]Again you have no idea what you are talking about.  There is no libertarian in O’Reilly so there is no agreement with your “assessment”.

Your reading comprehension skills are abominable. I didn’t say that O’Reilly was a strict libertarian. I said he was “a libertarian conservative, with occassionally aberrant views to either the left or right.” Your retort to that—that O’Reilly is “a liberal in the mode of a Scoop Jackson or Zell Miller” and linking his views to those of RFK—essentially agrees with my assessment, almost 100 percent.

You need to bone up on your grammar and comprehension skills; learn how to read an entire sentence and absorb its meaning before going off half-cocked.

Yes all liberals are masters of grammar comprehension, everyone else is a log-headed idiot.  Did you ever consider that when you compose your rhetoric and you bandy about terms that are irrelevant you would be called on it?  Oh, I know, you can’t call a liberal on his/her hypothesis, this is a personal attack.  Well buck up pal, no matter how much you whine we will continue to call you lefties on your blather.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 February 2005 06:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  369
Joined  2005-02-07

[quote author=“Anonymous”]Yes all liberals are masters of grammar comprehension, everyone else is a log-headed idiot.

Not everyone else. Just you.

Did you ever consider that when you compose your rhetoric and you bandy about terms that are irrelevant you would be called on it?

Of course I did. But in order to be “called” on it, the caller would actually have to understand the meaning of the terms, as well as their political and intellectual history. Clearly, you don’t.

Oh, I know, you can’t call a liberal on his/her hypothesis, this is a personal attack.

I never accused you of making personal attacks. I accused of agreeing with my hypothesis while thinking that you didn’t. Which you do.

Well buck up pal, no matter how much you whine we will continue to call you lefties on your blather.

Yeah, I’m shakin’.

I hereby invoke Sam’s principle of conversational intolerance.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed