Precisely, none of the not terribly well-thought out stuff I read gave the slightest hint of anything meaningfully “Left” in his writing. Anti New Deal programs (nanny state), vaguely anti-civil rights, etc. He strikes me as a low rent version of… that fellow Buchanan something or other.
This FinnAgain fellow’s increasingly absurd shrieking really is embarrassing to him. A simple “my bad” would have been better.
That seems like a rather tortured set of reasoning. There is clearly an intent in bombings to intimidate doctors. That is part of classic terror tactics.
I think it’s disingenuous, at worst, ignorant, and best, to assert that abortion clinic bombings do not strike fear and trepidation into clinics’ actual and potential clientele as well as clinic workers. Though it certainly appears intended to induce political change, whether the activity actually induces political change is beside the point. I don’t believe al Qaeda actually expects U.S. policy to change based on its actions, either. I believe that terrorist actions are motivated by pretty base emotions like revenge and hatred, not particularly rational thinking, and are intended to get people’s attention in a very visceral way.
By my definition, abortion clinic bombers are psychopathic terrorists. Not that my definition matters, but there it is.
Er, OK, and I’ll rather enjoy it, but in the meantime, I’ve yet to see this “ironclad” example. I saw your first example, but – as you point out – we’ve been arguing about it for about a page now. Given that, your first link doesn’t seem at all ironclad to me, which I why I asked for a cite (I thought I missed a second, better example).
If we can eschew the admittedly wonderful but unfortunately contentious word “ironclad” for a moment, would you at least concede that the cite you provided is arguable? If so, to me, that’s rather the opposite of ironclad. If you don’t think it’s an arguable cite, then how do you explain the existence of the argument that you’ve already conceded exists?
On the planet where I live, thoughtful conservatives are all registered Democrats. Their registration is a strategic choice.
Their ideological identification has nothing whatsoever to do with their party affiliation.
But keep on foaming at the mouth. It might encourage more people to pile onto the bandwagon fallacy.
People don’t get into screaming arguments with you because they are wrong. This occurs because you are a deeply unlikeable person. I enjoy having you around because you remind me how far I’ve come. It took years to scrub high school forensics out of my personality and out of my ways of thinking, and by god, I’m glad I did. Otherwise, I might have ended up like you.
On the planet where I live, thoughtful conservatives are all registered Democrats. Their registration is a strategic choice.
Their ideological identification has nothing whatsoever to do with their party affiliation.
But keep on foaming at the mouth. It might encourage more people to pile onto the bandwagon fallacy.
People don’t get into screaming arguments with you because they are wrong. This occurs because you are a deeply unlikeable person. I enjoy having you around because you remind me how far I’ve come. It took years to scrub high school forensics out of my personality and out of my ways of thinking, and by god, I’m glad I did. Otherwise, I might have ended up like you.
Well, for example, on gay marriage he says this
“There are a lot of legal and moral issues that need to be addressed in our society, but gay marriage isn’t one of them. It’s an issue only for a small minority of the population. If they wish to live together in a state-licensed relationship, it’s nobody’s business but their own.”
He’s against war with Iran, saying that if we were to attack them we’d become a rogue nation.
He’s against the Republican championed expansion of ‘national security’ powers.
He wants out troops out the rest of the world and calls our presence overseas an “empire”.
He enthusiastically supported Pelosi’s visit to Syria.
Of proper leaders he says: " Just so you’ll know that free speech is not a modern invention, the old emperor, whose rule began in 626 A.D., warns: “To suppress freedom of speech is like blocking the flow of a river. Eventually the force of the water will lead it to overflow and flood the surroundings, causing a large number of casualties. It is best not to suppress the voice of the people and instead listen attentively to their criticism.”
While noting that everyone is free to believe whatever religion he or she chooses, he warns that a ruler must not preach religion. He warns against reckless wars lest they wear out the army and lead to defeat.
“Looking back in history, those who irresponsibly sent troops to combats for no reason have been defeated. Armaments are a country’s weapons. Constant engagement in war can wear out the people of even the world’s largest nations,” he wrote.
Knowledge is always time- and place-specific, and therefore can become obsolete. We no longer need to know how to fight with a sword, for example. Wisdom, however, is universal and timeless. The principles involved in good governing are the same today as they were 2,000 years ago. "
(Of course, he goes on to bash both the current slate of Democrats and Republicans other than Ron Paul).
The best I can do, in his own words, is:
[
](http://originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=531)
Now… Jeffersonian Democrats haven’t really existed for about two centuries. Still, when they did, they were against entangling global alliances, committed to equal justice for all people and freedom or speech, championed the separation of church and state,
That plus the fact that at the time the article I posted was written, he was a registered Dem would put him squarely into the category of Conservative Democrat.
