Right.Uh huh,you bet. You live for provocation;thrive on snivel discourse and lean toward faux intellectualism and a brand of conservatism,if you can call it that, that ensures another election like 1912.
Try another statement.That quote of yours is in no way based in reality.
I just to make this clear: In your mind my calls for civil discourse are in fact provocations. No disrespect intended, but that speaks more to your mindset than it does my intentions. It appears you view any comment from someone you've branded an "enemy" as provocative, regardless of actual content.
Not a whole lot I can do about that.
and lean toward faux intellectualism
Faux intellectualism? In a sea of petty insults and "Bumps!", if you think my posts are faux intellectualism, you've got some strange standards.
and a brand of conservatism,if you can call it that,
Well, allow me to lay out my "brand of conservatism". Limited government, strong national defense, guarantee and defense of individual rights. That's pretty much it. If I'm not mistaken, that's THE brand of conservatism, not an offshoot of it.
While we're having the conversation, what's yur definition of conservatism? that ensures another election like 1912.
The White House disagrees with you - they're reaching out to conservatives as opposed to berating them. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should voice it to President Bush. Until then, your actions seem to be working counter to his intentions.
Try another statement.That quote of yours is in no way based in reality.
The facts demonstrate otherwise. Better luck next time, bait.