I’m self employed silly. That’s why I was working at 8 p.m. on a Friday.
You did lie about the video by the way.
I didn’t call you a liar. I called you dishonest. What i said was:
Your arguments in that thread were, como siempre, dishonest and unrepresentative of reality. I merely pointed out to Marley23 (who also noted your dishonesty) that this was not an aberration, but standard procedure for you. I’ve said it before, and i’ll say it again: you are a dishonest debater. The fact that you have a congenital inability to recognize your own dishonesty doesn’t change that fact.
So I’m a dishonest speaker of the truth?
As impressed as I’m sure we all are at your command of Spanish, I must deviate and ask just what it was I said that was dishonest and unrepresentative of reality?
Not that I’m copping to your analysis, you understand, but suppose I did have such a congenital inability, wouldn’t that by definition negate any so-called dishonesty on my part? How can one be dishonest without the willful intent to be dishonest? In fact, M-W Online defines the word “dishonest” as follows: “implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive.”
Now perhaps you meant “untruthful”, an adjective that seems to leave room for accidental inaccuracies. But of course, untruthful lacks the punch of dishonest, doesn’t it? Thus, it’s my contention that in applying the adjective “dishonest” to me when you yourself believe that alleged dishonesty to be the result of an inborn inability on my part to recognize it, you are being either deliberately dishonest yourself, or merely “untruthful”.
As for me, I’ll leave it to others to make that determination, though it seems unlikely to me that a school-teacherly person such as yourself (those poor kids) would remain ignorant of the difference between dishonesty and untruthfulness, and therefore it is my suspicion that you yourself are being deliberately dishonest in applying that term to me when in all likelihood you know better.
So, Malleus, Incus, Stapes… I bet this thread didn’t turn out the way you planned, huh? Sorry, motek.
Well, i never said you weren’t a liar. I merely noted that what i called you was “dishonest.”
I made clear some time ago that your dishonest mode of debate and argument had led me to decide not to attempt rational discourse with you. It’s like wrestling with a pig: you get dirty, and the pig likes it.
Well, if it makes you feel better, you can substitute “stubborn unwillingness to admit” for “congenital inability to recognize” in my previous post. Happy now? 
One would think that with the promise of eternal life and happiness your imaginary god has offered to you, you’d be the one in a hurry to get there. I’m often confounded by christians who espouse the wonders of heaven, but who are in no particular hurry to get there. I know it would cut down on the amount of time you have to pretend to be morally superior and all, but still, dude, it’s heaven.
Also of note that this is the kind of scholarship your ilk brings to the table. Me not like point made, you die. It’s quite silly, and not at all a good way to show that you live up the demands imposed upon you by your invented god.
All of this is to say, of course, that you wouldn’t get into OP’s new political party. Your inability to follow rules (like the ones your loving murderous, raping god insists you adhere to) would make you a poor candidate for much of anything. Except, perhaps, a priest.
I bet you’re fun at parties.
And that’s just with my clothes on.
Malleus, Incus, Stapes!, would you consider restarting this thread in GD? I would love to read and possibly participate in a serious discussion of a new political party.
I’m sorry- what political philosophy & religion did Buckley espouse? Oh yeah, conservatism & Christianity.
The ones that are bailing out are the sad tired remnants of the Rockefeller wing. And good riddance.
Btw, BMN2, I saw nothing in the wise & charming M,I,S’s post that was inimical to conservatism or religion.
Amen
Yes, I’ve already been called on that one. Everyone’s entitled to one misstep, no?
I’ve apologized previously.
Okay, let me put this straight.
I am conservative. I’m a foreign policy hawk. Compared to most of the people on this message board, I’m a right-wing nutbar.
I voted for McCain in the last election.
And I am becoming more convinced by the day that the Republican Party has its collective head rammed far enough up its rectum for a D.I.Y. colonoscopy.
Is that clear?
Sorry, I’d reply to the other comments in this thread, but it’s too late at night for me to think clearly. Although a quick glance indicates that most of them are about BugMeNot2’s little bug anyway.
One wonders why such a steep learning curve. I suppose it’s noteworthy that you’re at least beginning to realize the error of your ways.
Once again, I am reminded that there is an actual sane party out there, & I’m too afraid to join.
Oh, good lord. Real right-wingers know the populace are sheep, whether [del]we[/del] they (I left) admit or not. Sheep.
Peacenik? Boy, have you got that guy wrong!
:smack: Wow, that’s a truly deficient take on Xtian doctrine. And this from someone who thinks it’s consistent with belief in the Creator to dismantle the Earth, destroying all the species created by said God, so we can “move to space.” Argh.
I’m a little bit shocked that anyone took the bait to reply to such utter nonsense. Anyway, thanks for the amazement.