So, is he a nutter? Sure as sunshine.
Are his positions often all over the damn place? Yeepers.
Did he self-identify as being a Conservative and a Democrat at the time the article was written? Yes.
At this point, though, he’d probably best be described as a Ron Paul Republican, I think.
You’re so right! I went back in time, got the Pew Research Center to do a comprehensive study of American politics and the groups on the Left and Right, and then to determine that Conservative Democrats are part of the left.
Luckily I had my time machine otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to rather amusingly alter the past to make my error into a political fact.
Mmmmm hmmmm.
Crazy as the Pew Research Center. Just wild, out of this world nuts. I actually… read things and then I remember them!
Finn, while I think you’re often in the right and don’t get why you’re being attacked over the cite in this thread, doesn’t it at least concern you that by accusing almost everyone you argue with, over and over and over in the same post and sometimes even paragraph, of being a lying liar who lies, you’re watering down your own rhetoric to the point of uselessness? Or at least coming off like someone who could use a more expansive vocabulary?
Truth be told, the stylistic rigidity of my posts does bother me.
But by the same token, when piled on by a bunch of folks who have the same general pattern, it’s difficult not to note it.
I should probably just use the ignore feature more.
And, that’s American libertarian thought, not Leftism.
And? The guy is not a Bushite or a Neo-Conservative.
Because he’s an isolationist with apparent libertarian thought, but anti Left on social democracy.
And thus not a Leftist at all.
As for this non-response straw man
You are an unpleasant person, that is clear, and perhaps a bit dim. Obviously my comment was indicating you’re trying to cover up your blunder in citing someone from the Right (by any ordinary standard) for your assertion regarding some portion of the Left tend to blame America for all ills, etc. (which is true, but your cite was not saying what you said and is from the nutty Right).
The man doesn’t fit the cited group. Anti New Dealer by any account, libertarian views on government intervention in social issues it seems, etc. He’s just about the bloody opposite of what you bloody cited you stupid git.
No you obnoxiously pretend that things that don’t actually support what you are saying do… Good bloody fucking lord, you’re a stupid cunt.
Ooh, “stylish rigidity”! Very good – sounds much better than mudslinging. You are certainly right about the ignore feature though. Buh bye.
Geez, the guy cops to what he sees as a flaw and you just get right in there with the boot, huh?
He said stylistic, not stylish, and I think his choice of words was accurate. Much more mud is slung at him than he slings – the nature of mudslinging is to grab at anything to fling and see what sticks. Finn backs up his position extensively, and unlike many Dopers, he doesn’t rely exclusively on his “common sense” as if the inside of his brain already contains all the necessary information. He lays out exactly what lies he means and why they’re untruths; he shows his work. If you disagree, your job is to show how he’s wrong, not just bleat about how he chose to present the argument. As always, that should stand or fall on its own merits. Presentation is important and a legitimate area to critique, but it’s a separate issue to whether he’s wrong.
Furthermore, the comment he was responding to was specifically addressing his word choices as a stylistic issue, so it’s not like he was dodging at all. He was being pretty goddamn reasonable considering that we’re in the Pit and I was, albeit respectfully, giving him a tap.
Reasonable? He’s being an unreasonable and dishonest idiot.
Goddamn it gets frustrating when people choose one post of the context of a conversation. It’s fucking annoying having to retrace posts that happened on the same page we’re currently on in a relatively short thread. Did you even read the sequence of posts mine was from at all? Admit it, you didn’t, right? You just saw a few key words and dove for the keys. Tell me how, when somebody in the Pit says to you hey man, your word choices are pretty limited there, and they go yeah, I don’t like it either, maybe I should take steps, that’s being unreasonable and dishonest and idiotic?
Finn, you’re totally wrong here.
And the kicker:
You know, usually your killer point should be one your opponent hasn’t already cited and responded to. Jebus, no wonder he gets testy.
He didn’t cite it. Boyo Jim quoted it on page 2, and Finn waved it away with “he’s on the right side of the left wing”, whereas, in actual fact, he’s a pure right winger who happens to be registered as a Democrat.
Yeah, he responded, with obfuscation and distortion.
The writer in question - this Reese fellow - is clearly not a “conservative Democrat” by any ordinary meaning, he is an old school isolationist with libertarian leanings. The proper response from your man was not to run on a rather nasty little bit of mud slinging, but simply to get an proper example, and fess up, oops, wrong cite as it were.
You guys should coordinate better. Did he wave it away with a reply of no substance, or one which was so heavy with obfuscation and distortion that it was useless?
Did you see this post, Bright?
Yup. It doesn’t make sense, though. Jeffersonian Democrats believed in equal rights for all white males. He even ends up qualifying that Reese is a “Ron Paul Republican”, which makes him… a Republican.